The turbulent election that followed and Joe Biden’s exceptional “basement” presidential campaign in 2020 were a spectacular refudiation of U.S. election standards as they have changed over the past 250 years. A flurry of constitutionally questionable and at-the-minute changes to existing election regulations and an avalanche of uncontrolled mail-in ballots in states that were not used were the causes of the chaos. The poll also brought the erstwhile mysterious practice of “ballot planting” to the forefront of common consciousness.
Amidst the chaos, one of the biggest questions remaining is how the Center for Tech and Civic Life ( CTCL )— a sleepy, Chicago- based election and civic “engagement” nonprofit, armed with a staggering sum of more than$ 300 million from tech billionaire Mark Zuckerberg — became one of the key 2020 election players. CTCL’s soldiers, sponsors, and contributors were among the” well- supported gang of strong people” who, as Time Magazine admitted in 2021, worked “behind the scenes” to “fortify” the 2020 election against Donald Trump.
Many Republican election watchers have long been speculating whether there is anything more nefarious than using a legal gray area to assist local election offices with “COVID- 19 Response” during the 2020 election.  ,
Our research revealed that, while election safety during Covid may have been the stated reason for CTCL’s program, this was not its purpose.  ,
CTCL’s$ 332 million- plus election funding effort ( also known as” Zuckbucks” ) influenced election offices in critical Democrat areas in 2020 through large,” strings attached” CTCL grants. In the end, the evidence suggests that the goal was to determine Joe Biden’s electoral margin in the swing states. Republicans who care about American election integrity should profit from this situation, which places the organization in a legally fragile position.  ,
CTCL Is a 501 ( c ) ( 3 ) Nonprofit Barred From Partisan Activity
Since the 2020 election, CTCL has largely remained above the fray despite the fact that twenty-eight states have passed laws that restrict or forbid the private financing of elections. The organization and its employees must be held accountable for both past and present illegalities. Under oath, learning about the “dirty tricks” and misbehavior that took place during the 2020 election will help us fully understand it.  ,
On the positive side, CTCL’s money trail has been well documented with publicly available data, and it exhibits patterns of intense partisanship at the state and national levels in ways that do n’t seem to align with its 501( c ) ( 3 ) nonprofit charter.
Hundreds of millions of dollars flowed across state lines between June 2020 and October 2020 through sophisticated, private financial channels that have yet to be specified. While grant applications were solicited, money was distributed, and information was distributed regarding the use of those funds to win the election for Joe Biden, there are vast troves of electronic communications that have not yet been thoroughly examined.
Through the state’s subpoena and investigative powers, there is a lot that private citizens would never learn about the election.  ,
Red state legal officials and lawmakers should take their prosecutorial powers seriously in order to address the unprecedented role that CTCL played in the 2020 election. State courts and the U. S. tax courts ( for 501 ( c ) ( 3 ) U. S. Tax Code violations ) are promising venues through which to file charges against CTCL, its officers, and administrators.
Debunking the Myth of CTCL’s ‘ Nonpartisanship’ in 2020
The$ 332 million that Facebook co-founder Mark Zuckerberg and his wife Priscilla Chan gave to CTCL to “assist” the 2020 elections was distributed on a highly partisan basis, favoring Democrats.  ,
Large CTCL grant recipients, such as Wisconsin, agreed in href=”https://www.techandciviclife.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/Approved-Wisconsin-Safe-Voting-Plan-2020.pdf” target=”_blank” rel=”noreferrer noopener”>exchange for funding to “encourage and increase absentee voting”, mainly by providing “assistance to help voters” in absentee ballot completion and by installing ballot drop boxes to dramatically “expand strategic voter education &, outreach efforts, particularly to historically disenfranchised residents” . ,
While CTCL grants were touted as a tool to assist all jurisdictions in the Covid pandemic, CTCL’s 2021 tax records reveal that the organization “awarded all larger grants to deeply Democratic urban areas” on both an absolute and per capita basis, and that” [t]his partisan pattern of funding was especially apparent in swing states.”
The average partisan lean in favor of Democrats was 33 points, which is consistent with a 67 percent Democrat to 33 percent Republican vote breakdown in the counties where CTCL made its 50 largest grants per capita. What’s more, of CTCL’s 10 largest grants per capita, seven were given to key urban counties and cities in Georgia and Wisconsin. Biden narrowly won these two swing states in 2020 — by no more than 12, 000 votes and 21, 000 votes respectively.
In other words, the majority of the money was used in a sophisticated and innovative effort to get Democratic candidates to use specific voter profiles, and the largest CTCL grants were distributed, ultimately boosting Democrats ‘ partisan support in the electoral college.  ,
Deep blue states with no chance of supporting Trump like Colorado and Vermont, as well as strong red states opposed to Biden like Tennessee and Utah, received very little funding from the CTCL, which is only about$ 0.10 per capita, according to our href=”https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/i2m3au90pnrov3aywg9fd/Doyle-Oliver-2022.pdf?rlkey=r68ersbi7phd97x8fk24vw59y&e=1&dl=0″ target=”_blank” rel=”noreferrer noopener”>research. However, swing states key to Joe Biden’s electoral college strategy like Georgia, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin were lavished with href=”https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/i2m3au90pnrov3aywg9fd/Doyle-Oliver-2022.pdf?rlkey=r68ersbi7phd97x8fk24vw59y&e=1&dl=0″ target=”_blank” rel=”noreferrer noopener”>tens of millions of dollars in CTCL money averaging between$ 1 and$ 2 per capita. Georgia, the top CTCL grant recipient, received a whopping$ 41 million — roughly$ 4 per capita — the lion’s share of which went to only seven deep blue metro Atlanta counties out of the state’s 159.  ,  ,
This data conflicts with the often- heard assertion that “more Republican jurisdictions, defined as municipalities that voted for Trump in 2020, applied for and received grants from CTCL” than Democratic jurisdictions.  ,
Republican regions frequently received small grants under$ 50, 000 ( normally around$ 5, 000 ), which were not significant enough to significantly alter their electoral practices and made up only 27 percent of CTCL’s” total spending.” These smaller grants appear to be a part of a public relations campaign to create the impression of nonpartisanship in a sophisticated, highly partisan effort.
Debunking the Myth of” Underfunded” Urban Election Offices
Another argument that has repeatedly made the rounds among CTCL supporters is that large sums of money were used to address alleged funding gaps in deep blue, urban-based elections where it is said to cost more to run elections in less populated areas. However, there is no conclusive evidence linking the public’s “underfunding” of election offices in Democratic areas to the grant amounts of the CTCL.  ,
A fatal time crunch would have resulted in making a precise distinction between well-funded and underfunded election offices during the hectic late summer and early fall of 2020, when CTCL grants were being decided and funds were distributed. There is no proof that a grant applicant’s level of state funding in relation to other election offices was even taken into account or provided during the application process. Additionally, there is no evidence to suggest that election administration’s large CTCL grant recipients were consistently underfunded. For instance, when we examined Wisconsin’s state and federal election budgets, one of the five states that collectively received 25 of the top 50 grants per person, we were surprised to find some of the state’s best-funded election offices by state standards.  ,  ,
And yet again, large CTCL grant recipients in heavily Democratic regions did so with significantly more funding per capita than smaller grant recipients. Of the six largest CTCL grant recipients, the average election budget was$ 5.61 per capita, and among the next 5 largest Wisconsin cities, it was$ 2.64 per capita.  ,
The largest grants were selected by CTCL for Wisconsin’s election offices, which are among the most well-funded ones. Running elections in urban areas would not have any other justification for that cost per person. In contrast, highly voter-concentrated areas should imply that” the substantial fixed cost of election administration is spread out over a relatively larger population, decreasing the per capita cost.”
No Such Thing as’ Nonpartisan ‘ Voter Outreach
Some CTCL supporters, including Philip Bump from The Washington Post, claim that the organization was trying to address disparate voter turnout rates between white and racial minorities. Indeed, CTCL early on encouraged its large grant recipients to” Expand Strategic Voter Education &, Outreach Efforts, Particularly to Historically Disenfranchised Residents” through various “nonpartisan” efforts. Even if they are completely devoid of partisan content, such efforts will almost always have a partisan tone.  ,
Election officials are well-versed in the political personalities of their own populations. A Dallas, Texas election official is aware that her area received a Democrat and Republican votes of 65 % and 4 % in 2020.  , Thus, in her county, for every 100 additional voters, the expected distribution of Biden to Trump votes is 65 to 35 — an increase of Biden’s margin by an average of 30 votes.
If this election official is successful in turning out an additional random distribution of 100, 000 voters in her jurisdiction, she will have padded Biden’s margin by an additional 30, 000 votes, even if all she does is say” Vote” ! , The “partisan” nature of any get- out- the- vote operation does not wholly depend on the message, but on the audience to whom the message is directed.  ,
It may or may not be the case that more “historically disadvantaged” individuals should vote. The fact that election administrators are not supposed to increase voter turnout is not up for debate.  ,” Turnout” is something that election officials should take as a “given” data point, rather than a variable to be determined by their actions during an election.
Time to Investigate CTCL’s Election Interference
CTCL was a part of a plot to tamper with the 2020 election using legally questionable means. Even if private election grants were technically “legal” in 2020, the ability to exercise outside influence over the operation of the electoral system is not something that should be for sale to the highest bidder ever.
Those who oppose the legal prosecution of CTCL will have to explain why systematic election misbehavior must never be allowed to surface in the courtroom, as well as explain why wealthy and powerful leftists should be prevented from having their actions examined under oath.
William Doyle, Ph. The Caesar Rodney Election Research Institute in Irving, Texas, has D. as its research director. He is particularly interested in the private funding of American elections and economic history. Prior to joining the University of Dallas, he served as associate professor and chair in the department of economics. He can be contacted at doyle@rodneyinstitute .org.
