He's sorry, not sorry.
Mark Zuckerberg, the CEO of data specialist Meta, claimed this week that he didn’t realise that the $400 million spent on “getting out the vote” in the 2020 election benefited one party over the other.
But Republican sources doubt the Facebook boss will be able to take advantage of his so-called “Zuk Bucks” – promised to help finance fair local elections – were spent unevenly after being given to two known left-wing organisations.
“My goal is to remain neutral and not play any role — or even appear to play any role — in any matter. As such, I do not plan to make any such contributions this cycle,” Zuckerberg wrote in his letter. Representative Jim Jordan, Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee (R-Ohio) this week.
“These were designed to be nonpartisan — spread across urban, rural and suburban communities,” Zuckerberg added.
Chan Zuckerberg InitiativeThe foundation, led by Zuckerberg's wife, Priscilla Chan, donated more than $100 million. $350 million The Center for Technology and Civic Life (CTCL) and the Center for Election Innovation and Research (CEIR) were deceived in the name of providing voting rights to all.
But researchers told the Post that administrators of these groups had deep ties to the left, including CTCL founder and former President Obama Foundation Fellow Tianna Epps-Johnson.
“Based on this letter he is either dishonest or he didn't do his due diligence on the people he gave money to,” said Hayden Ludwig, research director Restoration News told the Post.
Ludwig pointed out that the people who founded CTCL came from a defunct group called the New Organizing Institute. And in 2014, CNN quoted a GOP activist who described the New Organizing Institute as “The Left’s new Death Star.”
“These were people whose whole job was to figure out how to get Democrats elected. Personally, I think he went home and quietly congratulated himself that he helped get Joe Biden elected. He found a big loophole and poured $350 million into it,” Ludwig says.
An analysis reveals Zuck bucks were disproportionately spent to turn out votes in Democratic-leaning counties in Georgia, which Biden won by just 12,000 votes.
The same thing happened in Arizona, where Biden won by 10,000 votes.
According to the Foundation for Government Accountability, Georgia received more than $31 million in Zuck Bucks for the general election alone, one of the highest amounts in the country.
This was approximately 9% of Zuckerberg's total funding, while Georgia is home to only 3% of the country's total population.
The amount represented approximately 9 percent of Zuckerberg's total funding, although Georgia is home to only 3 percent of the country's population.
County-by-county analysis in Georgia Foundation for Government Accountability Zuck Bucks cost between $7 and $15 per voter in the state's six largest counties, all won by Biden.
Meanwhile, the top six counties won by Trump saw spending ranging from $1 to $3 per voter.
In Wisconsin, which had previously voted for Trump, CTCL spent $47 per voter in Green Bay, while the legislature typically spends $7 per voter there and $4 in rural areas of the state.
“Most people think of political money as money that's spent on a campaign or TV advertising,” Ludwig said.
In this case, Zuckerberg's money was often spent calling or visiting voters directly to ensure they would mail in ballots.
“We looked at 8 or 9 battleground states and in every state we found the same pattern. The checks cut per capita by CTCL were significantly larger in big blue Democrat cities than in rural Republican counties.
“Wisconsin CTCL grants averaged $3.75 per person in Biden counties, compared to 55 cents in Trump counties. The bottom line is that all this Zuckerberg money boosted turnout everywhere, but it boosted turnout the most in the big blue cities that got a lot of Zuckerberg money from CTCL.”
Zuckerberg's contribution was well known in 2021 itself, William Doyle writes in The Post that “the 2020 election wasn’t stolen — it was possible Bought by one of the richest and most powerful men in the world They are taking advantage of legal loopholes and spending their money.”
Some are wondering why Zuckerberg decided to write the letter now — in which he also acknowledged that the Biden administration pressured Facebook to censor COVID content and said it was wrong to suppress The Post’s coverage of Hunter Biden’s laptop.
Scott Walter, president of the right-wing think tank Capital Research Center, says he believes Zuckerberg's apology, no matter how mild, is an attempt to “cover up his mistake” in case President Trump is elected.
“What he wrote in the letter about Zuck Bucks does not appear to be the words of an innocent person,” Walter told the Post.
“Zuckerberg has amazing data experts who are looking at (huge amounts of) data all the time. That makes me think they might be looking at something about the upcoming election and probably don't want to look bad if there's a Trump administration again.”
“His explanation is vague and there is no evidence of his innocence or non-partisanship. Plus he said a lot about this on the Joe Rogan podcast a long time ago. He didn't need to write a letter.”
In fact, Trump has made scathing comments against Zuckerberg in his upcoming book, accusing the technology giant of undermining him in the last election, and warning that he could even face jail time.
Trump, 78, has discussed his meeting with Zuckerberg, 40, and his anger over the 2020 election in his upcoming book “Save America”, which is due to hit the market on September 3.
“We are watching him very closely, and if he does anything illegal this time, he will spend the rest of his life in prison — as will anyone else who commits fraud in the 2024 Presidential Election,” Trump wrote in the book. According to a preview obtained by Politico.
Zuck bucks weren’t just a case of Democrats outspending Republicans. Private funding for election administration was virtually unknown in the American political system before the 2020 election.
“Using money through Democrat-run nonprofits to boost the vote in blue areas of key swing states, as Zuckerberg did, is an inherently partisan activity,” Molly Hemingway, author “Rigged: How the Media, Big Tech, and the Democrats Took Over Our Elections,” told the Post.
“It’s good that he regrets what he did to improperly interfere with the 2020 election, but the damage is done.”
Hemingway also pointed out that now that a blueprint has been created, even if Zuckerberg stops providing funding, other left-wing billionaires can pick up where he left off, which Walter agreed with.
“Zuckerbucks was the original Kraken,” he said. “There's no right-wing equivalent to this. The idea that billionaires and charities shouldn't influence elections isn't that hard to understand.”
