A report released by the Amistad Project of the Thomas More Society at a press conference on Wednesday alleged Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg and his wife made $419.5 million in contributions to non-profit organizations during the 2020 election cycle–$350 million to the “Safe Elections” Project of the Center for Technology and Civic Life (CTCL) and another $69.5 million to the Center for Election Innovation and Research–that, “improperly influence[d] the 2020 presidential election on behalf of one particular candidate and party.”
“The 2020 presidential election witnessed an unprecedented and coordinated public-private partnership to improperly influence the 2020 presidential election on behalf of one particular candidate and party. Funded by hundreds of millions of dollars from Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg and other high-tech interests, activist organizations created a two-tiered election system that treated voters differently depending on whether they lived in Democrat or Republican strongholds,” Amistad Project Director Phill Kline wrote in the report’s executive summary.
The report identified three key actions that, taken together, “represent the beginning of the formation of a two-tier election system favoring one demographic while disadvantaging another demographic.”
- Private monies dictated city and county election management contrary to both federal law and state election plans endorsed and developed by state legislatures with authority granted by the United States Constitution.
- Executive officials in swing states facilitated, through unique and novel contracts, the sharing of private and sensitive information about citizens within those states with private interests, some whom actively promote leftist candidates and agendas.
- Swing state governors also started issuing emergency executive orders shutting down in-person voting while pouring new state resources into encouraging persons to vote in advance. Polling data revealed this coordinated assault on in-person voting generally favored Democrat Party voters who preferred to vote in advance, while placing Republicans, who preferred to vote in person, at a disadvantage. These actions represent the beginning of the formation of a two-tier election system favoring one demographic while disadvantaging another demographic.
“This evidence is present and available to all Americans,” Kline said at the press conference of the information included in the report.
“The mainstream media has also tried to censor this evidence,” he noted, adding that, “America understands that there are serious problems with this election.”
“This effectively is a shadow government running our elections,” Kline continued.
“This network pumped hundreds of millions of dollars into local election systems using the COVID crisis as a pretense. Our report proves that in reality it was nothing more than a naked attempt to purchase an election. ‘Zuckerbucks’ and local election officials invited a billionaire into the consolidated ballot counting centers while kicking out the American people,” Kline said in the statement accompanying the release of the report:
“This report paints a clear picture of a cabal of billionaires and activists using their wealth to subvert, control, and fundamentally alter the electoral system itself,” Kline added. “We must act now to prevent such privatized elections in the future. The American public deserves transparent and fair elections, not lawless elections directed by powerful private interests.”
In addition to Zuckerberg, the main foundations funding the effort to subvert the electoral system were The Democracy Fund, New Venture Fund, Skoll Foundation, and Knight Foundation, according to the report. Key nonprofits involved in distributing the money include CTCL, the Center for [Election] Innovation Research, the Center for Civic Design, the National Vote at Home Institute, the Center for Secure and Modern Elections, and Rock the Vote.
The report demonstrates that funding from nonprofits was especially unnecessary in Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, as the federal government had already provided sufficient funding through both the Help America Vote Act (HAVA) and the CARES Act.
The report alleged that the privatization of the administration of the election in key battleground states, and its effective removal from the control of properly authorized local and state governments was strengthened by improper “claw back provisions” attached to grants given to counties and cities by CTCL.
Under those provisions, local governments would be required to return the CTCL donations if they failed to implement the more controversial and legally dubious elements of the plan, including the use of drop boxes to collect absentee ballots and the requirement that counting centers be consolidated in a way that made observation of the counting process by GOP observers more difficult.
The report focused heavily on how the CTCL used the $350 million donated to the 501 (c) (3) by Mark Zuckerberg and his wife between September 1, 2020 and October 21, 2020, particularly in urban areas in four key battleground states: Georgia, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania.
In Wisconsin, the report alleged the CTCL plan worked to benefit Biden and the Democrats:
For example, CTCL inked a $100,000 grant to the Mayor of Racine, WI in May of 2020 directing the Mayor to recruit four other cities (Green Bay, Kenosha, Madison, and Milwaukee) to develop a joint grant request of CTCL. This effort results in these cities submitting a “Wisconsin Safe Election Plan” on June 15, 2020 to CTCL and, in turn, receiving $6.3 million to implement the plan. This privatization of elections undermines the Help America Vote Act (HAVA), which requires state election plans to be submitted to federal officials and approved and requires respect for equal protection by making all resources available equally to all voters.
The provision of Zuckerberg-CTCL funds allowed these Democrat strongholds to spend roughly $47 per voter, compared to $4 to $7 per voter in traditionally Republican areas of the state. Moreover, this recruiting of targeted jurisdictions for specific government action and funding runs contrary to legislative election plans and invites government to play favorites in the election process.
The “Wisconsin Safe Election Plan” was not authored by the state, and considered state election integrity laws as obstacles and nuisances to be ignored or circumvented. Moreover, CTCL retained the right, in the grant document, to, in its sole discretion, order all funds returned if the grantee cities did not conduct the election consistent with CTCL dictates.
Effectively, CTCL managed the election in these five cities. And this plan violated state law in, at least, the following fashion:
1) The plan circumvented voter identification requirements for absentee ballots by attempting to classify all voters as “indefinitely confined” due to COVID and later, after Wisconsin Supreme Court criticism, by ordering election clerks to not question such claims.
2) The plan initiated the use of drop boxes for ballot collection, significantly breaching the chain of custody of the ballot and failing to maintain proper logs and reviews to ensure all properly cast ballots were counted and all improperly cast ballots were not counted.
3) Initiated the consolidation of counting centers, justifying the flow of hundreds of thousands of ballots to one location and the marginalization of Republican poll watchers such that bipartisan participation in the management, handling, and counting of the ballots was compromised.
These are but examples of radical changes in election processes that opened the door for significant fraud.
In Pennsylvania, the report asserted:
The disparate impact of Zuckerberg funding is also present in the analysis of CTCL funding in Pennsylvania. Documents obtained through court order revealed communication between the City of Philadelphia and CTCL emphasizing that CTCL paid election judges in Philadelphia and other election officials. CTCL mandated Philadelphia to increase its polling locations and to use drop boxes and eventually mobile pick-up units. Moreover, Zuckerberg monies allowed Philadelphia to “cure” absentee ballots in a manner not provided for in Republican areas of the state.
In Democrat Delaware County, Pennsylvania, one drop box was placed every four square miles and for every 4,000 voters. In the 59 counties carried by Trump in 2016, there was one drop box for every 1,100 square miles and every 72,000 voters. Government encouraging a targeted demographic to turn out the vote is the opposite side of the same coin as government targeting a demographic to suppress the vote. This two-tiered election system allowed voters in Democrat strongholds to stroll down the street to vote while voters in Republican strongholds had to go on the equivalent of a “where’s Waldo” hunt.
In Michigan, the report stated:
The Amistad Project’s concerns were amplified by the nature of a contract offered by Michigan’s health director to a subsidiary of NGP VAN, a Democrat fundraiser and data services company. Michigan granted the COVID tracing contract to Michigan VAN as a subsidiary of NGP VAN. The contract allowed this leftist organization to demand sensitive information from Michigan citizens at the threat of arrest. Citizens could be ordered to turn over medical records, travel information, the names of associates and friends, and other information with a significant privacy interest and of significant monetary value to a political fundraiser.
Emails later obtained through FOIA requests demonstrate Governor Whitmer’s political director was involved in suggesting to the health department that they not directly contract with NGP VAN because of possible political fallout. Governor Whitmer’s staffer recommended NGP VAN create a Michigan subsidiary and that the subsidiary become a subcontractor so as to conceal NGP VAN’s involvement. When this information became public, Whitmer claimed she was unaware of the agreement and faced with public pressure, she rescinded the contract.
Last month, the Amistad Project filed a lawsuit alleging that more than 100,000 ballots had been cast illegally in Georgia:
The Amistad Project of the Thomas More Society today filed a lawsuit contesting the results of the 2020 presidential election in Georgia, citing expert opinion that well over 100,000 illegal votes were improperly counted, while tens of thousands of legal votes were not counted.
The expert analysis of government data showing that the total number of illegal votes counted and legal votes not counted is greater than 200,000 — vastly exceeding the 12,670-vote margin in the presidential election contest.
“The number of potentially fraudulent ballots we’ve identified in Georgia is over 15 times greater than the margin separating Donald Trump and Joe Biden. This finding undercuts the integrity of the general election,” said Phill Kline, Director of The Amistad Project. “The discrepancies we identified arose in large part because certain election officials acted with greater fealty to the dictates of private funders than to the laws set forth by the people’s representatives in the General Assembly.”
The report released on Wednesday identified five specific action steps to address the election integrity issues it identified:
- The secretaries, attorneys general, and/or legislatures of states whose county governments received CTCL funds should commission a comprehensive, third-party audit of the consistency of private/public transactions with the HAVA implementation plans of their state. This should include compliance with NIST standards, and state procurement requirements.
- State secretaries, attorneys general and/or legislatures who have membership in the non-profit Electronic Registration Information Center (ERIC) should audit the information access, collection, storage, security and/or potential voter information sharing practices of ERIC with other states or third-party non-profit
- Secretaries, attorneys general, and/or legislators of states who received Center for Election Innovation CEIR grants for election related purposes should request and evaluate CEIR contracts for HAVA compliance and the fiscal and procurement requirements of their individual states.
- State by state examination of the legal authority by which CTCL, a non-profit organization chartered in Illinois, negotiated grant contracts with county and municipal governments in multiple jurisdictions across many states.
- County commissioners should coordinate with their respective attorneys general or legislatures to understand and mitigate potential future liabilities of the claw back language in any grant agreements they have with CTCL.