How Mark Zuckerberg nearly surrendered Texas to the Democrats
It is now known to many Americans that personal money was just one of many anomalies that plagued the 2020 elections. In numerous reports, the Capital Research Center has traced the inflow of $ 350 million from Facebook founder and billionaire Mark Zuckerberg to the county’s election officials and inundated local jurisdictions with “Zuck Dollars,” which resulted in fraud-prone dropboxes and mail, among other things -In led ballot papers.
At the center of this story is the Center for Technology and Civic Life (CTCL), a sleepy Chicago nonprofit that entered the 2020 election after Zuckerberg’s infusion and grew its revenue nearly 25,000 percent, turning this tiny advocacy group into a left-wing giant became almost overnight.
CTCL has claimed that the $ 350 million it passed on to election officials was for impartial COVID-19 relief efforts. But is that really true? We did the math and tracked tens of millions of dollars from CTCL to Georgia, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Virginia, Michigan, Wisconsin, Arizona, and Nevada – all battlefields that are vital to the conclusion of the 2020 election.
Our conclusion is that CTCL’s grants across the board benefited the largest and most vocal Democratic counties, which helped generate the left-wing voters in US history – and secure Joe Biden as the country’s 46th president. Far from being “impartial,” the seas of CTCL made it easier for scammers to cheat and for the Democrats to win in 2020.
Now, we turn to Texas and the $ 33.5 million CTCL grants uncovered to date – the largest amount for any state we’ve studied.
While CTCL has published a preliminary list of grant recipients, the documents do not include the grant Amounts. What CRC was able to track came from local news reports and the county’s election officials’ websites. (See our dataset in the appendix.)
For more information on CTCL, see InfluenceWatch Profile and its CRC Reports.
The ultimate price
Historically, the Democrats in Texas, averaging 1.2 million votes, lagged far behind the Republican presidential candidates between 2000 and 2016, when Republicans won the state with an average of 57 percent of the vote. Jimmy Carter, the last Democratic presidential candidate to win Texas, ousted incumbent Gerald Ford in 1976 with just 129,000 votes. Previously, Texas had a reliable Democratic vote, switching to the Republican candidate only three times – for Herbert Hoover in 1928 and Dwight Eisenhower in 1952 and 1956 – between Ulysses Grant’s victory in 1872 and Richard Nixon’s victory in 1972.
In 2016, Trump slightly improved on the turnout of Mitt Romney, a candidate for 2012, and received nearly 126,000 votes – well below the 573,000 votes Hillary Clinton received over Obama’s turnout for 2012, but still enough to Texas win with 814,000 votes.
|Table 1. Texas Presidential Elections|
|year||republican||Increase (GOP)||% Inc.||democrat||Increase (dem)||% Inc.|
|2000||3,799,639||– –||– –||2,433,746||– –||– –|
|Source: Politico, New York Timesand Texas Secretary of State.|
For decades, Democratic campaign strategists have dreamed of turning the Lone Star state around and turning this Republican fortress into a democratic conquest. They got closer to that dream than ever in 2020, when Joe Biden received more votes in Texas than any Democrat or Republican in American history – except Donald Trump.
Biden’s wins in Texas are shocking. Compared to 2016 numbers, it gained an additional 1.4 million votes for a total of 5.3 million, a 36 percent increase over Hillary Clinton’s 2016 voter turnout 50 percent more Trump’s wins are equally impressive as he increased his vote by 1.2 million from 2016 to a total of nearly 5.9 million votes, a 26 percent increase beating Republican records.
The location of these votes paints an interesting picture, especially given where the CTCL grants were going.
A flood of “Zuck Bucks” to Texas
Texas was among the top-targeted states for CTCL grants in 2020, receiving at least 118 grants in its 254 counties, perhaps the highest of any state. (Some states, such as Michigan and Massachusetts, received More Grants, but were mostly for individual cities rather than counties.) Since CTCL has so far refused to disclose the list of grants, the actual number is unknown and will likely stay that way until CTCL releases IRS Form 990 for 2020 . as required by law sometime in 2022.
So far, we have uncovered 21 of these 118 grants totaling $ 33,539,950, including a $ 251,000 grant from Arnold Schwarzenegger through the University of Southern California’s Schwarzenegger Institute.
- CTCL funded eight of the ten most populous counties in Texas. The two that didn’t get “Zuck Bucks” – Collin and Denton Counties – were the only two of the ten that Trump won.
- Joe Biden won 22 of Texas’ 254 counties. CTCL funded 17 of them (77 percent). Trump won 231 counties, however, of which 101 received CTCL grants (44 percent), which sounds impressive.
- Yet those 101 counties only gave Trump 1,445,871 votes, less than a quarter of his nationwide total. Biden’s 17 CTCL-funded districts gave him 3,641,476 votes – 69 percent of his nationwide total.
- In 2020, Biden freaked only three counties that Trump won in 2016, and all of them received CTCL grants: Tarrant (amount unknown; Fort Worth), Williamson ($ 264,000; near Austin), and Hays ($ 283,000; just outside of Austin), which together contained about 1.6 million people and gave 615,000 votes to Biden and 597,000 votes to Trump.
- Trump turned over eight (mostly small) counties that Clinton won in 2016, all in the traditionally democratic bastions in the south and west: Zapata, Val Verde, Reeves, La Salle, Kleberg, Kenedy, Jim Wells and Frio Counties together contain almost 200,000 people . They gave Trump 30,000 votes and Biden 19,000 votes. Still, only one, Zapata County, received a CTCL grant of unknown amounts (at the time of writing).
- Nationwide, Trump rose an average of 25 percent compared to 2016, in both CTCL-funded and unfunded countries. Biden grew an average of just 18 percent nationwide, but 40 percent in the state’s 10 largest counties (versus 35 percent for Trump).
Texas 2016 & Texas 2020
What is clear is that Biden won more voices in the fewer places than his Democratic predecessor in previous elections, while Trump added places he lost in his first presidential bid to his base. CTCL funds, meanwhile, were targeting the very spots Biden needed to improve to win Texas over:
- Both candidates’ turnout increased more in CTCL-funded counties than in unfunded counties, but more for Biden: Trump received 25 percent more votes in funded counties versus 24 percent in unfunded counties – essentially the same. Meanwhile, Biden received 21 percent more votes in funded counties versus 14 percent in unfunded counties – a spread of 7 percentage points.
- Biden’s biggest gains (over 100,000 votes compared to 2016) were in a handful of major cities: Harris County (212,000 votes), Dallas County (144,000 votes), Travis County (130,000 votes), Bexar County (129,000 votes), and Tarrant County (124,000). These five cities – Houston, Dallas, Austin, San Antonio, and Fort Worth – earned him 2.8 million votes, or more than half of his nationwide 5.3 million votes. (In comparison, Trump received fewer than 2.1 million votes there, which is 35 percent of his total votes.)
- These five counties accepted grants from CTCL totaling $ 27,775,142, or 83 percent of all grants we traced to Texas. However, even this figure is misleading. Only two cities received nearly $ 25 million from CTCL: $ 9.6 million for Houston (Harris County) and an impressive $ 15 million for Dallas. the largest known single CTCL grant in the country.
- To put these numbers in perspective, the Houston $ 9.6 million grant ranged from $ 2.04 for every man, woman, and child living in Harris County, or enough to buy every Biden vote there for a whopping $ 10.46. Dallas received the equivalent of $ 5.74 per person living in the county, or $ 25.27 per Biden vote!
- Trump received votes above his 2016 total in all counties, with the exception of Polk (51,000 residents), where he lost 8,000 votes and still won, as in 2016, by a landslide. Biden, on the other hand, lost around 9,000 votes in 50 counties.
Of course, one would expect CTCL’s COVID-19 relief grants to go to the most populous places that tend to vote democratically. But if that was the goal of CTCL partisan and intended to help Biden’s turnout, would it have spent its funds otherwise? The facts leave this writer skeptical.
It is unclear how exactly these funds were spent. Grants paid in other states, such as a $ 10 million grant to Philadelphia that nearly doubled the electoral budget, required the city to use the funds to print and postage for postal ballot papers. Philadelphia also had to distribute “Secure Dropboxes” around town to collect ballots, circumventing basic voting integrity requirements by allowing anyone, without ID, to drop any number of ballots into a private collection bin without official supervision and no retrospective accountability. When a fraudster tried to flood Philadelphia with false ballots, CTCL’s “Zuck Bucks” enabled him to bypass the mailboxes of the US Postal Service. It’s unclear if Dropboxes were placed in one of Texas’ largest cities.
What happens next with the maintenance of electoral integrity?
A number of states – Louisiana, North Carolina, Georgia, Arizona, Michigan, New Hampshire, Wisconsin, and Texas – are already considering bills, including I.D. Require absentee votes, limit early postal voting and expand early face-to-face voting, eliminate same-day voter registration, and prohibit the funding of out-of-state elections.
Not everyone is taking the flood of “Zuck Dollars” lightly, but don’t expect the left-wing media to take seriously this billionaire’s attempt to privatize the 2020 elections anytime soon.
Hayden Ludwig is a senior investigative researcher at the Capital Research Center.
Dataset for all 118 CTCL-funded counties in Texas
Dataset for CTCL-funded counties plus remaining Texas counties