Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg is facing criticism after claiming he was unaware that the $400 million he spent on voter mobilization efforts during the 2020 election disproportionately benefited one political party.
The funds, often called “Zuck Bucks,” were intended to support fair local elections but were distributed to two left-leaning organisations, raising concerns about their nonpartisan nature.
Zuckerberg’s comments were made in a letter to House Judiciary Committee Chairman Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), where he stated that his goal was to remain neutral and avoid any appearance of partisanship.
He also mentioned that he does not plan to make similar contributions in the upcoming election cycle.
The Chan Zuckerberg Initiative, led by Zuckerberg’s wife Priscilla Chan, provided over $350 million to the Center for Technology and Civic Life (CTCL) and the Center for Election Innovation and Research (CEIR).
Both organisations have leaders with connections to the Democratic Party, such as CTCL founder Tiana Epps-Johnson, a former fellow at the Obama Foundation.
Critics, including Hayden Ludwig from Restoration News, argue that Zuckerberg either failed to perform due diligence on these organizations or is being disingenuous in his claims.
Ludwig points out that the founders of CTCL were previously involved with the New Organizing Institute, a group known for its efforts to elect Democrats.
An analysis of the distribution of “Zuck Bucks” reveals that the funds were heavily concentrated in Democratic-leaning counties, particularly in swing states like Georgia and Arizona, where Joe Biden won by narrow margins.
For example, Georgia received over $31 million, representing nearly 9% of Zuckerberg’s total funding, despite having just over 3% of the U.S. population.
In Wisconsin, another battleground state, the CTCL spent significantly more per voter in Democratic-leaning areas compared to Republican ones. This disparity has led to accusations that the funding unfairly boosted voter turnout in favor of Democrats.
Ludwig and other critics argue that Zuckerberg’s money played a significant role in influencing the outcome of the 2020 election by increasing turnout in key Democratic areas.
The controversy has raised concerns about the impact of private funding on election administration and its potential to sway results in a partisan manner.
Zuckerberg’s recent letter, in which he also acknowledged pressure from the Biden Administration to censor COVID-related content and admitted mistakes in suppressing coverage of Hunter Biden’s laptop, has puzzled some observers.
Scott Walter, president of the Capital Research Centre, suggests that Zuckerberg’s comments might be an attempt to protect himself in case of a future Trump administration.
Former President Donald Trump has also weighed in on the issue, accusing Zuckerberg of undermining him in the 2020 election.
In his upcoming book “Save America,” Trump warns that if Zuckerberg engages in any illegal activity in the 2024 election, he could face prison.
Critics like Mollie Hemingway, author of “Rigged: How the Media, Big Tech and the Democrats Seized Our Elections,” argue that funnelling money through Democrat-aligned non-profits to boost voter turnout in key swing states is inherently partisan. The debate over “Zuck Bucks” continues to raise questions about the role of private funding in American elections and its potential to influence outcomes in favour of one party.
