Zuckerbucks: Mark Zuckerberg says he won't be so naked about it anymore

Mark Zuckerberg, whose $419 million "Zuckerbucks" vote-rigging operation played a significant part in swinging the election to Joe Biden in 2020, now says he's a changed man.

A representative for Mark Zuckerberg confirmed the Facebook CEO will not make another multi-million dollar donation to aid this year’s elections, which comes after fierce pushback that Zuckerberg’s 2020 contributions tilted the outcome of the presidential race toward President Biden.

"As Mark and Priscilla made clear previously, their election infrastructure donation to help ensure that Americans could vote during the height of the pandemic was a one-time donation given the unprecedented nature of the crisis," Ben LaBolt, a spokesperson for Zuckerberg and his wife Priscilla Chan, said. "They have no plans to repeat that donation."

Don't believe it. Don't believe it for even one second.

Zuckerberg's mother-of-all-sleazeball political operations, which was described as "bribery" by Wisconsin state special counsel last month, directed cash to two non-government organizations run by veteran Soros and Obama operatives, to help city officials supposedly improve the election experience for voters under the rubric of increasing "inclusiveness" and improving democracy.

In reality, it was a cash-funneling operation, where 92% of the money splashed out went to Democrat swing districts in select blue urban areas to get out the vote while rural and red districts got virtually nothing.

It was big money, too. According to Dave Bossie, in an op-ed written for the Washington Times yesterday, the Democratic National Committee shelled out $461 million for all election expenditures over two years culminating in the 2020 election. Zuckerbucks, by contrast, doled out a lightning-swift $400 million for election day, and according to The Federalist, it was actually more than that -- $419.5 million. The 2020 election wasn’t stolen," wrote The Federalist's William Doyle. " — it was likely bought by one of the world’s wealthiest and most powerful men pouring his money through legal loopholes." NSS.

It featured unelected NGO operatives, with Soros-linked and Obama-linked pasts, marching into election offices around election day, giving orders to elected officials tasked by voters to run elections, overruling them, setting up illegal ballot drop boxes, raiding nursing homes for insentient voters, setting up "vote navigators," (which sound like the old Obamacare 'navigators') and re-writing election forms, which are supposed to be fair and uniform state-wide, all to maximize leftist votes. I wrote about that here, citing what John Solomon wrote about that miserable experience from the perspective of a Green Bay county clerk, who saw illegality after illegality from these carpetbaggers, effectively taking over the entire election operation to get Democrats elected. 

Not surprisingly, the Wisconsin special counsel put forth to investigate election irregularities blasted the slimy operation, calling it "bribery.

Which brings us back to Zuckerberg and his successful but now-reviled and well-exposed political rigging operation.

Zuck says he won't do it again this time, since the pandemic was so unique, you see, but that's a load of garbage.

To start, Capital Research Center notes that Zuckerberg's pandemic noises were a ruse:

Despite its claims that the grants were strictly for COVID-19 relief, not partisan advantage, the data show otherwise. CRC research into grants distributed in key states—Arizona and NevadaTexasMichigan and WisconsinVirginiaNorth CarolinaPennsylvania, and Georgia—has documented their partisan effects. We have also catalogued our major findings at InfluenceWatch.

More important, here's what Zuckerberg is looking at as he now promises to be a good boy:

As of April 2022, 18 states have banned or restricted the use of private funds for election offices and 6 governors—all Democrats—have vetoed potential bans. Wisconsin Gov. Tony Evers (D) has vetoed 2 Zuck buck bans; Kansas’s legislature overrode its Democratic governor’s veto.
 
Many states are currently considering bans (see “in-progress”).

In other words, he couldn't get in there to rig election results for Democrats if he tried. State after state after state has banned the use of private funds to run elections or else done severely regulatory things to keep them from turning into disguised Democrat rigging operations. Wisconsin, where the worst of the events described happened, has a leftist governor who has twice vetoed these efforts to keep elections out of the hands of oligarchs, but a huge number of states have stepped forward to protect themselves and the integrity of their elections, and more such measures are on the way in more states.

Just the idea of a private company or NGO running a public election is utterly repulsive. In a free society, if you don't like Mark Zuckerberg's product, you are always free not to buy it. You don't get that kind of choice in elections when Zuckerberg's money is running the show.

Zuckerberg says he will now channel $80 million to something called the U.S. Alliance for Election Excellence for the 32 states they are still allowed to run riot in.

A check of their FAQ section suggests they are doing the exact same thing they did in the 2020 election that made the word 'Zuckerbucks' stink so bad with voters.

Start with the process of getting the Zuckerbucks:

How is the Allianced selecting the Centers for Election Excellence?

All U.S. local election departments are invited to be a Center for Election Excellence. The 2022 cohort will be selected based on their:

  • Excitement and willingness to participate in the program

  • Commitment to improve upon practices and procedures aimed at enhancing the voter, poll worker, and staff experiences

  • Commitment to being part of a learning cohort, sharing materials among cohort members, and providing input into the future of the program

Based on what we know, that means being a leftist Democrat with an interest in doing what they did last time.

What is the process for selecting the Centers?

Verification and review? I thought they were supposed to be helping out the poor mokes who didn't have enough money to run elections properly. Apparently, districts must be vetted for their usefulness to Democrats.

How will voters benefit?

What is one example of an improvement an election official wishes they could make to better serve their voters, but don’t have enough time, staffing, resources, or technology? Local election officials are the expert on what their voters need, and the Alliance will work with each Center to fill in the gaps. This could look like redesigning a form so it’s more likely a voter will successfully complete it or updating an election website so it is mobile-friendly and answers voters’ top questions.

Still redesigning forms no matter what the county clerk thinks, just like last time.

This operation isn't any different from the last one. They are still doing the same kind of rigging, it's just that their arena of operations has been reduced.

What it does show is that states had better get busy if they don't want a tech oligarch controlling and rigging their elections. It also shows that citizens have got to be vigilant about illegal and unfair practices by carpetbaggers looking for a Democrat win they can't get otherwise. It shows that Zuckerberg is aware that his sleazy operation has gotten exposed and voters don't like it. 

And above all, it shows that he doesn't give a fig about those problems and plans to keep on doing the exact same thing he's been doing, come 2022 and 2024.

Image: Anthony Quintano, via Flickr // CC BY 2.0

If you experience technical problems, please write to helpdesk@americanthinker.com