Posts

Foreign Funding of Elections Update

Estimated Reading Time: 3 minutes

In early October, we reported on a disturbing trend related to foreign funding and U.S. lobbyists—namely, American lobbyists were taking in millions to help influence elections, circumventing the law that disallows outright foreign funding of elections.

[M]ore disruptive are foreign nationals attempting to influence the outcome of American elections. The Foreign Agents Registration Act seeks to address this problem because under federal law foreign nationals cannot legally contribute to political groups or campaigns in order to influence U.S. elections.

But where there’s a will, there’s a lobbyist looking to cash in.

OpenSecrets reported in August the payouts to American lobbyists hired with foreign funds to help influence elections numbered in the millions.

The influence foreign money has on U.S. elections has apparently become quite the popular issue—although not enough that it’s in the spotlight, but that may be by design—as initiatives and legislation have popped up in Washington to tamp down on the activity.

FEC Warning

Following a warning in August by the Federal Elections Commission (FEC) that the agency doesn’t do enough to address the threat of foreign influence in elections, Democrats reintroduced a bill “that would block foreign-owned corporations from spending company funds to influence U.S. elections.”

The bill would extend the federal ban on political donations from foreign nationals to multinational companies that are at least partially owned by foreign nationals. Following the Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens United decision that allowed corporations to spend unlimited sums to influence elections, some U.S. subsidiaries of foreign-owned companies have made large donations to super PACs.

What’s interesting about this effort is that while it targets huge corporations and purports to address an oversight at the FEC, there’s another, bipartisan effort that is also quietly working toward a similar end. This effort is backed by the leftist group Common Cause, whose President Karen Hobert Flynn has stated, “Americans deserve to know who is trying to influence our voices and our votes, and foreign entities should have zero role in determining American elections.”

Proposed Legislation

The FEC, while disallowing foreign funding of elections, has allowed foreign funding of ballot initiatives—a practice Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) and Sen. Mark Warner (D-VA) and Rep. Jim Banks (R-IN) and Rep. Abigail Spanberger (D-VA) mean to address with their proposed bills Protecting Ballot Measures from Foreign Influence Act (S. 3345 and H.R. 6177).

Notably, the bill ensures that the Federal Elections Commission (FEC) could not assert authority over those State or local ballot initiatives or ballot referendums.

“Foreign donors should not be able to influence America’s democratic process,” Rubio said. “It is already illegal for foreign nationals to donate to political candidates, parties, and committees. The Protecting Ballot Measures from Foreign Influence Act will extend that commonsense protection of our political process to ballot initiatives and other referendums. We must do everything we can to protect the votes of American citizens.”

Sen. Banks is also spearheading the effort to force disclosure of foreign ties of those appearing before Congress as witnesses.

Banks’ legislation, the Truth in Testimony Reform Resolution, would dramatically expand foreign funding disclosure requirements for witnesses at congressional hearings:

All House witnesses would be required to list foreign government donors to think tanks and research outfits employing them, whether they are testifying in an individual capacity or as representatives of those organizations.

They also would have to list funding from foreign political parties and state-owned entities.

The legislation would expand the disclosure requirement to include all such funding, not just funding for work on the specific policy areas at issue in their testimony. [formatting adjusted]

When both sides of the political aisle in Washington, DC, are fighting to address foreign funding of elections—and warring over who gets there first—it’s probably a good sign for the American people and for election integrity in general.

*****

This article was published by Capital Research and is reproduced with permission.

Ending The Marathon Campaign

Estimated Reading Time: 3 minutes

In 1952, Dwight Eisenhower announced he was a Republican 10 months before the general election. In June, he resigned from his military office to devote full time to his presidential campaign.

Adlai Stevenson was already a Democrat by 1952 but resisted multiple efforts by Democrat partisans to nominate him as their candidate. After his stirring speech at the convention that summer, they did so anyway. Three months later, a president (Eisenhower) was duly elected.

Modest candidates and brief campaigns are now in our receding past. The 2020 presidential race lasted 1,194 days after the first candidate was declared. The 2024 election, for practical purposes, started immediately after the previous election. Fully three years out, news and opinion outlets are brimming with the latest poll numbers, candidate statements, and expert speculation.

No other nation subjects itself to such an exhausting ordeal. Elections in Canada, the UK, and Australia all last about six weeks. In Japan, they get it done in 12 days.

Admittedly, these are parliamentary systems where elections are triggered by political events, but France gives candidates just six months to qualify for the second-tier ballot, then two weeks to campaign in the finals.

American campaigns weren’t always ultramarathons. Warren Harding, for example, announced his candidacy 321 days before the 1920 election. Most American presidential candidates operated under a similar timeline.

The “modern“ era begin with the contentious 1968 Democrat convention when the party rank-and-file wrested control from the smoke-filled rooms and the popular primary system was established. In 1976, the obscure Jimmy Carter was able to build momentum in the primaries by campaigning early. Ambitious politicians ever since have taken note.

But super-long campaigns have consequences, most of them undesirable. The most obvious is that length favors deep pockets, the ability to finance a years-long, money-draining effort.

Few candidates can self-fund. Instead, they have to spend immense amounts of time and do a lot of promising to raise the many millions required for the campaign. Many political leaders are distracted from their duties by the minutiae of campaigning.

Never-ending campaigns simultaneously exhaust and entrance voters. Competitions are naturally interesting and easy to understand. It’s simple and inexpensive for the media to churn out horse-race stories, so NATO, supply chains, and housing policy get short shrift while mountains of articles are written about the prospects of the candidates far in the future.

It has long been a truism that more challenging, risky issues are harder to tackle in an election year. But if every year is effectively an election year, then it’s never the right time for heavy lifting.

Instead, governing in the midst of a campaign creates constant pressure to “do something“, so that politicians appear active and effective. Populist policies and handouts which favor the growth of government are thought to attract voters. Moderation and fiscal restraint don’t sell well, so they are kicked to the curb.

The Build Back Better bill was the perfect campaign legislation, something for everyone. No wonder Democrats are panicked over the electoral consequences of its possible failure.

But long campaign seasons also have their clear winners. Potential candidates are already dropping by Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina, which happen to be crucial early primary states just to, you know, see how the folks are doing.

These states fiercely protect their primary position and with good reason. Iowa particularly has successfully exploited the candidates’ need to ingratiate themselves into the long-term protection of ethanol mandates, regulations, and subsidies. It’s a foolish policy with no environmental or other benefits except to corn farmers and producers, another result of our long and complicated presidential elections.

Compared with other countries, the US has a short presidential term and an unusually long election process. This near-constant turnover lengthens the period in which we are vulnerable to foreign actors exploiting us for their benefit.

Other democracies have laws that limit elections. Exactly nobody is clamoring for longer elections in those countries. Still, politicians are unlikely to reform their own system.

In the absence of other options to rid ourselves of these expensive, dysfunctional election campaigns, maybe we should take a look.

****

Thomas C. Patterson, MD is a retired Emergency Medicine physician, Arizona state Senator and Arizona Senate Majority Leader in the ’90s. He is a former Chairman, Goldwater Institute.

 

Find Out Which States Best, Worst for Honest Elections

Estimated Reading Time: 4 minutes

Georgia ranks at the top among states for the strongest laws in the nation to guarantee honest elections, while Hawaii ranks at the bottom, according to a new Election Integrity Scorecard from The Heritage Foundation.

Heritage’s scorecard, announced Tuesday, measures all 50 states and the District of Columbia based on a dozen election-related categories.

Categories in which scores may reach between 20 and 30 points are voter ID requirements, maintaining accurate voter registration lists, and rules governing absentee ballots.

A perfect overall score in providing for honest elections would be 100, meaning a top score in all 12 categories. Georgia had a total score of 83, while Hawaii’s score was 26.

“Americans need and deserve elections that they can trust,” Heritage Foundation President Kevin Roberts said in a press release, adding:

Heritage’s Election Integrity Scorecard gives states a better idea of how their state laws and regulations compare to best practices and where they need improvement. In the coming weeks and months, Heritage will work with our state partners to ensure policymakers and officeholders have this valuable information to make reforms. At a time when cynicism runs deep on both ends of the political spectrum, the need to protect the people’s elections, and to safeguard the value of every citizen’s vote, couldn’t be clearer.

Heritage’s scorecard comes at the end of a year in which at least 18 states enacted significant election reform legislation. Although Republican lawmakers led many of those state reforms, the best and worst states as determined by the scorecard didn’t break down entirely along partisan lines.

For example, liberal-leaning Wisconsin, where a Democrat is governor, made the Top 10 for best states, while the staunchly conservative states of Utah and Nebraska are ranked in the 40s. So are Massachusetts and Vermont, two liberal-leaning states with Republican governors.

Following Georgia in the Top 10 are Alabama, Tennessee, Arkansas, Florida, Texas, Louisiana, South Carolina, and Wisconsin.

Kansas and Missouri tie for 10th place overall. based on their total scores in all the categories.

Bringing up the rear just before Hawaii on Heritage’s scorecard are Utah, ranked at 41, followed by New York, Massachusetts, Nebraska, New Jersey, Washington, Vermont, Oregon, California, and Nevada.

“No matter one’s politics, every reasonable American agrees that our electoral process should make it easy to vote and harder to cheat,” John Malcolm, director of the Meese Center for Legal and Judicial Studies at The Heritage Foundation, said in a formal statement on the scorecard, adding:

The right to vote is a sacred right that our leaders must protect. The Election Integrity Scorecard is the result of an intensive, in-depth review of state election laws and will provide voters, legislators, and election officials with a tool that can be used to compare their election system to a model system and that of other states. The model bills we provide can be used to improve their elections to guarantee both access and security. We strongly urge them to do so.

Other categories measured in the scorecard, with a maximum score of no more than 4 points each, are rules governing ballot harvesting and vote trafficking; access of election observers to ensure transparency; citizenship verification; rules on voter assistance procedures; vote-counting practices; election litigation procedures; rules governing voter registration; restriction of automatic registration; and rules surrounding the private funding of elections.

Currently, 35 states have some form of voter ID laws to ensure voters are who they say they are, but with varying degrees of implementation.

Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Kansas, and Tennessee received the highest score of 20 points for the implementation of voter ID laws. States with 0 points on this front are Hawaii, Maine, Nebraska, and Vermont.

“Heritage has been working for many years to protect the integrity of our elections in order to ensure that all eligible Americans are able to vote and that their votes are counted honestly [and] fairly, and are not diluted by fraud, errors, or mistakes,” Hans von Spakovsky, manager of The Heritage Foundation’s Election Law Reform Initiative and a former member of the Federal Election Commission, said in a formal statement. “Our new Election Integrity Scorecard, along with the Heritage Election Fraud Database, will help ensure that happens.”

The scorecard also ranks states on how up-to-date their voter registration lists are—and whether dead people or those who have moved out of the precinct or state are still listed.

Interestingly, states with a lower overall score and ranking in the bottom half of the list do relatively well in the category for accuracy of voter registration lists. 

Maryland (ranked 29 overall) gets 27 points out of a maximum of 30 in this category of accurate registration lists, while Colorado and Washington (34 and 45 overall, respectively) get 26 points.

Maine and Rhode Island (32 and 16 overall, respectively) get 25 points. At the bottom, North Dakota gets 9 points in this category, just below Hawaii, the scorecard’s overall worst, with 13 points.

Management of absentee ballots is a category with a maximum of 21 points that measures how well states authenticate absentee and mail-in voting. This category is tied closely with voter registration maintenance.

In 2005, the Carter-Baker Commission report stated that absentee voting was the aspect of elections most vulnerable to fraud.

Louisiana and Oklahoma got the strongest score on managing absentee ballots, with 19 points each. They are followed closely by Alabama, Minnesota, Missouri, and Rhode Island, with 18 points each.

Ranked at the bottom in managing absentee voting are California, with just 2 points, Nevada with 3, and Washington with 4.

“Americans need and deserve a transparent system in which fraud can be easily detected and false allegations of fraud can be easily dispelled,” Heritage’s Election Integrity Scorecard website says.

The website notes that the right to vote is sacred and has faced numerous challenges throughout history, with the biggest current challenge being the integrity of the vote:

The fight for the right to vote is a storied part of America’s heritage. From the revolutionary cry of ‘no taxation without representation,’ to the marches of the suffragettes, to the struggle against Jim Crow laws, America’s successful efforts to expand and defend the right to vote are some of our nation’s greatest triumphs. …

Thankfully, we now live in a time when no serious person would dare to claim that any group of people should be denied the right to vote based on their race, sex, or any other immutable characteristic. But celebrating that triumph does not mean that the fight to defend the vote is finished. Our fight today is to preserve the integrity of each vote against fraudulent attempts to erase it.

 

*****

This article was published on December 14, 2021, and is reproduced with permission from The Daily Signal.

How Much Did Arabella’s Center for Secure and Modern Elections Undermine the 2020 Election?

Estimated Reading Time: 4 minutes

Part of an ongoing CRC investigation into how the Left twisted the 2020 election

The Left’s top “dark money” network was highly active in manipulating the 2020 election to elect Democrats and defeat President Donald Trump. That network, run by the shadowy consulting firm Arabella Advisors, was recently exposed by the Capital Research Center for raking in a staggering $1.7 billion in 2020 alone—and $4.7 billion since 2006.

But unseating Trump was only one of Arabella’s goals last year. Others—like passing automatic voter registration laws, mail-in voting, and weaker penalties for falsifying voter registration applications—were the target of one of Arabella’s most sinister fronts, the Center for Secure and Modern Elections (CSME).

CSME Origins

Exactly when the center was established is uncertain, but its origins date back at least to 2016, when it was the focus of an election panel for politically active grantmakers hosted by the Funders Committee for Civic Participation.

CSME seems to have started as “the Cities Project,” according to some older grant reports. It’s a joint project run by the New Venture Fund, Arabella’s $975 million flagship 501(c)(3), and the Sixteen Thirty Fund, Arabella’s 501(c)(4) lobbying shop. That means that all donations to the center are really donations to Arabella’s nonprofits, which aren’t even mentioned on the CSME website. It also means that the center doesn’t file public Form 990 reports with the IRS, keeping its exact finances a secret.

We’ve traced grants to both Arabella hosts to fund CSME from the leftist Bauman Foundation, which is tied to the Democracy Alliance; eBay founder Pierre Omidyar’s Democracy Fund and Democracy Fund Voice ($1 million); the Blaustein Fund ($200,000); the mysterious pass-though Wellspring Philanthropic Fund ($1 million) to expand mail-in voting; and the Joyce Foundation, where then-Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) was once a board member.

The Joyce Foundation’s $600,000 grant was meant to help CSME support “elections jurisdictions in WI [Wisconsin], MI [Michigan], MN [Minnesota], and OH [Ohio] for the November 2020 election,” all of which were targeted by Biden campaign after Trump unexpectedly flipped Wisconsin and Michigan in 2016 and came within 45,000 votes of winning Minnesota, a decades-old Democratic stronghold. The professional Left and Big Philanthropy were intent on not letting that happen again in 2020.

Working With Zuckerberg

We know that the center was actively working with the Center for Tech and Civic Life (CTCL) to effectively privatize the 2020 election in thousands of local elections offices nationwide. New Venture Fund’s latest Form 990 reveals a $25 million grant to CTCL. But where was it active?

In late 2020, CTCL—an obscure Chicago-based nonprofit run by Democratic Party digital campaign operatives—received $350 million from Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg. These grants were distributed to government elections offices as COVID-19 “relief funds” ostensibly to make voting safer. In reality, our reporting reveals partisan trends in CTCL’s grantmaking that favored Democratic cities in battleground states essential to a Biden victory.

A lawsuit filed by Louisiana Attorney General Jeff Landry in late 2020 accused CTCL of injecting “unregulated private money” into the state. CTCL’s communications with parish officials, Landry discovered, were facilitated by a local Democratic consultant and the then-obscure Center for Secure and Modern Elections.

A state judge shot down the lawsuit in late October, so Landry never made it to the discovery process. But we now know the Arabella-run center was actively aiding CTCL in a safe Republican state and warping the election in Wisconsin, Minnesota, Michigan, and Ohio—all of which received CTCL funds (exact amounts are unclear). Other documents suggest the center funded a campaign to track changes to voting laws brought on by COVID-19 ahead of the 2020 election.

Connecting CTCL, CSME, and NVHI

Ashish Sinha, a former Funders Committee for Civic Participation employee, was involved in an email chain between CTCL leadership, the National Vote at Home Institute (NVHI), and elections officials in Green Bay, Wisconsin. In the chain, they discussed the use of private drop boxes and “targeting communities” with absentee ballots in the coming 2020 election:

Why does this matter? Public record requests after the election revealed how Michael Spitzer-Rubinstein, a Vote at Home Institute staffer, practically ran Green Bay’s election as the city’s “de facto elections administrator” with access to its absentee ballots days before the election.

Spitzer-Rubinstein had access to four of the five keys to the ballroom where early ballots were stored and counted, and he even asked the city clerk to “cure” problematic absentee ballots. Green Bay “went rogue” under NVHI, in the words of the Brown County clerk. Green Bay also received $1.1 million from CTCL, the third-largest grant in Wisconsin.

Sam Oliker-Friedland, CSME’s chief counsel, previously worked for the digital campaign training group that birthed CTCL: the New Organizing Institute. We’ve documented its history here, but in short the now-defunct institute trained activists in registering voters and getting them to the polls in order to elect Democrats, earning it the Washington Post’s praise as “the Democratic Party’s Hogwarts for digital wizardry.” Three of the institute’s staffers—Whitney May, Tiana Epps-Johnson, and Donny Bridges—went on to found CTCL, where they perfected their craft to devastating effect in 2020.

The full extent of these three groups’ involvement in key states may never be known. But the evidence of their involvement in manipulating voting laws and election procedures behind the scenes is only growing.

Automatic Voter Registration Campaigns

CSME provides allies with model bill text for automatic voter registration, one of the Left’s longtime goals. Many Democratic groups (wrongly) believe that high turnout always helps Democrats, so focus on enacting bills to push voter registration on as many people as possible.

CSME has pushed automatic voter registration in ConnecticutOregonMaine, and Maryland.

It popped up again in a recently discovered, confidential “Statement of Work” contract for February–June 2020 between New Venture Fund and Dickinson & Avella PLLC, an Albany, New York-based political consultancy:

In partnership with Marc Solomon and the Center for Secure and Modern Elections (CSME) staff, represent New Venture Fund’s CSME project in support of Automatic Voter Registration and other provoter [sic] modernizations before the New York State Legislative, Executive and Administrative branches of government [emphasis added].

New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo (D) signed automatic voter registration into law in December.

Todd Shepherd, a reporter for the Pennsylvania-based Broad & Liberty, notes that Marc Solomon is a principal at Civitas Public Affairs, a nominally Republican-led consulting firm in Washington with clients that include the left-wing Voto Latino, Campaign Legal Center, Voter Participation Center . . . and Center for Secure and Modern Elections.

Solomon and his colleagues led the gay marriage campaigns of the early 2000s (Freedom to Marry) and seem to specialize in deception. I’ve documented Civitas’s role in secretly infiltrating the conservative movement with global warming, pro–carbon tax group practically run by its own staffers, most of whom come from far-left organizations.

*****

This article was published on December 1, 2021, and is reproduced with permission from Capital Research Center.

Court Rules Arizona Can Scrap Unsigned Ballots After Polls Close

Estimated Reading Time: 2 minutes

(The Center Square) – A federal appellate court has flipped a lower court’s ruling, saying Arizona poll workers aren’t required to let a voter sign their ballot days after polls have closed.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals overturned a lower court ruling that said it’s unconstitutional to allow voters to fix problematic signatures but not unsigned ballots.

The appellate court sided with the Republican Party of Arizona and others over the state Democratic Party and its allies.

The 2-1 decision said getting a voter to sign a ballot after polls close poses a burden on poll workers when they are at their busiest.

“The panel held that…the State had an important regulatory interest in reducing the administrative burden on poll workers, especially during the busy days immediately following an election. In light of the minimal burden on the voter to sign the affidavit or to correct a missing signature by election day, the State’s interest sufficiently justified the election-day deadline,” the opinion said.

Most Arizona voters cast their ballots by mail, something that’s been allowed since 1991. In the 2020 General Election, 2.5 million voters cast their ballots by mail.

The dissenting judge said the state “offered no rational explanation for requiring ballots missing signatures to be cured by election day, given the five-day post-election cure period for correcting other similar mistakes.”

The challenge stems from a 2019 law that required county elections officials to give voters five days to remedy a mismatched signature. Republican Attorney General Mark Brnovich refused to approve a change to election rules proposed by Secretary of State Katie Hobbs that would have allowed the same grace period for missing signatures in the 2020 election.

The Democratic Party has yet to announce an appeal, which would likely be in the form of an en banc hearing by the same appellate court.

*****

This article was published on December 9, 2021, and is reproduced with permission from The Center Square.

The Left-Progressive Machine in Indian Country: Election Day

Estimated Reading Time: 3 minutes

The Left-Progressive Machine in Indian Country, 2020 Election (full series)
Election Day | Nationwide Organizational Structures
Arizona, Nevada, Wisconsin, and California | Beyond 2020

 

Summary: Left-of-center nonprofit organizations played a pivotal role in augmenting Native American turnout on and off reservations to seal Joe Biden’s victory over President Trump in the 2020 presidential election. This constellation of Native American nonprofits that supercharged the Native American vote appears to be part of a larger left-wing political machine designed to skew elections to the left. Left-wing Native American nonprofits and organizations are working to increase their influence in redistricting after the 2020 Census and the 2022 midterm elections.

 

Shortly after CNN called the 2020 presidential election for Joe Biden on the afternoon of November 4, 2020, on-air commentator and former Obama administration official Van Jones read off the names of several nonprofit organizations he thought helped pave the way for Biden’s victory. While the untrained eye may think this was normal, Jones was oddly specific, glancing down at a notecard on the desk as he said the :

You see those little blue dots in Arizona? Those are Native American Reservations. The Native American community played a tremendous role—the Native Organizers Alliance, the Inter-Tribal Council. . . . These are groups that expect to be treated with respect. They are responsible for the victory.”

While Jones had mentioned prominent left-of-center Hispanic get-out-the-vote (GOTV) organizations earlier in the broadcast, it seemed peculiar that he had a list of nonprofit names ready to read on air once the results came in.

In the 2020 election, the Native American vote may have had the greatest impact in Arizona. Native American organizations were quite active in Nevada and in several instances appear to have violated election laws. Credit: Cenglish. Public Domain.

Investigation into Native Organizers Alliance (NOA) financial records explains why Jones mentioned them by name on November 4. The left-of-center Alliance for a Just Society reported a $842,921 program expense in 2020 in support of NOA, which it says heavily influenced historic Native American turnout and other programmatic expenses.

Oddly enough, the national press’s coverage of Native American activism in the election was not limited to Democratic insiders like Jones or to discussions of Arizona and Nevada. Much like the Time piece about the operatives who schemed “to save” the 2020 election from Donald Trump, John Nichols of The Nation recognized the NCAI’s Native Vote as one of the most important organizations behind Biden’s victory in Wisconsin, emphasizing the group’s efforts to boost Democratic turnout in Menominee County. According to The New Republic, Menominee County shares borders with the Menominee Indian Reservation and experienced the greatest swing to the Democratic Party in all Wisconsin, with voters casting 82 percent of their ballots for Joe Biden (up from 78.4 percent for Hillary Clinton in 2016). HuffPost emphasized Biden may not have flipped Arizona without Native American voters and noted that Democratic National Committee Chairman Tom Perez met with Navajo Nation President Tom Perez earlier in 2020.

Press coverage of the Native American vote as a key voting bloc that would propel the Democrats to victory over President Trump appeared as early as 2019, when the Des Moines Register suggested that increasing turnout of historically Democratic-leaning Native American voters would help the Biden campaign overcome Hillary Clinton’s 2016 margins of defeat in key states such as Michigan, Wisconsin, Arizona, and North Carolina.

Predictably, on Election Day reports of record turnout across Indian Country in Arizona, Wisconsin, Nevada, and other locations trickled in alongside reports of potential fraud on Nevada reservations, but it was too late to address any nonprofit activities on the ground. Record turnout in Navajo Nation and parts of Wisconsin helped flip the two swing states in favor of Biden and hasten President Trump’s electoral demise. Shortly after the election, the New York Times was ready to identify the Native American activist nonprofits and the activists who were directly responsible for Joe Biden’s victory in Arizona.

If progressive activists like Van Jones and news reporters knew about various Native American nonprofit organizations and their plans at the national and state levels to increase Native American turnout on and off reservations, it begs some important questions: How ubiquitous and coordinated was the effort? Does this effort continue to the present day? And will Native American activists and other left-of-center nonprofit organizations replicate their electoral successes in the 2022 midterm election and the 2024 presidential election?

This piece examines the pivotal role that left-of-center nonprofit organizations played in augmenting Native American turnout on and off reservations to seal Joe Biden’s victory over President Trump in the 2020 presidential election. This constellation of Native American nonprofits that supercharged the Native American vote appear to be part of a larger left-wing political machine designed to skew elections to the left. As CRC has documented, the machine largely funds these partisan efforts with “dark money” funneled through nonprofits that are legally required to be nonpartisan. For example, in the 2020 presidential election Mark Zuckerberg and the Center for Technology and Civic Life (CTCL) played this role in numerous battleground states. Evidently, the pattern extends to Indian Country, a broad term for all “Native spaces and places within the United States,” not limited to reservations.

*****

This article was published on December 2, 2021, and is reproduced with permission from Capital Research Center.

 

Head of Wisconsin Election Probe Accuses Two Big-City Mayors of Cover-up, Stonewalling

Estimated Reading Time: 2 minutes

The former Wisconsin Supreme Court justice leading probe singled out mayors of Madison and Green Bay.

A former Wisconsin Supreme Court justice who is leading one of the investigations into the state’s 2020 elections says it’s clear to him there is a cover-up going on.

Former Justice Mike Gableman told the Assembly’s Committee on Elections on Wednesday that the state’s Elections Commission, its administrator, and the mayors of Madison and Green Bay have refused to answer any of his questions about the Mark Zuckerberg-funded Center for Tech and Civic Life, and continue to refuse to cooperate with the subpoenas issued in the case.

“[Green Bay Mayor] Eric Genrich and [Madison Mayor] Satya Rhodes-Conway have chosen to ignore the subpoenas issued by the Wisconsin Assembly because they have no intention of answering uncomfortable questions about what they did with the millions of dollars in Zuckerberg money that they took.”

Green Bay and Madison, along with Milwaukee, Racine, and Kenosha accepted nearly $9 million from the CTCL in 2020, ostensibly for coronavirus safety operations.

Gableman on Wednesday said the money, instead, went to a massive get out the vote operation in the state’s five largest, and most Democratic cities.

“Reasonable minds might wonder whether the millions of dollars each of these mayors received from the Zuckerbergs may have induced them to do something other than treat all candidates fairly and impartially. And whether those mayors used the Zuckerberg money to get out the vote for Joe Biden,” Gableman said.

Gableman said a lawsuit from the Wisconsin Elections Commission and the move by Green Bay’s mayor to “lawyer-up” tells him that the people involved with the CTCL money in Wisconsin, and involved in last year’s elections, don’t want those questions answered.

“They are trying to run and hide from accountability to the citizens they are supposed to serve,” Gableman told lawmakers. “Why go through all of this legal evasion, maneuvering, and expense unless they do not want the public to know what they have done?”

Gableman is facing a lawsuit from Wisconsin Attorney General Josh Kaul that seeks to stop his investigation. Specifically, it seeks to stop him from asking questions of Elections Commission administrator Meagan Wolfe. That case is due before a judge on December 23rd.

Gableman on Wednesday unveiled for the first time on Wednesday that he filed writs of attachment in Waukesha County Court against Genrich and Rhodes-Conway. A writ of attachment would allow the court to seize the documents and other pieces of evidence that Gableman is asking for in his investigation.

*****

This article was published on December 2, 2021, and is reproduced with permission from The Center Square.


Whistleblower Videos Capture Pennsylvania Election Officials Destroying Evidence

Estimated Reading Time: 5 minutes

A complaint alleges Pennslyvania election officials were tearing tapes ‘into pieces and placing … them into the trash stating they will have a campfire to burn the data.’

Several residents of Delaware County Pennsylvania filed a sprawling lawsuit Thursday against the former Secretary of State Kathy Boockvar, Delaware County, the Delaware County Board of Elections, and more than a dozen individual election officials. The lawsuit followed Wednesday’s night release of videotapes taken by a whistleblower capturing concerning behavior by several election officials in the Keystone state.

A source familiar with the lawsuit provided access to the tapes, noting the then-unnamed whistleblower had come forward with video evidence purporting to show Delaware County, Pennsylvania election officials destroying records from the November 2020 general election. The videos were also filed with the complaint and a bevy of exhibits the plaintiffs maintain support the allegations contained in their 91-page complaint.

The complaint, filed by Delaware County residents, Ruth Moton, Leah Hoopes, Gregory Stenstrom, as well as the Friends of Ruth Motion campaign, prevented both detailed alleged violations of state election law during the November 2020 election and claims of a conspiracy after the election to hide the numerous problems and illegalities that occurred during the last presidential election.

While the minutia of the election law recited in the complaint may escape the public’s notice, allegations that the defendants conspired to destroy or alter election data, materials, and equipment, “to prevent the discovery of the fraudulent results of the November 3, 2020 election, and the violation of various state and federal election laws,” when coupled with the videos, may finally awaken the sleeping masses to the cause of election integrity.

A May 21, 2021 request for 2020 election data and information submitted to Delaware County under Pennsylvania’s Right to Know Law served as an impetus for the alleged conspiracy and cover-up, as the complaint told the story.

A week later after the Right to Know request, a conversation is captured between two individuals, identified by those with knowledge of the lawsuit, as James Allen, the Director of Election Operations for Delaware County, and Jim Savage, identified by Delaware County’s directory as the Chief Custodian/Voting Machine Warehouse Supervisor.

In that video provided to The Federalist, Allen is heard telling Savage, “Then get rid of the pads and the second scanners.”

“We can’t talk about it anymore,” Savage replies, with Allen questioning, “Why?” “It’s a felony,” Allen countered.

The complaint added more texture to this video, alleging that Savage then “encouraged a private conversation to continue the conversation of the removal of the pads and scanners due to other Delaware County employees and [contract employee] Regina Miller,” being present.

The following month the whistleblower filmed a conversation she had with another Delaware County official, James Ziegelhoffer, according to a source with knowledge of the lawsuit. Ziegelhoffer, also known as Ziggy, held the position of “Judge of Election” for the Western Precinct in the Media Borough.

This tape purports to capture Ziggy saying, “What we have here . . . is evidence. Right? Let them figure that out.”

The whistleblower interjects, “Yes, but what I don’t understand and this makes — honestly this makes me nervous. Is why tapes were being thrown away?”

Ziggy begins to deny the claim, “No, no tapes were,” when the Whistleblower cuts him off:

“No, you guys have been throwing away tapes … so what tapes are you throwing away? Like why?”

“They’re all unidentifiable,” he counters before the whistleblower interrupts again:

“But it’s been that way since the November elections, so why would you throw anything away. Because you have to save it for 22 months,” the unnamed source is heard saying in the video, a reference to federal retention mandates.

“Yes there are tapes that are being tossed,” Ziggy finally acknowledges, but adds, “but they are of no audit value.”

A third video appears filmed in the same large room and captures a man identified by individuals with knowledge of the lawsuit as a Delaware County lawyer, Tom Gallager. As Gallager tears the tapes from the voting machines and discards them, the whistleblower can be heard asking: “Tom, why do you have to rip it up? Makes you feel better?”

“At this point,” Gallager replies, “I don’t want anybody to pick it up, and thinking we threw stuff away.”

“We’re gonna have a little campfire going,” Ziggy adds.

Several allegations in the complaint mesh with this video as well, with the plaintiffs alleging Delaware County layer, Tom Gallagher, and Ziegelhofer “set up a long table full of November 3, 2020, election data, and selectively destroyed the machines/proof tapes along with other November 3, 2020 records by tearing it into pieces and placing [it] into the trash stating they will have a campfire to burn the data.”

“Regina Miller became nervous” the complaint continues, alleging that Miller “informed the pair that they were violating numerous state and federal laws.” According to the complaint, Ziegelhoffer justified his actions by claiming “there was no audit value” to the November 3, 2020, election data.

Miller, who was a contract employee with Monarch Staffing, also claimed that in July of 2021, Allen threatened to consider a complaint taken to anyone else but him, as a “second and final violation of chain of command.” The complaint further alleged that Savage “told Regina Miller that he would have someone killed if he was ever betrayed by someone at work and described a story that he heard regarding someone from the county that someone “ratted on.”

Attempts to speak with Allen proved unsuccessful, with an administrative assistant stating he was in a meeting, but agreeing to convey my media request to him. Allen did not return my call. A call to Savage went unanswered and the County also ignored requests for comments from the gentlemen along with Gallager and Ziegelhoffer.

After detailing the purported violations of election law and the alleged destruction of election records and the claimed conspiracy, the complaint presented five legal theories for recovery, with Count I for common law fraud, Count II for fraudulent misrepresentation, Count III for negligent misrepresentation, Count IV for a claim for common law quo warranto, which apparently is a Pennsylvania claim for fraud related to elections and Count V for Mandamus and Equitable Relief.

While, if true, the allegations seem to scream of violations of the law, none of the claims alleged seem a close fit to the facts proffered to the court in the complaint. Also troubling is grasping the remedy the plaintiffs seek.

Typically money damages are awarded for fraud, but how do you monetize the harm to a voter when he is disenfranchised by election officials who counted illegal or fraudulent votes? Similarly, what court order (or mandamus) or other injunction could make the plaintiffs whole again.

The litigation, however, may have served another purpose: To highlight what the plaintiffs believe were widespread violations of state and federal election law and to expose the alleged conspiracy to cover up those problems, and thereby prevent a repeat in future elections.

Still, the videos may not be enough for those so blinded by their distaste for Trump that they cannot see the real threat to our democracy: elections without integrity and an electorate unable to trust the official outcome.

*****

This article was published on November 19, 2021, and is reproduced with permission from The Federalist.

Georgia Governor Orders Probe Into ‘sloppy’ November 2020 Vote Counts in Fulton County

Estimated Reading Time: 2 minutes

Brian Kemp says some audited results from state’s largest county are “inconsistent” and erroneous. One count of 950 votes for Biden actually appears to be just 92.

In a rare act for a state chief executive, Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp has referred the audited November 2020 election results in the state’s largest voting metropolis to the State Election Board after multiple reviews found significant problems with absentee ballot counting that included duplicate tallies, math errors and transposed data.

The errors could have skewed the audit totals reported to the state by several thousand votes, according to a 36-item summary Kemp included with his letter. Biden was declared the state’s winner by about 12,000 votes.

“The data that exists in public view on the Secretary of State’s website of the RLA Report does not inspire confidence,” he wrote in his referral letter. “It is sloppy, inconsistent, and presents questions about what processes were used by Fulton County to arrive at the result.”

Kemp’s referral comes several months after a Just the News investigative report first raised questions about the audited election tallies Fulton County reported to Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger’s office after conducting a hand count known a risk-limiting audit.

Just the News reported the tally sheets Fulton County used for the audit/recount absentee ballots did not match totals from ballot images, in some cases appeared to include duplicate counts, and used batch numbers that did not correspond to existing ballot stacks.

A separate review conducted by Georgia lawyer Bob Cheeley, likewise, found irregularities this summer.

The referral to the State Elections Board is likely to add fuel to Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger’s push to place Fulton County elections into state receivership, meaning state officials and not county workers would supervise the next few elections.                   

Kemp wrote he first learned of the problems when a Georgia citizen named Joseph Rossi compared the audit tally sheets to ballot images, and found similar problems as those enumerated in the Just the News article.

Rossi recently referred his concerns to Kemp’s office, which did a similar analysis and confirmed there appeared to be serious errors in the final audited tallies Fulton County reported to the state.

For instance, one batch of ballots that awarded 93 votes to Biden and just four for Trump “appears to be duplicated” on the final report to the state, the letter said….

*****

Continuer reading this article, published November 19, 2021, at Just the News.

How Important Are Illegal Immigrants to Elections?

Estimated Reading Time: < 1 minute

In 2012, what portion of non-citizens in the U.S. were registered to vote in violation of laws that prohibit non-citizens from voting in U.S. elections?

What do you think?  One percent, five percent, maybe 10%.  Maybe enough for election integrity laws?

The correct answer is a whopping 20%?

Laws in all 50 states generally forbid non-citizens from registering to vote in federal elections, but enforcement mechanisms are limited, and the vast bulk of illegal immigrants have fake IDs that can be used to register. Thus, a 2012 Harvard/YouGov survey revealed that 14% of non-citizens stated they were registered to vote, and 9% stated they “definitely voted” in the 2012 U.S. presidential election. In addition, database matches with consumer and voting records showed that 22% of non-citizens in the database were registered to vote, and 12% voted in the 2012 U.S. presidential election. The margin of sampling error for these results is plus-or-minus 4 percentage points with at least 95% confidence. Other surveys conducted in 2008, 2010, and 2013 found similar voter registration and voting levels among non-citizens. So-called “fact-checkers” have tried to dismiss these facts by quoting the opinions of selected “experts,” which are debunked at the 2nd and 3rd links below.

Documentation:

*****
This article is adapted from Just Facts Daily on November 5, 2021, and is reproduced with permission.
COPYRIGHT © 2022 PRICKLY PEAR COMMUNICATIONS, LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.