Arguments over this year’s vote in Pennsylvania continue to rage, but one critical aspect deserves more attention: the millions of dollars that flowed from the family of Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg into the state’s election offices. The cash first went to a supposedly “nonpartisan” nonprofit called the Center for Tech and Civic Life (CTCL), which then re-granted the money to local election offices in dozens of counties in Pennsylvania and thousands more election offices across America.
Read our groundbreaking CTCL reporting on Georgia, North Carolina, Arizona and Nevada, and Michigan and Wisconsin.
We at the Capital Research Center are analyzing the effects of Zuckerberg’s $350 million investment state by state. We first examined the funding in Georgia, and our report was so shocking that the Georgia Senate asked me to testify about it. Lawyers for the Donald Trump campaign included the report in their legal briefs in Georgia, and Tucker Carlson invited me on Fox News to discuss the controversy.
Now we’ve crunched the numbers for Pennsylvania, and the partisan outcomes are just as stark as Georgia’s. Admittedly, we don’t know every detail of what happened because CTCL has not disclosed the funding. CTCL has been asked by the New York Times, the Associated Press, the New Yorker, National Public Radio, and more, to no avail.
This stonewalling is especially obnoxious because federal law requires CTCL to disclose on its annual filings with the IRS all grants of $5,000 or more to government entities. But the clever partisans at CTCL know that their filing for 2020 grants can be kept in the dark until a year from now, and “dark money” is what powers CTCL’s heavy thumb on election scales across the nation.
(CTCL’s leaders are partisans of the first rank, as documented in InfluenceWatch’s write-ups of CTCL and the New Organizing Institute, which spawned the founders and leaders of CTCL. The Washington Post even called the New Organizing Institute “the Democratic Party’s Hogwarts for digital wizardry.” In addition, the New Organizing Institute’s old website mouths exactly the same platitudes as CTCL and likewise rarely mentions the political party whose turnout it strains every muscle to boost.)
All Politics Is Local
The one thing CTCL has done is list the local governments they’ve funded, though without disclosing the dollar amounts. So we at Capital Research Center have examined that list, as well as news databases and local government reports, to put together the picture revealed here. We think these numbers won’t change much when the full truth comes out because we’ve found grant amounts for most large jurisdictions in the Keystone State. And we have another reason to think the partisan results we found in Pennsylvania won’t change significantly with the remaining data: The population of Trump-won counties for whom we lack specific grant amounts is less than half the population of Biden-won counties with unknown grant amounts.
When CTCL decides to come in from the dark and let the public see their data, we’ll update our reports promptly.
Meanwhile, consider that the IRS prohibits a 501(c)(3) nonprofit like CTCL from “voter education or registration activities” that “have the effect of favoring a candidate.” Yet these skewed numbers indicate that CTCL’s work in Pennsylvania was clearly designed to favor the Democratic candidate.
- CTCL funded slightly more counties won by President Trump (13) than by Vice President Biden (11).
- Statewide, Biden won only 13 of Pennsylvania’s 67 counties, so CTCL funded 85 percent of Biden counties, compared to 24 percent of Trump counties.
- A Biden-winning county was over three-and-a-half times more likely to be funded by CTCL than a Trump-winning county.
- Biden won six counties across the state that delivered him 100,000 or more votes. CTCL funded 100 percent of those six.
- Trump won four counties that delivered him 100,000 votes or more. CTCL funded 75 percent of them (three of four).
- We have data on the grant amounts received by 13 of the 24 counties CTCL funded. All five of the highest-funded counties were won by Biden. By contrast, four of the five least funded counties were won by Trump.
- Even those numbers understate the funding disparity. A more accurate picture arises when we compare the funding per capita: Trump counties received an average of $0.59 per capita, while Biden counties averaged $2.93 per capita—over five times more funding per capita.
- No Biden county received less than $0.55 per capita; the least-funded Trump county received $0.18.
- The most richly funded Biden county (Philadelphia) received $6.32 for every man, woman, and child, compared to a mere $1.12 for the most richly funded Trump county (Berks).
- In fact, for every voter who cast a ballot in Philadelphia county, the Democratic election officials there received $13.60.
- When we compare the presidential vote in 2020 to 2016 numbers, we find that in the 24 counties CTCL funded, 266,000 more votes were cast in 2020 for the Republican candidate and 460,000 more for the Democrat candidate. That partisan difference of about 194,000 votes is more than double Biden’s official victory margin for the entire state (80,555 votes).
- Looking at this increased turnout in percentage terms, we find the median increase in Republican votes in all 24 counties CTCL funded was +17 percent in 2020 over 2016. The median increase in Democratic votes was +27 percent.
- One final disparity: CTCL-funded counties supplied 79 percent of Biden’s total Pennsylvania votes, compared to 60 percent of Trump’s total Pennsylvania votes.
Votes and Liquor
Seasoned election observers went into November saying that Pennsylvania was a critical swing state for the presidential election and that Philadelphia would be ground zero for the Democratic candidate’s hopes. CTCL partisans knew this too, and their investments in Pennsylvania show it.
Now the question is whether the Pennsylvania state legislature will continue to allow out-of-state billionaires to distort the state’s elections, or will they follow other states and ban private funding of elections? Ironically, Pennsylvania has loudly debated for years whether to privatize liquor sales. Yet no one said a word when a Big Tech billionaire decided to privatize an election.