Connect with us

Politics

Opinion: 'Zuckerbucks' make elections more secure, no matter what red states say

Published

on

Opinion: 'Zuckerbucks' make elections more secure, no matter what red states say

Democracy isn’t free.

Tell that to the more than half the states that have banned or limited donations to the roughly 8,000 county and municipal offices that run our elections.

Opinion Columnist

Jackie Calmes

Jackie Calmes brings a critical eye to the national political scene. She has decades of experience covering the White House and Congress.

Advertisement

The beleaguered public servants who make it possible for us to cast ballots, whether for school boards or the presidency, are already woefully underfinanced. Now the Big Lie that won’t die — that the 2020 election was stolen from Donald Trump — is making that underfunding worse.

Red (and reddish) states have bought into the obnoxiously dubbed “Zuckerbucks” conspiracy, a far-right falsehood that in 2020, Mark Zuckerberg and his wife Priscilla Chan funneled hundreds of millions of dollars to election offices not for the stated reason — to pay for costly protections against COVID-19 — but to help Democrats win. (Just how they supposedly achieved that the conspiracists don’t say.)

Election offices’ need for the money is evident from coast to coast. A 2021 study by the MIT Election Data and Science Lab found that the U.S. investment in our voting system falls “near the bottom of spending for public services, ranking at approximately the same levels as spending by local governments to maintain parking facilities.”

Advertisement

Yet maintaining parking lots isn’t anything like contending with the complexity and costs of modernizing and securing voting machines; investing in better ballot counting and voter registration technology; staffing and running polling centers; combating disinformation, AI scams and cyberattacks, and protecting against the threats of violence that have become a fact of life for election officials and their staffs in the Trump years.

Despite the crying needs of voting administrators, 28 states — 22 red ones and six swing states — have prohibited or restricted philanthropic funding for their election offices since 2020. Of those, only Pennsylvania paired its ban with offsetting state funds. It’s a double-whammy: no private money, yet skimpy public funds. As much as we might prefer that our elections aren’t subsidized by private interests, if states aren’t going to pony up more public dollars, let the charity flow.

States and local governments have historically had the most responsibility for voting under our decentralized election system, and the federal government chips in pitifully little. Yet MAGA Republicans in Congress want to get in on the anti-Zuckerbucks craze and extend the ban on election-administration donations nationwide. As early as next month, the House could vote on an “election integrity” package thats anything but, and which includes a so-called End Zuckerbucks Act.

Fortunately, if it were to pass in the House, the bill would almost certainly be buried in the Senate. But that still leaves the state bans in effect across wide swaths of the country — including such pivotal and hotly contested states as Pennsylvania, Arizona, Wisconsin and Georgia.

“What we’ve seen is not only is there not an investment in election departments in a way that ultimately will make them successful and keep our election process secure, but also a really concerted effort to cut off other avenues” of support, Tiana Epps-Johnson, executive director of the nonprofit Center for Tech and Civic Life, told me.

Advertisement

The center, whose mission is to promote election modernization and civic engagement, distributed most of the $420 million that Zuckerberg and Chan donated in 2020. The grants went to more than 2,500 government entities in nearly every state and Washington, D.C. — every election office that applied. The nonprofit Center for Election Innovation and Research doled out the rest.

To put the Zuckerberg-Chan gift in perspective, it was nearly eight times greater than the $55 million that the federal government is providing to election offices this year. The grants, as advertised, mostly paid for COVID-response measures necessary to safely conduct the 2020 elections: to buy masks and other personal protective equipment, supply and handle many more mail-in ballots, hire and train additional staff and reach out to wary voters.

But the funds covered other expenses as well: In Clark County, Nev., home to Las Vegas, election administrators used grant money to order in meals for vote counters who feared going outside because of the armed protesters there, according to Epps-Johnson. And some offices used the donated funds to build ramps and make other adjustments for disabled voters, finally putting their facilities in compliance with the three-decades-old Americans with Disabilities Act.

Local officials welcomed the help, of course. But state and national Republican groups took to the courts and the Federal Election Commission, alleging an illegal conspiracy to give Democrats an election advantage. The usually polarized FEC, evenly divided between Republican and Democratic commissioners, voted unanimously in mid-2022 against every complaint, finding “no reason to believe” the allegations against Zuckerberg, Chan and the nonprofits.

In fact, the Republican complainants lost everywhere except one place: Republican-controlled state legislatures. Politicians, unlike the courts and the FEC, aren’t constrained by truth and facts. The nonprofits dispersing Zuckerberg and Chan money “effectively commandeered the machinery of the actual elections,” Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis lied in 2022, hailing a law he signed banning private grants and making other election changes stemming from conspiracy theories.

Advertisement

What’s confounding is that Republicans arguably are short-changing themselves in short-changing election offices. Their base of rural and working class voters could be especially inconvenienced — and perhaps dissuaded from voting — by fewer polling places and ballot drop boxes, for example, and by restrictions on early voting and voting by mail. A coalition of voter advocacy groups and election administrators is pressing Congress now for $400 million, pretty much matching what they once got from Zuckerberg. Yet the MAGA-fied House is unlikely to be receptive.

Yes, democracy isn’t free. Then again, we’ve learned the hard way: Republicans aren’t invested in democracy.

@jackiekcalmes

Advertisement

Politics

ActBlue CEO faces June 10 grilling after fundraising powerhouse allegedly misled Congress on foreign donations

Published

on

ActBlue CEO faces June 10 grilling after fundraising powerhouse allegedly misled Congress on foreign donations

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

FIRST ON FOX: The embattled head of a Democratic fundraising behemoth is headed for a congressional grilling next month over allegations of fraudulent donations on its platform.

ActBlue’s CEO Regina Wallace-Jones will testify in a public hearing before the House Administration Committee on June 10, a committee spokesman told Fox News Digital. 

Wallace-Jones’ agreement to testify comes as ActBlue faces mounting scrutiny over whether it misled Congress regarding foreign donations on its payment processing platform.

“Ms. Wallace-Jones allegedly misled our committee at the outset of our investigation into ActBlue’s fraud prevention standards,” House Administration Committee Chairman Bryan Steil, R-Wis., said in a statement. “It’s past time we set the record straight and got answers for the American people. I look forward to hearing her testify.”

Advertisement

House Administration Committee Chairman Bryan Steil, R-Wis., holds a press conference in Washington, D.C., on Oct. 10, 2025. (Anna Rose Layden/Getty Images)

DEM FUNDRAISING GIANT ACTBLUE ROCKED BY ALLEGATIONS IT MISLED CONGRESS ABOUT FOREIGN DONATIONS

The statement referenced an explosive report in The New York Times earlier this year that said ActBlue’s then-outside counsel warned Wallace-Jones in 2023 the group may have misrepresented facts to Steil’s committee about its vetting of potentially illegal foreign donations.

Under U.S. law, foreign nationals who are not lawful permanent residents are generally prohibited from donating to candidates seeking federal office or political action committees.

Steil previously requested that Wallace-Jones testify before his committee on May 19. The invitation was met with outrage from ActBlue’s lawyers, who dismissed the committee action as a “partisan attack.”

Advertisement

But Republicans have pointed to documents that ActBlue has allegedly withheld in response to subpoenas issued in 2025, which Steil has characterized as “deliberately incomplete.”

All five current or former ActBlue employees who appeared in depositions with the committee invoked their Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination a combined 146 times, according to an interim staff report released in April by House Republicans.

ActBlue CEO Regina Wallace-Jones, a delegate from California, wears a U.S.-flag themed outfit ahead of the Democratic National Convention at the United Center in Chicago, Ill., on Aug. 19, 2024.

TEXAS AG PAXTON SUES DEM FUNDRAISING PLATFORM ACTBLUE, ALLEGING ‘FRAUDULENT AND FOREIGN DONATIONS’

The House Administration Committee has been probing ActBlue’s fraud prevention safeguards since 2023, when Steil’s panel investigated the group’s failure to require credit card verification value (CVV) when processing payments.

Advertisement

“Given ActBlue’s demonstrated history of misleading Congress, there is considerable reason to believe that ActBlue may have deliberately withheld this responsive material to impede our investigation,” Steil and House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer, R-Ky., and House Judiciary Chairman Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, wrote in a letter to Wallace-Jones in April.

In the letter, the senior Republicans also directed ActBlue to produce a trove of documents related to its vetting of political contributions from abroad.

Wallace-Jones has denied making false statements to Congress. The group’s lawyers have previously characterized the investigation as politically motivated and contended that ActBlue has been forthright with the committee.

Amid the GOP scrutiny, ActBlue has experienced a wave of resignations from senior legal and compliance staff.

An election countdown calendar hangs at the ActBlue fundraising office in Somerville, Mass. (Jessica Rinaldi/The Boston Globe via Getty Images)

Advertisement

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

The June hearing notice immediately follows the House Administration Committee advancing legislation to crack down on fraudulent political donations, including illegal contributions from foreigners. The campaign finance measure cleared Steil’s panel unanimously on Thursday. 

“It’s a positive sign that people are beginning to take this risk and this threat seriously,” the Wisconsin Republican told Spectrum News.

Continue Reading

Politics

The Steyer campaign pays influencers. Their posts don’t always make that clear

Published

on

The Steyer campaign pays influencers. Their posts don’t always make that clear

In recent weeks, several social media influencers have popped up in online feeds touting the California gubernatorial campaign of billionaire Democrat Tom Steyer.

Some complain about the price of gasoline. Others mention environmental concerns. One cites her newfound sobriety as evidence that people can change — a nod to Steyer’s self-proclaimed metamorphosis from hedge fund titan to scourge of big corporations.

“I did not expect the most progressive governor candidate to be a billionaire, but look at the policies you guys,” said one content creator on TikTok with the user name Jaz R. “Hear me out. I know Tom Steyer is a billionaire, but he also is for the people.”

The posts include direct-to-the-camera appeals, with personal details interwoven into messages of support for Steyer. An influencer goes for a stroll as onscreen text touts Steyer’s policies. Some seek to convey authenticity, if occasionally ham-fistedly; one influencer mispronounces Steyer’s last name.

Advertisement

What they do not include is a disclosure that their creators were paid by the Steyer campaign to produce the videos, according to a complaint filed this week with California’s Fair Political Practices Commission and a Times review of the posts.

The complaint alleges that the Steyer campaign failed to notify the influencers it hired of their obligation to inform their audience when their posts have been sponsored by the campaign.

California passed a law in 2023 requiring that influencers disclose if they have been paid to create promotional content for or against a candidate or ballot measure, one of the few jurisdictions in the country with such a requirement. There is no such requirement at the federal level.

“Every time there’s a new technology, you have to create legislation that requires them to disclose,” said state Sen. Tom Umberg (D-Orange), who sponsored the bill.

Violating the law doesn’t carry criminal, civil or administrative penalties, but the FPPC can take influencers who break the law to court and ask a judge to force them to comply.

Advertisement

The complaint was filed by two California women — political influencers themselves — who said they noticed a number of new accounts that suddenly started posting similar-sounding videos promoting Steyer earlier this month.

“They had the exact same language, they had the same talking points,” said Beatrice Gomberg, who worked with Kaitlyn Hennessy in their digital sleuthing efforts.

The FPPC did not comment on the complaint.

Steyer’s campaign appears to have relied on paid influencers more than any candidate for governor, according to the most recent campaign finance filings.

That spending represents only a small fraction of the massive campaign war chest Steyer has seeded with nearly $180 million of his own money. But the complaint highlights the growing degree to which political candidates have come to seek out the authenticity that social media influencers seem to offer.

Advertisement

Steyer campaign spokesperson Kevin Liao said the campaign had properly followed the rules in hiring influencers and that the campaign is “confident” that Gomberg and Hennessy’s complaint is “baseless.”

“Creators make their living generating content. The campaign believes in compensating people for their time and work product and has paid creators to generate content,” Liao said in a statement. “Payments for creator content are disclosed in campaign finance reports, and we notify creators we directly work with of their disclosure requirements.”

While many of the new Steyer influencers have few followers, Steyer’s campaign disclosed in its most recent campaign finance report that it had paid thousands of dollars to numerous social media influencers with massive audiences, the Sacramento Bee reported.

Several of the videos produced by these popular social media personalities also failed to disclose that they had been paid by the campaign, according to the complaint and The Times’ review of the content.

But even accounts with few followers can still have a big impact if they are producing a steady stream of content supporting Steyer, said veteran California political strategist Mike Madrid.

Advertisement

“What they’re trying to do is trip the algorithm,” he said. “It looks like it has a bigger audience than it really does. It’s taking the concept of astroturfing into the digital age.”

Gomberg and Hennessy said they became friends after meeting at an April campaign event for Xavier Becerra, Steyer’s chief Democratic rival in the race, who holds a narrow advantage over Steyer in several recent political polls.

The pair have been prolific social media supporters of Becerra’s campaign ever since, though they insist they are not being paid for their efforts.

They said they discovered that many of the new pro-Steyer accounts seemed to be run by influencers — mostly women — who had previously created different social media accounts to hawk other products.

One of the pro-Steyer influencers had an online portfolio listing numerous clients, including the Steyer campaign and a gummy designed to boost arousal, according to the complaint and the Times review of the publicly accessible website.

Advertisement

The pair said they stumbled on an advertisement placed by a vendor for the campaign on a platform used by creators to find work. The advertisement indicated that creators would be paid $10 for each post, with bonuses for posts that amassed large viewership.

The vendor who posted the ad did not respond to a request for comment.

The advertisement has since been updated to say that it pays $1,000 per month and that creators will have to disclose that it is paid content.

As Gomberg and Hennessy dug deeper, they determined that some of the influencers promoting a candidate for governor weren’t even based in California.

A TikTok account using the handle jess.votes, for example, appears to be connected to a woman registered to vote in Florida. Other accounts were connected to women who indicated elsewhere that they were based in Pennsylvania, Missouri and Michigan.

Advertisement

Several influencers who created seemingly paid content promoting Steyer did not respond to multiple requests for comment from The Times.

The brouhaha over paid social media content is just the latest instance of the growing political impact of online creators.

Eric Swalwell’s campaign for governor — and congressional career — came to an end after multiple women accused him of sexual assault. A pair of influencers had publicly raised concerns about Swalwell’s behavior and helped connect victims with journalists who produced highly detailed reports of the allegations.

The California law requires influencers to disclose in a political post’s audio or text that it was sponsored and who paid for it.

The onus is on the creators to make the disclosure, but campaigns are required to tell them that they must do so. Despite passage of the law, the issue has so far remained largely under the radar.

Advertisement

“I have dozens of candidates and campaigns and I have not heard this issue come up one time,” said a campaign finance lawyer who requested anonymity because they represent numerous candidates with active campaigns.

Gomberg and Hennessy said that they were driven to call attention to potential violations of the disclosure requirements because of their concern about the corrosive influence such paid content could have if left unchecked.

“You have people who have trust in these creators,” Hennessy said. “You have a responsibility to your audience.”

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Politics

Video: Why Were These C.E.O.s in Beijing With Trump?

Published

on

Video: Why Were These C.E.O.s in Beijing With Trump?

new video loaded: Why Were These C.E.O.s in Beijing With Trump?

Some of America’s most powerful C.E.O.s accompanied President Trump to Beijing during his summit with President Xi Jinping of China. Our reporter Ana Swanson explains what they were hoping to gain from the trip.

By Ana Swanson, Nour Idriss, Nikolay Nikolov and James Surdam

May 15, 2026

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending