A new controversy hits the President of the United States of America Joe Biden. According to an analysis by The New York Post, a conservative tabloid controlled by businessman Rupert Murdoch, Mark Zuckerberg He was going to pay $419 million into the account of some nonprofit to influence the presidential vote.
sponsor Facebook social networking site He ended up in the lens of the New York Post. Accusation of journalistic investigation is After you influenced the presidential vote year 2020 For Joe Biden In the White House race against Donald Trump.
Specifically, through Chan Zuckerberg initiative, an organization led by Priscilla Chan, Mark Zuckerberg’s wife, that the money has been paid to two non-profit organizations: According to the NYP, Technology and Civic Life Center (CTCL) and Center for Innovation and Research in Elections (CEIR) will receive an amount 419 million dollars By the company controlled by the Zuckerberg family.
By doing so, the two organizations would have stipulated a presidential vote, increasing the margin of consensus for Joe Biden in key states such as Georgia NS Arizona; Where the two opponents actually fought until the last vote. In Georgia and Arizona, the Democratic candidate won 12,000 and 10,000 votes, respectively.
The Technology and Civic Life Center (CTCL) and Center Innovation and Research in Elections (CEIR), are two non-profit organizations that aim to facilitate the democratic electoral process.
CTCL in particular is a group of civic professionals, electoral and administrative experts, researchers, and data experts working to promote a more informed and engaged democracy and to help modernize US elections.
With the amount received from Zuckerberg’s family, they could have infiltrated people close to Democrats in election offices, and promoted practices, such as voting by mail, that would have led to Favorite vote for Joe Biden.
The party finance system in the United States of America
Before Bush came in 2000, the practice of party financing was largely advertising Privilege to the public, there was some form of public funding for the parties: Ronald Reagan I have used this method purely. The issue could have arisen over funding, so to speak, not quite systematically, by lobbyists and/or individuals, but in legal practice, public funding has been the norm.
with the George Bush’s rise to power In the White House in the first decade of the twenty-first century Things are starting to change. George Bush decided to start a public fundraising campaign, with the first contributions sent by the so-called “small donors“: Small donations from citizens.
Surrounding himself with early pioneers, Bush employed theorists in developing this financial technology that was based on the development of an intranet in the country.
With Barack Obama Things have changed completely. Obama rejected the money from public funding and opted for an online fundraising bell: taxpayers could pay money using the web.
but it’s one Supreme Court ruling 2010 American on the case United Citizens Which authorized private financing: This sentence allowed the use of, plus buck, I Super Buck without worrying about spending ceilings; Funding has no limits.
What are PACs?
I Political Action Committee They are committees created specifically to raise money to fund it and try to elect a political candidate.
a lot of buck They represent the funds collected by interest groups and stakeholders, who, by spending money, try to influence electoral processes on the basis of their own interests, economic or ideological.
all buck Then it must be registered in FEC (Federal Election Commission), the institutional body that registers the commission and ensures transparency under federal law on policy financing.
e i super buck?
After the 2010 Supreme Court ruling, I super pack, That is, PACs that do not make direct contributions to candidates or parties.
However, they spend independently by posting ads, sending mail, or otherwise communicating with messages that specifically support elections or the defeat of a particular candidate. There is no limit or restrictions on the sources of funds that can be used for these expenditures.
Zuckerberg He appears to have used these methodologies to influence the presidential vote. It is not said that work Zuckerberg Both should be classified as crime, at least in terms of form, but it is certain that ordinary individuals in the United States play a leading role in elections.
“Coffee fan. Tv specialist. Social media aficionado. Zombie geek. Evil analyst. Web expert.”