• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

“2000 Mules” Sheds Light on Zuckerberg’s Disproportionate Gifts to Cities in 5 Swing States, Which Were Heavily Democrat, in Violation of Law (1 Viewer)

munkle

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 25, 2016
Messages
1,127
Reaction score
316
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
- Non-profit get out the vote funding is not illegal, as long as it is not biased to any party or candidate

- Ready? $33 million of Zuckerberg's $250M to CTCL went to just 3% of the US population, tightly concentrated in 4 swing states, in areas where Hillary won by an average of 80%. That is 13% of grants to 3% of the population

- Per-voter dollars in these areas was as much as $30 - $53 per voter. All other jurisdictions were a few bucks per voter.

Bottom line, Zuckerbucks broke the law.

“2000 Mules” Sheds Light on Zuckerberg’s Disproportionate Gifts to Cities in 5 Swing States, Which Were Heavily Democrat, in Violation of Law


1651693177749.png



"The law on non-profits, such as the Chan-Zuckerberg Foundation, engaging in “get out the vote” activism is clear.

IRS.gov:

“Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are absolutely prohibited from directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office…voter education or registration activities with evidence of bias that (a) would favor one candidate over another; (b) oppose a candidate in some manner; or (c) have the effect of favoring a candidate or group of candidates, will constitute prohibited participation or intervention.”

This means it is not against the law to donate to activities which increase voter turnout, as long as they do not favor any one candidate.

As many states move to ban all private donations to public election departments, fall-out from the new 2020 election documentary “2000 Mules” continues to grow. A simple calculation shows that, contrary to the letter and spirit of the law, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg funneled a disproportionate share of the $250 million he gave to Center for Tech and Civic Life (CTCL), to cities in five swing states which averaged 78.5% for Clinton in 2016.

The data was collected by the Minnesota Voters Alliance, the plaintiff in a lawsuit against CTCL in 2020. The case, and others like it, was dismissed by multiple Wisconsin Judges.

Zuckerberg was sued by citizens in 2020 forwhat they said were illegal donations in swing states, but the possible end use of those funds, to have ballot drop boxes in place which could be stuffed, is shown only now with the release of “2000 Mules.”

Specifically, court documents taking data directly from CTCL show that, although the left-leaning non-profit gave money to election departments in all 50 states, including red states and counties, it vastly turned up the dial in eleven cities and three counties in Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Minnesota, and Georgia.

With just 3% of the US population in total, $33 million, or 13% of the $250 million Chan-Zuckerberg gave to CTCL, went to these critical populations where “2000 Mules” now shows shady drop box activity was heavy.

Source below: Amounts given by Zuckerberg through CTCL conduit to key swing states. Minnesota Voters Alliance vs. City of Minneapolis, Complaint

screenshot-2022-05-03-10.19.06-pm.png



In a rebuttal to what it called “frivolous” lawsuits against it concerning Zuckerberg funds given to some Wisconsin cities, CTCL argued that it had distributed funds for it’s “COVID-19 Response Grant Program” across all 50 states in both Democrat and Republican leaning jurisdictions.

However, the data shows that the spigot was not turned on evenly everywhere. It was fairly gushing in a few states, in certain localities where Hillary Clinton had won in 2016 by an average of 78.5%..." FULL ARTICLE

 
I can't wait for the left to explode when they see this film.

They have been uncharacteristically silent during the pre-release. Sure explains a lot of middle of the night jumps in Biden's totals on Nov. 4. "Glitches," YeaRight.com
 
BTW have you seen it? I haven't yet what do think? So far peoples' minds blown...
It's not released yet. I really don't know how valid it is, but the snippets I saw look credible. I think it releases in another three days.
 
From your little fictional temper tantrum movie? Are you seriously asking me that?
What if it is 100% fact? Would you still disbelieve it?

Don't get me wrong, I agree it could be a piece of worthless propaganda. At the moment, I think it probably has merit. I just don't know, and unlike the bigots here, I'm not going to judge it until I see it.
 
What if it is 100% fact? Would you still disbelieve it?

Don't get me wrong, I agree it could be a piece of worthless propaganda. At the moment, I think it probably has merit. I just don't know, and unlike the bigots here, I'm not going to judge it until I see it.

Why does Dinesh D'Souza deserve the benefit of the doubt?

He track record isn't exactly a secret.
 
The obvious question is whether Zuckerberg acted as an individual or a corporation. If it was his personal money, I'm pretty sure there's no law against that. The ex ny mayor, what's his name, spent half a billion on Democrats. No one broke any laws.

The NY Post will rot your brain. Bad as AM radio
 
Will they be passing raincoats out at the screening or is it bring your own?
 
Why does Dinesh D'Souza deserve the benefit of the doubt?

He track record isn't exactly a secret.
Yes, the left hates him, and they lie so much, what is the truth of him? Do you really know?
 
What if it is 100% fact? Would you still disbelieve it?

Don't get me wrong, I agree it could be a piece of worthless propaganda. At the moment, I think it probably has merit. I just don't know, and unlike the bigots here, I'm not going to judge it until I see it.
What bigots?

Do you really think this has escaped law enforcement and has to be shown in a movie? That would be real gullible. Kinda like pillow guy and his nonsense.

There is one reason for this movie: money.
 
I know that he's a felon who's been convicted of actual campaign finance laws.
He was stupid. Not very serious either. Far less money involved than what the law was looking to stop.
 
What bigots?

Do you really think this has escaped law enforcement and has to be shown in a movie? That would be real gullible. Kinda like pillow guy and his nonsense.

There is one reason for this movie: money.
Money and propaganda could easily be the motive. Are you in the habit of bullying someone away from an action you don't approve of? That's not very friendly you know. I would like to decide for myself instead of going with a cult like flow.
 
He was stupid. Not very serious either. Far less money involved than what the law was looking to stop.

The law was intended to prevent any straw donations - not just big ones.

And straw donations are actually a pretty big deal, in campaign finance law. It carries significantly harsher punishment than most other campaign finance crimes.
 
Money and propaganda could easily be the motive
It is the motive.

. Are you in the habit of bullying someone away from an action you don't approve of? That's not very friendly you know. I would like to decide for myself instead of going with a cult like flow.
You'll have to reword that. Makes no sense as written.
 
Yes, the left hates him, and they lie so much, what is the truth of him? Do you really know?

Imagine those Jan. 6 "insurrectionists" rotting in jail and they were right.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom