
Then imagine this nonprofit group re-granted the millions of dollars to local election officials to "help" them carry out the 2020 election โ buying drop boxes for ballots, hiring temporary staff, conducting "voter education," and the like.
Finally, imagine that in 2020, a state that usually voted for the other party in presidential elections narrowly flipped to the donor's preferred party, and counties receiving "help" were disproportionately ones that helped the Republican win the state, with many counties shifting dramatically from their historical patterns in a red-ward direction.
Even supposing there were perfectly ethical and legal reasons for all this, because of the appearance of election influence from private parties with deep pockets, it would be front-page news. The New York Times would be outraged a nonprofit gave the appearance of acting in a partisan basis in an electoral process. Elected officials in the disfavored party would be loudly objecting, threatening lawsuits, demanding investigations of the election officials who accepted the funds, and insisting election laws be changed to prevent any such effort in the future.
As head of Capital Research Center, a watchdog on the use and abuse of nonprofits, I would sympathize with the angry politicians and happily critique the scheme publicly. But I know of no such effort by right-leaning donors or nonprofits.












Comment: Did Mark Zuckerberg help to buy the election for Biden? Did he confine his calculated 'philanthropy' to Georgia's precincts or were other states willing recipients in this pay-to-influence scheme?