Reasonable Inference [Established Fact – Funding pattern and terms] The five Democratic-plurality “Zuckerberg 5” cities (Milwaukee, Madison, Green Bay, Racine, Kenosha) received 8.8 million dollars in CTCL grants bound by the “Wisconsin Safe Voting Plan.” Funds paid for “voter navigators,” geo-fenced targeting, and specific demographic outreach (e.g., Latinx and African American communities) rather than neutral
Wisconsin Safe Voting Plan (WI) Read More »
Established Fact CTCL distributed approximately $25 million to Pennsylvania jurisdictions for the 2020 election, with a single grant of $10,016,074 going to Philadelphia alone — a city that delivered over 80 percent of its votes to the Democratic presidential candidate. The geographic distribution of the resulting election infrastructure was strikingly asymmetric. In heavily Democratic Delaware
Two-Tiered Voting Access via Drop Box Density (PA) Read More »
Established Fact Detroit received $7,436,450 from CTCL for the 2020 election — by far the largest grant in Michigan — which funded 23 satellite voting centers, 30 dedicated drop-box sites, and a near-tripling of poll-worker pay from $175 to $500 per day. City Clerk Janice Winfrey stated that “pretty much all” of the behind-the-scenes operational
Private Infrastructure and Mobile GOTV Trailers (MI) Read More »
Established Fact Over 94% (42.4 million dollars) of CTCL funds in Georgia went to 17 Biden-won counties. In parallel, Georgia used ERIC to generate “Eligible but Unregistered” (EBU) lists, then transferred those lists to CEIR, which produced targeted mailing and GOTV lists and sent them back to state officials for deployment. The combination of privately
State Data Monetization for Partisan Outreach via ERIC-CEIR (GA) Read More »
Established Fact Arizona’s Auditor General documented CTCL grants of approximately $6.8 million to nine of the state’s fifteen counties for the 2020 elections. The four Arizona counties carried by the Democratic presidential candidate that received CTCL funds — Maricopa ($2,995,921), Pima ($950,446), Coconino ($614,691), and Apache ($598,700) — received a combined $5.16 million, representing approximately
Disproportionate CTCL Capital Allocation in Biden-Won Counties (AZ) Read More »
Established Fact The Gableman Office of Special Counsel (OSC) Second Interim Report found that the Zuckerberg-5 cities shared WisVote voter-file data with CTCL and its private partners in ways that violated Wisconsin Elections Commission (WEC) security policies, which do not authorize non-governmental parties to receive WisVote data outside the formal public-access process. In at least
WisVote/BadgerBooks Data Sharing with CTCL Partners (WI) Read More »
Established Fact Pennsylvania received approximately $25 million in CTCL grants, with $10,016,074 flowing to Philadelphia alone and $2.2 million to Democratic-leaning Delaware County — the latter among the first counties in the state to receive funding, awarded before most jurisdictions were even informed the grants existed. The Delaware County grant was used to deploy fifty
CTCL Concentration in Philadelphia and Delaware County (PA) Read More »
Established Fact In Georgia, over 94% of CTCL funds — approximately $42.4 million — flowed to 17 Biden-won counties, while Trump-won counties (26 of 128) received less than 6% of statewide grant dollars., Simultaneously, Georgia participated in ERIC, which generated lists of “Eligible but Unregistered” (EBU) individuals from state voter roll and DMV data. Documents
ERIC–CEIR Data Pipeline and CTCL‑Funded GOTV (GA) Read More »
Established Fact CTCL distributed approximately $5.1 million across Arizona jurisdictions for the 2020 election, with the vast majority flowing to counties carried by Joe Biden. Biden-won counties received approximately $3.9 million — roughly 75% of all CTCL grants in the state — while Trump-won counties received just under $671,000, or approximately 13% of the total.
Disproportionate CTCL Drop Box Funding and Chain-of-Custody Breakdown (AZ) Read More »
Established Fact Across CTCL grant jurisdictions for which agreements have been made publicly available, grant documents included enforceable contractual clawback provisions authorizing CTCL to discontinue, modify, withhold, or request the return of all or part of grant funds upon CTCL’s determination that grant conditions had not been met. The standard CTCL grant form used in
