The 2020 Election Wasn't Stolen, It Was Bought By Mark Zuckerberg

submitted by MuskyIndependent from (thefederalist.com)

all 6 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–][deleted] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

The author makes some good points here, however...the financial dynamics of politics that he is rightly complaining about is a result of the Citizens United ruling, so it is somewhat ironic to read this in an obviously right-wing media source, although the author never mentions Citizens United, nor does he seem to realize his own ideological brethren are responsible for this disaster. They bet big on big private money always supporting conservative interests, and that seems to have been rather short-sighted, as politicians tend to be. They weaponized the speech of billionaries and corporations, and now the other side has taken control of their weapon, because the new Billionaires are left-wing tech bros. Whoops

[–]thatrightwinger 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

I fail to see any connection between Zuckerbucks and Citizens United. The latter was using media to a show that one candidate was unworthy of being elected president. The other was quite literally private entities donating millions of dollars to fund the official government vote-counts in the 2020 elections.

Those two issues having nothing in common, are legally two different areas of electoral influence, and one is objectively about actual free speech, while the other is literally getting local vote counters to tally votes in a way the benefits one candidate over the other.

Objectively completely different.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

In legal terms, Citizens United wasnt about the content of the Hillary ad - it was about who paid for it. Zuckerberg gave all that that money to nonprofits, and the non-profits did electioneering with it, as enabled by the citizens united ruling, letting in billions of special interest dollars. Mcconnell said this was a good thing for free speech at the time, but I bet he is changing his tune now.

"The case began after Citizens United, a conservative non-profit organization, sought to air and advertise a film critical of then Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton shortly before the 2008 Democratic primary elections. Broadcasting the film would have been a violation of the 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, which prohibited any corporation, non-profit organization, or labor union from making an "electioneering communication" within 30 days of a primary or 60 days of an election, or making any expenditure advocating the election or defeat of a candidate at any time. Citizens United challenged the constitutionality of this law, and its case reached the Supreme Court."

"Senator Mitch McConnell commended the decision, arguing that it represented "an important step in the direction of restoring the First Amendment rights".[3] By contrast, former President Barack Obama stated that the decision "gives the special interests and their lobbyists even more power in Washington".[4] The ruling represented a turning point on campaign finance, allowing unlimited election spending by corporations and labor unions, and setting the stage for Speechnow.org v. FEC, which authorized the creation of "Independent Expenditure Committees", more commonly known as Super PACs, and for later rulings by the Roberts Court, including McCutcheon v. FEC (2014)"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC

[–]thatrightwinger 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

You didn't disprove any of my points. The point of throwing money at advocacy groups is to give them the opportunity to put out a message you agree with. That's called free speech, and it doesn't matter what the timing is.

On the other hand, throwing money at government arms in order to get them to change the way they count the votes is quite literally election-tampering.

You haven't proven that they have anything in common.

[–]SoCo 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

The second interim report of the official Wisconsin election investigation found very damning activities by the Zuckerberge election fixing companies, before the the stone walling fully blocked the investigation and those tasked with the investigation were attacked with lawsuits ... totally not suspiciously..

The election fixer companies took leadership roles in ballot counting and had back-end real-time database access they were not supposed to in 2020, all under the threat of a full-repayment contract...

You have to remember that Democrats were loudly threatening to destroy Facebook with regulatory action at the time...now, not a peep.

[–]WoodyWoodPecker 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

FACT CHECK, AWK! FAKE NEWS, AWK! I'M NOT A PARROT, AWK!