3 ms·

> after putting $450m into Biden's campaign in 2020 This is false; he donated to state and local election offices, not Biden's campaign.[0] [0]https://apnews.

> after putting $450m into Biden's campaign in 2020 This is false; he donated to state and local election offices, not Biden's campaign.[0] [0]https://apnews.com/article/fact-checking-mark-zuckerberg-election-donations-188810437774 https://apnews.com/article/fact-checking-mark-zuckerberg-ele...

vuln 2y ago
The evidence shows that a disproportionate amount of funding went to urban areas in key swing states, which generally lean Democrat. Never saw a single ballot drop box out near a corn field. The money helped fund those sorts of initiatives.
- calgarymicro 2y ago
  Does it? The article I linked says > But election officials have said there is no indication of favoritism in how the money was distributed, according to previous AP reports. The board of the Center for Tech and Civic Life also includes Pam Anderson, a Republican and former elected clerk of a suburban Denver-area county. Republican election officials have also vouched for the program’s impartiality, including Brian Mead, a Republican election director in Licking County, Ohio. But even if it was true that urban election offices received disproportionately more funding (obviously they received more in general since more people live there), that's still not the same as "putting $450m into Biden's campaign", which is what was claimed.
  - tonymet 2y ago
    what was the outcome?
- matchbok 2y ago
  [dead]
tonymet 2y ago
95% of campaign contributions in favor of a campaign are not directly to a campaign. What was the outcome of the $450 million?
- calgarymicro 2y ago
  > 95% of campaign contributions in favor of a campaign are not directly to a campaign. Yes, they tend to go to super PACs, not government election offices. > What was the outcome of the $450 million? Election offices having more funding to do their jobs.
  - tonymet 2y ago
    that's the means, what were the ends

vuln 2y ago

The evidence shows that a disproportionate amount of funding went to urban areas in key swing states, which generally lean Democrat. Never saw a single ballot drop box out near a corn field. The money helped fund those sorts of initiatives.

calgarymicro 2y ago
Does it? The article I linked says > But election officials have said there is no indication of favoritism in how the money was distributed, according to previous AP reports. The board of the Center for Tech and Civic Life also includes Pam Anderson, a Republican and former elected clerk of a suburban Denver-area county. Republican election officials have also vouched for the program’s impartiality, including Brian Mead, a Republican election director in Licking County, Ohio. But even if it was true that urban election offices received disproportionately more funding (obviously they received more in general since more people live there), that's still not the same as "putting $450m into Biden's campaign", which is what was claimed.
- tonymet 2y ago
  what was the outcome?
matchbok 2y ago
[dead]

tonymet 2y ago

95% of campaign contributions in favor of a campaign are not directly to a campaign. What was the outcome of the $450 million?

calgarymicro 2y ago
> 95% of campaign contributions in favor of a campaign are not directly to a campaign. Yes, they tend to go to super PACs, not government election offices. > What was the outcome of the $450 million? Election offices having more funding to do their jobs.
- tonymet 2y ago
  that's the means, what were the ends