Palmetto State News

An investigation by the Public Interest Legal Foundation (PILF) into money that poured into South Carolina to help underwrite the cost of managing elections paints what the foundation considers a disturbing portrait of the influence of “corporate interests” over what should be a purely nonpartisan, government function.

“The South Carolina Zuck Bucks [money from Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg] effort shows a commitment to building state and local governments’ reliance on corporate interests to run elections going forward,” said PILF President J. Christian Adams in a statement released with the research brief discussing the findings. “This is about building a sustaining infrastructure to fit ideological tastes. Time is running short for South Carolinians to erase the risk of similar grants affecting 2022.”

Zuckerberg’s money started flowing into South Carolina in the months leading up to the November 2020 general election, principally through two nonprofits. These were the Center for Tech and Civic Life (CTCL), which granted $5.2 million to 39 counties, and the Center for Election Innovation & Research (CEIR), which donated $1.3 million directly to the South Carolina Election Commission. Both groups were off-the-radar operations until the Zuckerberg money poured in, nearly $400 million to CTCL and $50 million to CEIR, according to PILF.

Much of the money funded mail voting procedures that were utilized during the COVID-19 pandemic.

But unlike several of the battleground states, South Carolina was not forced to change its vote-by-mail procedures through litigation, the PILF brief noted. Gov. Henry McMaster signed legislation in September 2020 that expanded vote-by-mail procedures to all registered voters.

“The counties then went on a shopping spree for anything related to printer and mail equipment,” the brief said. “While the state mounted a public relations campaign to promote the temporary vote-by-mail procedures.”

Election officials in other states, likewise sought and received Zuckerberg money, but these were predominantly battleground states like Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania. South Carolina, where former President Donald Trump won 55% of the vote, was not considered a swing state in 2020, portending a trend, the PILF brief said.

“South Carolina demonstrates how the desire to directly influence election administration by funding preferred election processes is a long-term programmatic goal for left-wing nonprofits,” the brief said. “And unless the practice is banned by legislation, it will continue.”

PILF is based in Indianapolis.