Adobe Stock
Adobe Stock
In 2020, Joe Biden secured 71% of 83,347 votes, compared to the 66% votes earned by Hillary Clinton in 2016. Grants to voting officials, funded almost entirely by Facebook creator Mark Zuckerberg, weren’t offered in 2016.
In Iowa, Democrat turnout rose 15.7% in areas which received the funding, while increasing 17.9% in areas which did not.
The Republican Party earned 11.3% more votes in Iowa districts assisted by the CTCL, compared to 14.2% in jurisdictions without similar funding.
Support for Trump increased in Johnson 1% in 2020.
There were 8,381 more votes cast in Johnson in the 2020 election than in 2016.
Johnson was one of 62 Iowa areas where voting officials received money from the progressive Centre for Tech and Civic Life (CTCL). A $350 million donation from Facebook founder Zuckerberg and his wife provided funding for the grants.
Grants from the organization, ranging from $5,000 to $19 million, were given to voting officials in exchange for specific conditions being followed. This included strategically targeting voters, creating ballots and developing what are known as “cure letters” to correct ballots at risk of being thrown out for discrepancies in signatures.
The influx of private money on such a large scale was criticized throughout the contentious 2020 election.
The CTCL was sued by Louisiana’s Attorney General in October 2021 “to prevent the injection of unregulated private money...and protect the integrity of elections in the State.” The lawsuit wasn’t allowed to proceed by a State judge.
Criticism of the CTCL also stemmed from favoring “predominantly Democratic counties” and even gave them a headstart to apply for funding, according to emails obtained through Right-to-Know requests.
“Mark Zuckerberg is providing nearly as much money to this year’s election administration as the federal government,” Phil Kline with the Amistad Project said in a late October 2020 press release.
The US government, in the run-up to the 2020 election, was criticized for underfunding the electoral process at a critical time.
| Area | Received CTCL Funding? | % Change in Republican Support | % Change in Democratic Support |
|---|---|---|---|
| Appanoose | Yes | 2.5 | 1 |
| Benton | Yes | 2.6 | 1 |
| Black Hawk | Yes | 1.1 | 2.6 |
| Boone | Yes | 3 | 1.3 |
| Buchanan | Yes | 5.3 | 0.5 |
| Buena Vista | Yes | 2.1 | 1.4 |
| Butler | Yes | 1.9 | 0.8 |
| Calhoun | Yes | 2.4 | 0.6 |
| Chickasaw | Yes | 4.6 | -2.9 |
| Clarke | Yes | 5.6 | 2 |
| Clay | Yes | 0.5 | 3.3 |
| Clayton | Yes | 4.6 | 1.1 |
| Clinton | Yes | 4.3 | 0.9 |
| Crawford | Yes | 0.6 | 2 |
| Decatur | Yes | 6.5 | -3.2 |
| Delaware | Yes | 4.2 | 0.9 |
| Des Moines | Yes | 2.4 | 0.9 |
| Dubuque | Yes | 2.8 | 1.1 |
| Emmet | Yes | 0.7 | 2.4 |
| Floyd | Yes | 3.7 | -0.7 |
| Franklin | Yes | 2.3 | 1.3 |
| Fremont | Yes | 2.3 | 0.8 |
| Hamilton | Yes | 3.5 | 0.2 |
| Hardin | Yes | 2.9 | 0.1 |
| Harrison | Yes | 1.7 | 1 |
| Humboldt | Yes | 0.6 | 2.1 |
| Ida | Yes | 0.9 | 1.8 |
| Iowa | Yes | 2.2 | 1.1 |
| Jackson | Yes | 5 | 1.6 |
| Johnson | Yes | 0.6 | 4 |
| Jones | Yes | 2.5 | 0.4 |
| Lee | Yes | 2.9 | 0.1 |
| Linn | Yes | 0.1 | 4.5 |
| Louisa | Yes | 3.4 | 1.1 |
| Lyon | Yes | 0.8 | 0.9 |
| Mills | Yes | 0.6 | 2.7 |
| Monona | Yes | 0 | 2.3 |
| Monroe | Yes | 3.8 | 1.3 |
| Montgomery | Yes | 0.5 | 3.3 |
| Osceola | Yes | 1.3 | 0.7 |
| Page | Yes | 0.4 | 1.8 |
| Palo Alto | Yes | 1.7 | 0.6 |
| Plymouth | Yes | 0.1 | 2.6 |
| Pocahontas | Yes | 3.3 | -0.8 |
| Polk | Yes | 0.2 | 3.9 |
| Pottawattamie | Yes | 1 | 4 |
| Poweshiek | Yes | 4.8 | 1.9 |
| Ringgold | Yes | 4.5 | -2 |
| Sac | Yes | 1.8 | 0.5 |
| Scott | Yes | 1 | 3 |
| Shelby | Yes | 0.1 | 2.5 |
| Union | Yes | 3.6 | 0.1 |
| Wapello | Yes | 2.4 | 0.3 |
| Warren | Yes | 2.3 | 1.9 |
| Webster | Yes | 3 | 0.5 |
| Winnebago | Yes | 1.4 | 1.8 |
| Woodbury | Yes | 0.8 | 3.5 |
| Worth | Yes | 3.8 | 0.2 |
| Wright | Yes | 2.5 | 0.2 |
| Cedar | Yes | 1.4 | 2.3 |
| Cerro Gordo | Yes | 1.2 | 2.6 |
| Cherokee | Yes | 1 | 2.5 |
| Adair County | No | 5.3 | 1 |
| Adams County | No | 4.6 | 0.5 |
| Allamakee County | No | 4.7 | 0.3 |
| Audubon County | No | 7.4 | -1.1 |
| Bremer County | No | 3.8 | 1.4 |
| Carroll County | No | 5.3 | 0.9 |
| Cass County | No | 1.5 | 2.9 |
| Dallas County | No | 0.6 | 6.9 |
| Davis County | No | 3.8 | 0.5 |
| Dickinson County | No | 0.9 | 3 |
| Fayette County | No | 4 | 0.7 |
| Greene County | No | 5.2 | 0.1 |
| Grundy County | No | 1.9 | 3.3 |
| Guthrie County | No | 4 | 1 |
| Hancock County | No | 3.4 | 0.2 |
| Henry County | No | 3.7 | 1.9 |
| Howard County | No | 5.8 | 1 |
| Jasper County | No | 4.4 | 1 |
| Jefferson County | No | 3.6 | 2.7 |
| Keokuk County | No | 3.6 | 0.3 |
| Kossuth County | No | 3.4 | 0.1 |
| Lucas County | No | 4.9 | 0.7 |
| Madison County | No | 4.2 | 0.9 |
| Mahaska County | No | 2.9 | 0.7 |
| Marion County | No | 4.3 | 1.4 |
| Marshall County | No | 1.9 | 2.5 |
| Mitchell County | No | 4.3 | 0.4 |
| Muscatine County | No | 3 | 2.3 |
| O'Brien County | No | 0 | 3 |
| Sioux County | No | 1 | 3.2 |
| Story County | No | 1.4 | 6.4 |
| Tama County | No | 1.8 | 3 |
| Taylor County | No | 6.1 | -2.1 |
| Van Buren County | No | 4.5 | 0.6 |
| Washington County | No | 2.8 | 2.7 |
| Wayne County | No | 4.8 | 1.1 |
| Winneshiek County | No | 4.6 | 0.3 |
Alerts Sign-up