Scott Walter’s Questions for the Record on “Zuck Bucks” to House Committee

Scott Walter’s Testimony Before the Committee on House Administration
U.S. House of Representatives
Written Testimony: HTML or PDF
Oral Testimony: Video, text, and highlights
Full Committee Hearing (House website)
Questions for the Record (below)

---

Questions for the Record

---

To Mr. Scott Walter

“American Confidence in Elections:
Confronting Zuckerbucks, Private Funding of Election Administration.”

February 7, 2024

House Committee on House Administration

---

Question #1

At our hearing, it was claimed the Federal Election Commission (“FEC”) has absolved the Center for Tech and Civic Life (“CTCL”) of all legal criticisms. Is that true?

No, that is not true.

On July 26th 2022, the Federal Election Commission (FEC) ruled in a 6-0 vote that the commission found no reason to believe that the Center for Tech and Civic Life (CTCL) made prohibited corporate contributions, knowingly permitted its name to be used to effect a contribution in the name of someone else, failed to register as a political committee, or made illicit contributions while working as a federal contractor.¹ Those are narrow election law questions. The ruling did not absolve CTCL of all other legal criticism.

1. Why or why not?

 The IRS, not the FEC, is at least as relevant an agency in deciding whether CTCL violated any laws, rules, or guidelines. The FEC is responsible for regulating political action committees (PACs), while CTCL is a 501(c)(3) public charity falling primarily under the authority of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), which awards 501(c)(3) tax-exempt status to organizations meeting a specific set of requirements. The FEC ruling found only that CTCL was not a PAC or operating as an unregistered PAC, and that the payments it made to municipal election offices were not strictly definable as campaign contributions. This is so obvious that neither we at Capital Research Center (CRC), nor any other group that I am aware of, have ever made this criticism of CTCL. Thus, invoking the FEC statement is a strawman and is unresponsive to the actual legal criticisms made of CTCL’s scheme.

The IRS, on the other hand, has entirely different and more stringent rules regarding 501(c)(3) organizations and their activities related to elections.² CTCL has been accused of violating these IRS rules in multiple complaints, and the IRS, the most relevant regulatory authority, has not yet issued any ruling on whether CTCL violated IRS rules.³

Additionally, outside of the IRS and FEC, courts are still deliberating on whether CTCL-funded election activities violated state election laws. For example, earlier this year the Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled that a mobile absentee voting van, paid for with CTCL funds, was illegally used by the city of Racine during the 2022 election in ways that boosted partisan turnout in favor of Democrats.⁴ This ruling came after Wisconsin’s own election commission, analogous to the FEC at the state level, dismissed a complaint against the use of the van.

In another Wisconsin Supreme Court ruling, two years after the 2020 election, the court declared that the use of unsupervised drop boxes is illegal under state law—a fact that was easily grasped from a simple reading of the brief statute.⁵ Yet CTCL’s original plan to fund five Democratic cities in the state explicitly planned to spend $216,500 on such plainly illegal drop boxes in 2020, as my colleagues have reported.⁶

In the state of Louisiana, a lawsuit against CTCL by the then-Attorney General is proceeding, after an appellate court overruled a trial court’s dismissal of the case.⁷ And in the state of Texas, the Attorney General has also filed a Civil Investigative Demand against CTCL.⁸

In short, the FEC is neither the primary nor supreme regulatory authority over CTCL and cannot possibly be said to have “absolved the Center for Tech and Civic Life of all legal criticisms.”

---

Question #2

During our hearing, we heard the claim that it is hypocritical to object, on the one hand, to CTCL or others privatizing election administration, while on the other hand, approving of privatizing governmental functions like Amtrak. Is that true?

1. Why or why not?

 Respectfully, this claim makes little sense. Congress developed an entire agency, the Federal Election Commission, to create transparency in election funding and to combat any abuses that

threaten trust in elections. No similar agency operates in the funding of transportation systems. More importantly, providing rail service is hardly a core governmental function. If it were, Amtrak would be failing the four states where it does not operate at all, and Congress would have failed to ensure the operation of a core governmental function for just short of two centuries, given that Amtrak was not created until 1971. Experts in transportation regularly point out that privatizing Amtrak would likely increase the quality of service it provides passengers and also lessen the heavy burden on federal taxpayers created by the way political interests manipulate Amtrak in ways that make no economic sense.⁹ Further evidence that a national government need not operate rail service comes from Japan’s successful privatization of its governmental railways.¹⁰

In sharp contrast, administering elections is clearly a core governmental function, one that the government, and only the government, has always and everywhere conducted exclusively. So privatizing it by allowing billionaires to manipulate state and local governmental election offices is understood throughout the country to be undesirable. At this point, fully 28 states have enacted restrictions on the private funding of election offices, and the Committee’s Minority includes Members who likewise agreed that such private funding is improper.¹¹ When I testified to the legislature of one of those 28 states, my native Virginia’s Senate, I stressed that neither political party should want billionaires’ private dollars influencing the administration of elections, and the Committee that heard my testimony unanimously agreed, across party lines,¹² as did every Democrat and Republican in the full Senate.¹³

In short, if there is hypocrisy involved in supporting privatization either for elections or for Amtrak, the hypocrisy run in the other direction: It makes no sense to claim privatized railroads are a danger to the public, while simultaneously maintaining that privatized election offices are not a danger.

---

Question #3

During the hearing, it was claimed the Majority attacks transparent nonprofit funding for election administration while doing nothing to stop the flow of billions of dollars of “dark money.” Was CTCL’s funding actually transparent?

The Center for Tech and Civic Life’s funding for municipal election offices was not transparent, at any stage of the process, by the standards of the Minority’s Members.

First, the $350 million contribution from Mark Zuckerberg to the Center for Tech and Civic Life came from his donor-advised fund at the Silicon Valley Community Foundation, which takes in and distributes hundreds of millions of dollars of contributions per year without publicly disclosing the links between original donors and the final recipient of the donation.¹⁴ I do not myself criticize this entirely legal arrangement, because I oppose government-coerced donor disclosure such as has been proposed in legislation from the Minority’s party; e.g., H.R. 1.¹⁵ My most recent testimony to Congress on donor disclosure before this hearing was at a December 2023 hearing for the House Ways and Means Subcommittee on Oversight.¹⁶

On the other hand, Democratic critics of “dark money,” such as Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D- RI), have virulently attacked donor-advised funds such as Mr. Zuckerberg used, calling them “money identity laundering devices for big donors.”¹⁷

Second, CTCL released very little information about its grantmaking during 2020, even as Democratic-leaning counties were privately invited to apply early for CTCL grants before the existence of the funding was publicly announced. During 2020, CTCL shared only a preliminary list of municipalities that would receive CTCL funding. The list was far from comprehensive, disclosed nothing about how much funding each municipality would receive, and was later shown to be missing dozens of cities and counties.¹⁸ It was the only information made available by CTCL at the time, and hundreds of public records requests were made by other groups trying to fill in the gaps. The full scope of CTCL’s election grantmaking was not made known until 2022, when the organization released its 2020 IRS Form 990. CTCL did not release this disclosure form “on the 15th day of the 5th month following the end of the organization’s taxable year,” which is the standard deadline set by the IRS. Instead it took full advantage of the six- month extension, ensuring that its disclosure could be postponed to the last possible moment, long after the election had been held. Its disclosure form that is currently available on the ProPublica website is dated even later than that, not December 15, 2021, but January 22, 2022.¹⁹

During the controversy over its actions in the midst of the 2020 election, CTCL would not disclose anything to us, nor would it reassure the public by answering similar questions put to it

by friendly news outlets including the New York Times,²⁰ the Associated Press,²¹ National Public Radio,²² American Public Media,²³ the New Yorker,²⁴ and others.

Records obtained by public records request after the election also showed that CTCL secretly played partisan favorites in whom it decided to share information with. In Pennsylvania, for example, all counties were invited to apply for CTCL grants in September 2020, but the heavily Democratic-leaning Delaware, Chester, and Montgomery counties were already submitting completed applications to CTCL in early August, a month before Mr. Zuckerberg had even publicly announced his donation.²⁵²⁶

CTCL was also not transparent about the purpose of the funds or how they would be used. CTCL initially claimed that its funds were being used to help keep election officials safe with personal protective equipment (PPE). Records requests later found that in Green Bay, for example, less than one percent of CTCL funds were spent on PPE. They were instead used to pay for, among other things, consultant-run voter outreach initiatives that boosted turnout in jurisdictions that were funded.²⁷ Another city in Wisconsin, Racine, as mentioned above, used CTCL funds to pay for a mobile voting van that was later ruled illegal by the Wisconsin Supreme Court.

In sum, CTCL was not at all transparent about the distribution of its funds or the purposes to which they were put.

1. Has CTCL received “dark money” funding?

 The definition of “dark money” has changed over time, but one of the most commonly accepted definitions today, as expressed by the New York Times, is “funds spent to influence politics by nonprofits that do not disclose their donors.” ²⁸ Under this definition, yes, CTCL has received “dark money” funding.

In 2020, CTCL received a $24.8 million grant from the New Venture Fund, the flagship nonprofit of the Arabella Advisors network, the undisputed champion of left-wing “dark money” which raises over $1 billion per year. As a CBS News report recently put it, Arabella Advisors “oversees a web of nonprofits that today funnels more dark money into American elections and political causes than any on either side of the political divide.”²⁹ Previously in 2016, the New Venture Fund provided CTCL a grant of $6,439. CTCL also received $3 million from the Hopewell Fund, another wing of the Arabella network, in 2021, and another $1.1 million in

2022.³⁰³¹ In total, CTCL has received nearly $30 million in funding from the largest and most powerful “dark money” network in the world.

---

Question #4

At our hearing, we heard that our election system should be bolstered against foreign interference. Do we know if CTCL’s funding is free of foreign interference?

1. Are there ways to strengthen our election system against foreign interference?

 CTCL has IRS recognition as a 501(c)(3) charitable organization, and donors to it are entitled to donor privacy. But there is no mechanism for identifying foreign funding that goes into charitable nonprofits, the way that foreign funding might be disclosed for persons subject to the Foreign Agents Registration Act. Because an increasing number of charities are engaging in potentially partisan election-related activity, there is an existing and growing potential for foreign funding to have an impact on those activities—and to affect American elections.

As noted under Question 3, above, CTCL has received tens of millions of dollars from Arabella Advisors’ nonprofit network, which means it may well have received millions from the foreign national billionaire Hansjörg Wyss, who has given at least a quarter-billion dollars to that network. As the watchdog group Americans for Public Trust has documented in a lengthy report on Mr. Wyss’s giving via 501(c)(3) and (c)(4) nonprofits,³² several data points stand out (and note that these statistics only count spending through 2021 because of the limited data disclosed):

• Wyss’s nonprofits have spent a total of $475 million influencing S. politics, with the bulk of the money funneled through the Wyss Foundation and Berger Action Fund that he endows and controls.
• Wyss’s nonprofits have sent over $265 million to groups in the Arabella Advisors network, a “dark money” hub comprised of multiple nonprofits that support radical environmentalism, sweeping changes to S. election laws, defunding the police, packing the Supreme Court, K-12 ideological indoctrination, and more.

• In 2021 alone, Berger Action Fund doled out a total of $72.7 million to 12 different “dark money” organizations, $62.7 million of which was directed to groups focused on promoting and supporting President Biden’s agenda.
• In a biography penned by his sister, Wyss’s goal is explicitly stated: to “(re)interpret the American Constitution in the light of progressive ”

This disturbing portrait of foreign influence in American elections has led to the introduction of legislation that attempts to limit the harm to our democracy, as Axios reports,³³ including the American Confidence in Elections (ACE) Act that aims to close loopholes foreign nationals exploit to send money to super PACs and ballot initiatives.

---

Question #5

At the hearing, we had material from Democracy Docket entered into the record. Is the Democracy Docket connected to any kind of “dark money” or to any foreign money?

The Democracy Docket is as connected to “dark money” as it is possible to be. The Democracy Docket Legal Fund is a “fiscally sponsored project” of Arabella Advisors’ Hopewell Fund, while the Democracy Docket Action Fund is a fiscally sponsored project of Arabella Advisors’ North Fund, a related 501(c)(4) “dark money” group.³⁴ Indeed, both the Hopewell Fund and the North Fund are central parts of the multibillion-dollar Arabella Advisors “dark money” network.³⁵ As fiscally sponsored projects, both Democracy Docket Legal Fund and Democracy Docket Action Fund do not make independent public disclosures of their finances, employees, expenditures, or activities.³⁶

In 2022, the most recently available data, the Hopewell Fund took in $174 million in contributions, while the North Fund took in $46.5 million in contributions. This funding came from a wide variety of known and unknown donors, none of which were disclosed by the Hopewell Fund or Democracy Docket, and it is impossible to say with certainty how much of that money may have been directed to the two Democracy Docket groups. It is known, however, that the Elias Law Group, the for-profit law firm of Democratic “super-lawyer” Marc Elias who

runs the Democracy Docket network, was the highest paid independent contractor of both the Hopewell and North Funds in 2022; they paid his law firm a combined $20.5 million for legal services in just that one year.³⁷³⁸

Mr. Elias is also the lawyer for foreign national megadonor Hansjörg Wyss’s Wyss Foundation,³⁹ and he helped to midwife the Russiagate hoax when serving as an outside lawyer for Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign. In that hoax, he channeled funds to Fusion GPS, which hired Christopher Steele, whose notorious dossier in turn was based on a “primary sub-source” whom the FBI failed to promptly identify, according to Special Counsel John Durham, which in turn “prevented the FBI from properly examining the possibility that some or much of the non- open source information contained in Steele’s reporting was Russian disinformation.”⁴⁰ Mr.

Elias’s secretive channeling of campaign funds to Fusion GPS was also mixed up in campaign finance violations. As the Associated Press reported, “Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign and the Democratic National Committee have agreed to pay $113,000 to settle a Federal Election Commission investigation into whether they violated campaign finance law by misreporting spending on research that eventually became the infamous Steele dossier.”⁴¹

---

Question #6

 During our hearing, it was claimed the Bradley Foundation is “a ‘dark money’ group.” Is that true?

1. Why or why not?

 It is flatly untrue that the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation of Milwaukee is a “dark money” group. As a private foundation, the Bradley Foundation is required by law to disclose all of its donations, and the source of its funds are its own endowment, not donations by unknown parties.

While federal law only requires private foundations to disclose their donations once a year, and that disclosure can be delayed by 11 months after the end of the foundation’s fiscal year, the Bradley Foundation is a rare exemplar of public disclosure among private foundations: It discloses its donations on its website many months before the legal deadline. For example, its

2023 giving could be kept in the dark for another five months this year, but Bradley has already disclosed all 2023 donations on its website.⁴²

---

Question #7

At our hearing, it was claimed people only object to CTCL’s funding in order to reject the 2020 election results. Is that true?

1. Why or why not?

 First, neither I nor Capital Research Center have ever “rejected” the 2020 election results, and I’m unaware of any such rejection by other witnesses at the hearing. No Member offered a shred of evidence to the contrary at the hearing.

Already in Question 2, above, I documented how I have testified publicly that I oppose private funding of government election offices by billionaires of any party, and my arguments in this vein to the Virginia Senate committee where I testified led every member of both parties to recommend passage of a ban on private funding, which later received a unanimous vote by the entire state Senate.⁴³

Such restrictions on private funding have now been passed by a solid majority of U.S. states, 28 and counting,⁴⁴ and this is the most powerful evidence giving the lie to any claim that opposition to private funding can only be motivated by the crudest partisan displeasure over the 2020 election results. Consider the most recent state to legally prohibit private funding, Wisconsin.

After a partisan governor twice vetoed the state legislature’s efforts to prohibit the funding, the question was finally put before the people themselves. Democracy triumphed April 2, when Badger State citizens overwhelmingly declared they do not want private funding of elections. The nine-point victory was remarkably bipartisan, given that in the last two presidential elections, Wisconsin’s Democrat/Republican split was less than a one-point margin.

Finally, I note that one or more Minority Members of the Committee declared at our hearing that they do not support private funding of elections. Taken together, all this evidence proves it would

be disingenuous for anyone to pretend that opposition to CTCL’s private funding of election offices stems from a partisan rejection of the 2020 presidential election.

---

Question #8

During the hearing, it was claimed the Majority’s witnesses were engaged in an “unrelenting assault on voting rights.” Have you or your organization assaulted anyone’s voting rights?

No, not in any way whatsoever, and it is defamatory to claim so, especially without any evidence put forward. I suspect that this defamation was inspired by an oppo research dump prepared for the hearing by Accountable.US, which is amusing because, first, that pathetic oppo research does not claim that Capital Research Center or I assaulted anyone’s voting rights, nor does it claim that my fellow witness Mollie Hemingway did so. The closest the oppo research comes to this slander is to accuse witness Will Flanders of having “Downplayed Findings That 17,000 Registered Voters Were Deterred From Voting In The 2016 Election In Wisconsin, Writing It Was An ‘Egregious Error’ To Say The Study Indicated Voter-ID Laws Suppressed Turnout.” But Flanders did not “downplay” the claim that voter ID laws deterred thousands from voting in Wisconsin, he and a colleague refuted those claims in the very article cited by the less-than- honest oppo research.⁴⁵ Flanders’ debunking of multiple claims in the methodologically flawed study⁴⁶ included these facts:

Very few of the people who received the survey responded, and of those did respond, about 30 said it was because they thought they lacked a proper form of ID. This number was extrapolated into the larger number with the unstated claim that almost all of them would have voted for Hillary Clinton.

… Only 1.7 percent of respondents believed that they did not have an adequate photo ID, and 1.4 percent claimed to have actually been turned away at the polling place

(which might have been related to ID). Put another way, the main reason for not voting cited by somewhere between 95 and 98 percent of the respondents was unrelated to the voter-ID law.⁴⁷

Note that the oppo research claimed, based on this flawed study, that voter ID laws “deterred” voters, but the Flanders article also addressed that false claim:

In a statement to the media, one of the study’s authors, Professor Kenneth Mayer, went further, saying that persons who are eligible but “cannot vote because of” the voter-ID law have been “disenfranchised.” But that it is not what the survey found. According to the press release from the study, “Most of the people who said they did not vote because they lacked ID actually possessed a qualifying form of ID.”

That “crucial finding,” Flanders and his co-author observe, was omitted in many media reports on the study—and in the oppo research used against him—even though the study itself confesses, “It appears that most of those who were deterred from voting actually could have voted.” And finally,

The study included two questions on reasons for not voting. One question allowed people to cite multiple reasons for not voting, while the second asked people for their main reason for not voting. While blacks and low-income persons were more likely to cite a lack of voter ID as one of the reasons they did not vote, there was no statistically significant difference between those respondents and others with respect to voter ID as the main reason for not voting.

There are other problems. The low response rates call into question whether the respondents were representative of the larger population, and surveys asking people about their voting behavior are always problematic: Respondents tend to give answers that excuse their failure to vote.

So, the insinuation that supporting voter-ID laws equates to “assaulting” voters’ rights is false, and much more research exists to prove that fact.⁴⁸ But perhaps the best evidence, the most pro- democracy evidence, is that Americans overwhelmingly support voter-ID laws, and through the democratic process a large majority of states have adopted some version of voter-ID requirements to vote. This strong backing for voter-ID laws explains why surveys⁴⁹ have found numbers like these indicating support for having to show a photo ID to vote—numbers that have been rising since the 2020 election:

77% of Black voters

78% of Hispanic voters

81% of lower-income voters

97% of Republicans

82% of Independents

67% of Democrats

The last thing to understand about the oppo research that likely lies behind the slander about witnesses’ alleged “assault” on voting rights: It was produced by Accountable.US, a group spawned inside the Arabella empire of left-wing nonprofits. Thus Accountable.US is compromised by its connection to Arabella’s massive support from foreign national Hansjörg Wyss, especially since Accountable’s founder Kyle Herrig was once one of the highest-paid employees at the Wyss Foundation⁵⁰ and has also held numerous leadership roles in the Arabella empire.⁵¹ In 2019, Accountable.US received half its funding, nearly $5 million, from Arabella’s New Venture Fund;⁵² by 2022 that number had declined somewhat, to $2.1 million.⁵³

---

Question #9

During our hearing, a Committee Democrat accused all the Majority’s witnesses of being “not qualified to talk about election integrity.” Do you agree with that?

It is difficult to know how to reply to that objection for several reasons, including (1) the failure of the Minority to offer any evidence whatsoever for the claim; (2) the failure to specify what qualifications would be required to talk about election integrity; and (3) the failure of Minority Members to ask a single question of me at the hearing or even to ask any written question about my knowledge or qualifications.

It is also unclear what qualifications the Members of the Committee imagine they have to make judgments on the subject. To take but one example of a Member who demonstrated incomplete knowledge of election integrity, the Ranking Member ended the hearing by saying, in essence, that he doubted Mark Zuckerberg’s “Zuck Bucks” program could have been intended to improperly influence the election in favor of Democrats, because if that were the billionaire’s purpose, he could have donated directly to Democratic candidates’ campaigns.

I do not question the Ranking Member’s sincerity, but to assume he is sincere is to assume he is ignorant of the widely reported fact that the Democratic Party’s best minds believe microtargeted

voter registration using charities—which by law are supposed to be nonpartisan—is by far the best way to ensure Democratic victories.

For example, the left-leaning news outlet Vox reported years ago that the Super PAC Mind the Gap—founded by three Stanford professors including the mother of Democratic megadonor Sam Bankman-Fried⁵⁴—declared in a secret strategy memo to its donors that the 2020 cycle’s “single most effective tactic for ensuring Democratic victories” is “501(c)(3) voter registration focused on underrepresented groups in the electorate.” The Super PAC even explains the tax advantages: Well-designed (c)(3) voter registration is, on a pre-tax basis, “2 to 5 times more cost-effective at netting additional Democratic votes than the tactics that campaigns will invest in. Because 90 percent of the contributions we are recommending for voter registration and GOTV efforts will go to 501(c)(3) organizations and hence are tax-deductible,” after taxes, “such programs are closer to 4 to 10 times more cost-effective. They are also eligible recipients of donations from donor-advised funds and private foundations” (emphasis added).⁵⁵

CRC’s focus is to investigate the money behind policy movements and educate the public about the special interest groups involved in public debates. We only began to focus on election integrity issues when it became clear how much the Left’s influence on the election process has grown over time, especially through the legally improper use of the charitable sector for partisan political purposes.

Personally, I do not claim expertise in all aspects of election administration, but I do claim expertise in, and have often been called upon in the U.S. Senate and House to testify on, nonprofit abuses involving nonprofits and elections.⁵⁶ As for the qualifications of other Majority witnesses, Mollie Hemingway wrote a 432-page book that carefully examined the 2020 elections, supporting her analysis with 84 pages of endnotes.⁵⁷ Will Flanders oversaw a heavily documented 136-page report that dispassionately and thoroughly examined every significant claim made about the 2020 election in the critical battleground state of Wisconsin.⁵⁸ The study’s conclusions do not fit neatly with the loudest voices of either political party regarding that state’s elections.

Once again, the Minority’s criticism of witnesses’ qualifications would gain credibility if any Member had had the courage to engage in any give-and-take with me on this or any other question, or to provide any evidence for their claims.

---

Notes

¹https://www.fec.gov/files/legal/murs/7946/7946_23.pdf

²https://www.irs.gov/charities‐non‐profits/charitable‐organizations/published‐guidance‐on‐political‐campaign‐ activity‐of‐501c3‐organizations

³https://thefederalist.com/2023/09/22/dont‐count‐on‐bidens‐irs‐to‐investigate‐mark‐zuckerbergs‐ election‐rigging‐nonprofit‐scheme/

⁴https://www.cbsnews.com/minnesota/news/wisconsin‐judge‐rules‐that‐absentee‐voting‐van‐used‐in‐2022‐was‐ illegal/

⁵https://www.npr.org/2022/07/08/1100696685/wisconsin‐supreme‐court‐ballot‐drop‐boxes‐disability‐assistance.

⁶https://capitalresearch.org/article/wisconsin‐drop‐boxes‐and‐the‐taint‐of‐zuck‐bucks/.

⁷https://thefederalist.com/2022/04/05/court‐reinstates‐louisiana‐ags‐lawsuit‐against‐zuckerbergs‐election‐ meddling‐group/.

⁸https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/news/releases/paxton‐investigates‐potential‐violations‐state‐law‐ zuckerberg‐backed‐center‐tech‐and‐civic‐life.

⁹https://www.cato.org/cato‐handbook‐policymakers/cato‐handbook‐policymakers‐9th‐edition‐ 2022/amtrak#advantages‐privatization.

¹⁰https://tokyoreview.net/2018/10/japan‐railway‐privatization/.

¹¹https://capitalresearch.org/article/states‐banning‐zuck‐bucks/.

¹²https://capitalresearch.org/article/virginia‐moves‐closer‐to‐banning‐zuck‐bucks‐after‐scott‐walters‐testimony/.

¹³https://legiscan.com/VA/votes/SB80/2022.

¹⁴https://capitalresearch.org/article/which‐states‐did‐ctcl‐flood‐with‐zuck‐bucks/

¹⁵https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th‐congress/house‐bill/1.

¹⁶https://capitalresearch.org/app/uploads/2023‐Walter‐Ways‐Means‐Oversight‐Written‐Testimony.pdf.

¹⁷https://www.whitehouse.senate.gov/news/speeches/sen‐whitehouse‐remarks‐on‐dark‐money‐and‐the‐disclose‐ act/

¹⁸https://www.influencewatch.org/non‐profit/center‐for‐tech‐and‐civic‐life/#grants‐by‐state

¹⁹https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/472158694/202240249349300769/full.

²⁰https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/25/us/politics/elections‐private‐grants‐zuckerberg.html.

²¹https://apnews.com/article/technology‐elections‐denver‐mark‐zuckerberg‐election‐ 202092257bbc1fefd9ed0e18861e5b5913f6..

²²https://www.npr.org/2020/12/08/943242106/how‐private‐money‐from‐facebooks‐ceo‐saved‐the‐ 2020election?utm_source=Iterable&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=campaign_1795371_nl_PhilanthropyTo day_date_20201208&cid=pt&source=ams&sourceId=132961..

²³https://www.apmreports.org/story/2020/12/07/private‐grant‐money‐chan‐zuckerburg‐election.

²⁴https://www.newyorker.com/news/daily‐comment/battling‐anxiety‐over‐making‐sure‐your‐vote‐gets‐counted.

²⁵https://broadandliberty.com/2021/06/07/blue‐southeast‐pa‐counties‐had‐head‐start‐on‐election‐grants/

²⁶https://www.techandciviclife.org/open‐call/

²⁷https://thefga.org/research/the‐wisconsin‐zuckerbucks‐problem/

²⁸https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/29/us/politics/democrats‐dark‐money‐donors.html

²⁹https://www.cbsnews.com/news/the‐64‐million‐mystery‐anonymous‐donations‐2024‐presidential‐campaign/.

³⁰https://www.influencewatch.org/non‐profit/hopewell‐fund/#grants‐from‐hopewell‐fund

³¹https://www.influencewatch.org/app/uploads/2023/11/Hopewell‐Fund‐2022‐Public‐Disclosure‐Copy‐ 065832744.pdf

³²https://americansforpublictrust.org/news/report‐left‐wing‐swiss‐billionaire‐exploiting‐the‐foreign‐influence‐ loophole/.

³³https://www.axios.com/2023/07/10/gop‐targets‐foreign‐dark‐money‐2024‐election.

³⁴https://www.influencewatch.org/organization/democracy‐docket‐legal‐fund‐ddlf/

³⁵https://www.influencewatch.org/for‐profit/arabella‐advisors/.

³⁶https://www.councilofnonprofits.org/running‐nonprofit/administration‐and‐financial‐management/fiscal‐ sponsorship‐nonprofits

³⁷https://www.influencewatch.org/app/uploads/2023/11/Hopewell‐Fund‐2022‐Public‐Disclosure‐Copy‐ 065832744.pdf

³⁸https://www.influencewatch.org/app/uploads/2023/11/North‐Fund‐2022‐Public‐Disclosure‐Copy‐ 499977915.pdf

³⁹https://www.influencewatch.org/app/uploads/2023/12/Wyss‐FoundationForm‐990‐2022.pdf.

⁴⁰https://www.justice.gov/storage/durhamreport.pdf.

⁴¹https://apnews.com/article/russia‐ukraine‐2022‐midterm‐elections‐business‐elections‐presidential‐elections‐ 5468774d18e8c46f81b55e9260b13e93.

⁴²https://www.bradleyfdn.org/grants/past‐grants.

⁴³https://capitalresearch.org/article/virginia‐moves‐closer‐to‐banning‐zuck‐bucks‐after‐scott‐walters‐testimony/.

⁴⁴https://capitalresearch.org/article/states‐banning‐zuck‐bucks/.

⁴⁵https://www.nationalreview.com/2017/09/wisconsin‐voter‐id‐study‐flawed‐unreliable/.

⁴⁶https://www.liebertpub.com/doi/10.1089/elj.2018.0536.

⁴⁷https://www.nationalreview.com/2017/09/wisconsin‐voter‐id‐study‐flawed‐unreliable/.

⁴⁸https://honestelections.org/voter‐id‐laws‐dont‐depress‐turnout/.

⁴⁹https://www.honestelections.org/wp‐content/uploads/2021/08/HEP‐Polling‐Memo‐v4‐1.pdf.

⁵⁰https://www.influencewatch.org/non‐profit/wyss‐foundation/.

⁵¹https://www.influencewatch.org/person/kyle‐herrig/.

⁵²https://www.influencewatch.org/non‐profit/accountable‐us/.

⁵³https://www.influencewatch.org/app/uploads/2023/11/NVF‐2022‐Public‐Disclosure‐Copy‐257292001.pdf.

⁵⁴https://www.influencewatch.org/political‐party/mind‐the‐gap/.

⁵⁵https://www.vox.com/recode/2020/1/7/21055340/mind‐the‐gap‐silicon‐valley‐donors‐democrats‐2020‐plan‐ 140‐million.

⁵⁶ Some of my testimonies are available at https://capitalresearch.org/article/scott-walter-testifies-about-foreign- money-in-american-politics-before/; https://capitalresearch.org/article/scott-walter-testifies-to-committee-on-house- administration/; https://capitalresearch.org/article/scott-walter-testifies-to-a-senate-finance-subcommittee-on-the- political-activities-of-tax-exempt-entities/; https://capitalresearch.org/article/election-irregularities-involving-ctcl- scott-walter-testifies-before-arizona-house-committee/; https://capitalresearch.org/article/scott-walter-testifies- before-the-arizona-senate/; https://capitalresearch.org/article/election-irregularities-involving-crcl-scott-walter- testifies-before-georgia-senate-subcommittee/; https://capitalresearch.org/article/should-pennsylvanias-elections-be- privatized/; https://capitalresearch.org/article/virginia-moves-closer-to-banning-zuck-bucks-after-scott-walters- testimony/; https://capitalresearch.org/article/the-left-wing-megadonors-pushing-for-ranked-choice-voting/; https://capitalresearch.org/article/scott-walters-testimony-on-ranked-choice-voting-to-the-ohio-state-senate/.

⁵⁷https://www.amazon.com/Rigged‐Media‐Democrats‐Seized‐Elections/dp/B097J242H7/ref=sr_1_1?.

⁵⁸https://will‐law.org/will‐issues‐review‐of‐2020‐election‐recommendations‐for‐reform/.

Source: https://capitalresearch.org/article/scott-walters-questions-for-the-record-on-zuck-bucks-to-house-committee/