Adobe Stock
Adobe Stock
In 2020, Joe Biden secured 35% of 148,655 votes, compared to the 33% 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 South Carolina, Democrat turnout rose 27.7% in areas which received the funding, while increasing 26.5% in areas which did not.
The Republican Party earned 20.4% more votes in South Carolina districts assisted by the CTCL, compared to 15.6% in jurisdictions without similar funding.
Support for Trump increased in Spartanburg 0% in 2020.
There were 27,565 more votes cast in Spartanburg in the 2020 election than in 2016.
Spartanburg was one of 40 South Carolina 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Abbeville | Yes | 2.6 | 2.1 |
| Aiken | Yes | 2 | 3.3 |
| Allendale | Yes | 1.1 | -1 |
| Anderson | Yes | 0.8 | 1.6 |
| Bamberg | Yes | 1.6 | 1.3 |
| Beaufort | Yes | 1.2 | 2.8 |
| Berkeley | Yes | 2.2 | 4 |
| Calhoun | Yes | 1.8 | 0.2 |
| Charleston | Yes | 0.2 | 4.9 |
| Cherokee | Yes | 1.7 | 0.4 |
| Chester | Yes | 3.8 | 2.3 |
| Chesterfield | Yes | 3.7 | 2 |
| Clarendon | Yes | 2 | 0.9 |
| Colleton | Yes | 1.4 | 0.4 |
| Darlington | Yes | 1.4 | 0.1 |
| Dillon | Yes | 2.3 | 0.5 |
| Dorchester | Yes | 1.7 | 5.3 |
| Edgefield | Yes | 2.8 | 1.3 |
| Fairfield | Yes | 2.2 | 1.1 |
| Florence | Yes | 0.5 | 2.2 |
| Greenville | Yes | 1.3 | 5.3 |
| Hampton | Yes | 2.4 | 1.5 |
| Horry | Yes | 1.1 | 3.3 |
| Jasper | Yes | 3.8 | 2.2 |
| Kershaw | Yes | 0.4 | 2.1 |
| Lancaster | Yes | 0.1 | 2.5 |
| Laurens | Yes | 2.3 | 0.1 |
| Lee | Yes | 1.3 | 0.5 |
| Marion | Yes | 0.7 | 0.3 |
| Marlboro | Yes | 3 | 2.4 |
| McCormick | Yes | 1.1 | 0.4 |
| Oconee | Yes | 1.1 | 1.8 |
| Orangeburg | Yes | 2.3 | 1.4 |
| Pickens | Yes | 0.7 | 2.6 |
| Richland | Yes | 0.9 | 4.6 |
| Spartanburg | Yes | 0.1 | 2.6 |
| Sumter | Yes | 0.4 | 1.4 |
| Union | Yes | 3.3 | 1.9 |
| Williamsburg | Yes | 2.3 | 1.7 |
| York | Yes | 0.9 | 4.6 |
| Barnwell County | No | 1.7 | 0.7 |
| Georgetown County | No | 0.9 | 1.1 |
| Greenwood County | No | 1.7 | 0.7 |
| Lexington County | No | 1.3 | 5.2 |
| Newberry County | No | 1.8 | 0.4 |
| Saluda County | No | 2.4 | 0.9 |
Alerts Sign-up