Doyle Accuses Zuckerberg of Buying 2020 Election

Doyle Accuses Zuckerberg of Buying 2020 Election

( – Facebook continues to take heat for decisions on how to manage inflammatory content during the 2020 Presidential Election. Now, Federalist author William Doyle is accusing the social media giant’s owner, Mark Zuckerberg, of a far more substantial crime — one that he suggests “stop the seal” was never truly an accurate phrase. A recently published exclusive report outlines the writer’s personal interpretation of the facts.

Did Mark Zuckerberg Buy the Election?

William Doyle’s problems with Facebook’s owner go back much further than 2020. Yet, his current concern relates directly to the last US election. The writer, a principal researcher at Caesar Rodney Election Research Institute and an expert on election funding, says Mark Zuckerberg strategically spent hundreds of millions of dollars funding a Democratic effort to commandeer local elections offices.

If that sounds crazy to you, don’t click away just yet. Doyle also explains how this process occurred and why he believes the evidence proves Zuckerberg is guilty of interference.

A Legal Loophole Abused

Facebook’s iconic CEO allegedly sent the money to non-profit and grassroots organizations all across the United States. That sounds like typical millionaire behavior at first, until you begin to dig into exactly who received the money.

Doyle claims two major recipients were The Center for Technology and Civic Life (CTCL) and The Center for Election Innovation and Research (CEIR). Both collectively passed $419.5 million in grants down to local elections offices, many of whom were facing unprecedented budget shortages. The only problem is that these grants apparently came with highly specific requirements.

CTCL’s grants, for example, allegedly encouraged elections offices to seek the suspension of voting laws and the promotion of mail-in voting. Doyle says this, in turn, led to the extension of submission deadlines that ultimately favored the processing of mail-in ballots over those filed in person. He also accuses CTCL of helping to spread the idea of unmonitored private dropboxes, which the writer feels made it far easier for ballot fraud to occur in the first place.

Indirect Funding for Paid Actors

CTCL also allegedly sent Zuckerberg’s money to local outreach projects in key swing states, most of which were led by well-known, and in some cases, paid, left-leaning election influencers. Doyle claims to have proof that at least a few of these individuals were paid Democratic Party actors.

Why does that matter? According to the writer, the funding made it possible for these individuals to have a greater-than-normal influence on local election drives, offices and ballot harvesting efforts. Doyle says the effect was so intense, he believes it actually cost former President Trump the election in Wisconsin and Georgia.

The second reason the shadowy process is such a problem — and perhaps the motivator behind other media outlets praising Zuckerberg for “saving” the election instead — relates to federal law. Companies typically can’t fund federal election processes; it’s considered a conflict of interest that raises the risk of meddling in what should be a non-partisan, unbiased process.

Facebook’s CEO donated to non-profits instead — a perfectly legal and relatively normal action taken by many major corporations in our country. This reportedly created a legal loophole, all but indemnifying Zuckerberg from allegations of interference. He can simply impose the responsibility on CTCL for choosing where to send the money instead.

Is this truly a loophole, or do Doyle’s many graphs and calculations misinterpret the facts to reach a questionable conclusion? It isn’t easy to nail down an answer, especially when outlets like NPR claim Zuckerberg saved offices from failing when the federal government didn’t provide support.

Copyright 2021,