In Brazil election run-up, US-style Huge Lie not dominated out

Former left-wing President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva is the favorite in the Brazilian election in a year, but surprises cannot be ruled out – not even a dramatic US-style final on charges of a rigged result.

The incumbent right-wing president Jair Bolsonaro, whose approval rating has plummeted in recent months, would, according to a recent survey by the Instituto Datafolha. received 26 percent of the vote in the first ballot on October 2, 2022, compared with 44 percent for Lula.

What factors will play a role in the next presidential election in the country with the largest economy in Latin America?

– Bolsonaro, down and out? –

The 66-year-old Bolsonaro has been heavily criticized for his performance, largely due to the Covid pandemic that has claimed nearly 600,000 lives in Brazil and the economic decline that comes with double-digit inflation that is undermining people’s purchasing power.

His approval rating has dropped to 22 percent, the lowest since he took office in 2019. He also stares down a number of impeachment motions and multiple judicial investigations, including for allegedly looking the other way in a vaccine-sourcing corruption scandal.

But this former army captain, darling of Brazil’s most conservative sectors like agribusiness, isn’t done yet, says Oliver Stuenkel, professor of international relations at the Getulio Vargas Foundation.

“His time to reverse this negative outlook is getting shorter and shorter,” said Stuenkel. But “whoever is in power has a number of strategic advantages, most notably the ability to increase government spending.”

– Lula lies deep –

Although he has not officially announced his candidacy, 75-year-old Lula has been the favorite since courts dropped his convictions for corruption and money laundering.

But the former president, who could bring the Labor Party back to power after his two terms in office (2003-2010) and that of Dilma Rousseff (2011-2016), is holding back.

The story goes on

“Lula is aware that he cannot expose himself to a lot because he would be severely attacked,” said political scientist Andre Cesar of the consultancy Hold.

“Antipetismo is a strong party,” he said, using a term to refer to the strong resentment of the Labor Party and covering a number of key conservative sectors including business.

Stuenkel said Lula was preparing a conciliatory strategy similar to that of US President Joe Biden, “who has tried to present himself as a centrist who brings together a diversity of Democrats and is not just the leader of the left” against Donald Trump in the 2020 election campaign .

– Realistic third option? –

At the same time, several smaller candidates, such as the governor of Sao Paulo, Joao Doria, are trying to lead a so-called “third way” that brings together the opponents of Lula and Bolsonaro. However, a street rally on September 12th that played up this idea was nonsense.

“The ‘none of them’ occupy a huge ideological space that runs from left to right,” said Stuenkel, so “it’s not realistic” to expect them to agree on a candidate.

But Cesar, the agent, said a third candidate could emerge if Bolsonaro’s unpopularity or legal issues put him out of the running, a prospect that currently seems unlikely.

And neither Bolsonaro nor Lula want a third candidate. Lula, a former union leader, allows the president to focus on the Brazilian left, which he associates with corruption and communism, as the country’s enemy.

It is safer for Lula to target Bolsonaro and its demise than to face a small candidate supported by pro-Bolsonaro voters and people who hate the Labor Party, said Michael Freitas of the Getulio Vargas Foundation.

– Coup? Trump-style ending? –

In his struggles with the courts, Bolsonaro went so far as to suggest the possibility of a coup. And on September 7th he called protest marches during which his most ardent supporters openly chanted against democracy.

Despite ruling out a coup, many analysts fear that if Bolsonaro loses the presidential election, he will reject the election result.

“Bolsonaro is a politician who often imitates Trump,” said Freitas, recalling that the Brazilian head of state had already warned of electoral fraud by questioning the reliability of electronic voting, which has been used in the country since 1996, without any evidence posed.

Stuenkel said Bolsonaro could try to encourage violence, as Trump did before the U.S. Capitol uprising on Jan.

“The big difference is that the army and police are much less committed to democracy in Brazil,” said Stuenkel.

app / IE / dw / mlm

‘Waste of cash’: Canadians lament C$612 million election that modified little

A special returning officer counts ballots from National, International, Canadian Forces and incarcerated voters mailed during the federal election in Ottawa, Ontario, Canada on September 20, 2021. REUTERS / Patrick Doyle

WINNIPEG, Manitoba, Sept. 21 (Reuters) – Canadians woke up Tuesday to a virtually unchanged political landscape after an expensive pandemic they didn’t want, with many of their anger at the cost of $ 612 million US dollars) made air.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s Liberals won the election, but it was unpopular from the start because of its timing, two years ahead of schedule and during a rising fourth wave of COVID-19.

The voters gave Trudeau a third term but denied him the parliamentary majority for which he had called the election. The Liberals run or are elected in 158 out of 338 districts, only three more than they stood in the election. A majority requires 170 seats.

Other parties did not do much better and ended up with largely the same number of seats as they did before the election.

“$ 600 million and all I got was that lousy pencil,” one Calgary man tweeted, referring to the short pencil used to mark ballots.

“Wasting money” was a trend on social media as voters questioned the time and cost involved. Elections Canada, which is conducting the voting, predicts it will cost $ 110 million more than the 2019 election, which will cost $ 502 million.

Holding elections during a pandemic caused additional expenses, such as counting a barrage of absentee ballots and providing disposable pens, masks and hand sanitizer, the electoral authority said.

The Liberals, Conservatives, and New Democrats were each allowed to spend approximately $ 30 million of their own money on the campaign.

The vote also took place as the Liberals amassed a record $ 1 trillion ($ 785 billion) in national debt to tackle the pandemic and push budget deficits to levels unseen since World War II.

Sheila Colla, associate professor of environmental studies at York University in Toronto, was concerned about the cost to the planet of campaign trips to one of the largest countries in the world by area.

“Fossil fuels were burned as reporters and guides flew across the country. Election 44 was an incredibly wasteful (liberal) vanity project,” she said.

Trudeau, in power since 2015, said in his Victory speech that the Canadians gave him a “clear mandate” to lead Canada through the pandemic.

But last week, Trudeau admitted the unpopularity of holding elections as infections proliferate.

“I understand the frustration some people feel,” he told his supporters. “They just want things to go back to normal and an election not to go back to normal.”

Angus Reid, chairman of the polling institute of the same name, said the election left the political landscape intact.

“Nothing happened! Trudeau got less than a third of the vote. He sees the election as a victory?”

Another choice might be on the horizon, as minority governments typically don’t last long. Trudeau said there could be another election in 18 months this month if no one wins a parliamentary majority.

“(It’s) almost as if the Canadians spelled out with their votes, ‘We don’t want elections now,'” said Doug Porter, chief economist at BMO Capital Markets, of Monday’s results.

($ 1 = 1.2814 Canadian dollars)

Reporting by Rod Nickel in Winnipeg; Additional reporting by Julie Gordon in Ottawa Editing by Alistair Bell

Our standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.

California counties with excessive Covid vaccination charges helped Newsom win recall election

California Governor Gavin Newsom speaks to media representatives after meeting students from Melrose Leadership Academy while attending school in Oakland, Calif. On Wednesday, September 15, 2021.

Stephen Lam | San Francisco Chronicle | Hearst Newspapers via Getty Images

California Governor Gavin Newsom named his decisive victory Victory for Vaccines and Science in this week’s recall vote. The dates confirm him.

A CNBC analysis of the county-level results – which are tentative as ballots continue to be counted – found a strong association between support for Newsom and counties with high Covid vaccination rates on election day, Sept. 14.

People in counties with high Covid vaccination rates voted overwhelmingly to keep him in office. Conversely, people in counties with lower vaccination rates voted for the governor’s removal.

“‘No’ is not the only thing said tonight. I want to focus on what we as a state said ‘Yes’ to,” Newsom said late Tuesday in Sacramento, thanking his supporters. “We said ‘yes’ to science, we said ‘yes’ to vaccines, we said ‘yes’ to ending this pandemic.

The analysis also shows that people in many of California’s smaller counties are less likely to support Newsom and get vaccinated.

Of the 23 districts with fewer than 100,000 inhabitants, 17 or around three quarters voted with “yes” for the recall. Meanwhile, only 10 of the 35 counties with more than 100,000 residents voted for the recall.

These small counties also tended to have lower vaccination rates. Eighteen of the 23 reported fewer than 50% of residents were fully vaccinated on election day, according to a CNBC analysis of data from the California Department of Health.

Lassen County, for example, has an estimated population of around 30,600 (as of 2019) and a current vaccination rate of nearly 22%. Around 84% of voters voted “yes” to the recall.

Similarly, Modoc County has an estimated population of 8,800 (as of 2019) and a current vaccination rate of 36.3%. 78 percent of voters also supported the recall.

At the other end of the spectrum, Los Angeles County has an estimated population of over 10 million (as of 2019) and a vaccination rate of 59.5%. Newsom’s voters strongly supported Newsom, with 70.8% voting “no”.

The majority of counties classified as rural or predominantly rural supported Newsom and were less likely to be vaccinated, according to the latest 2010 data from the Census Bureau defines rural as a population, dwelling, or territory that is not in an urban area or in areas of 50,000 or more residents.

Ten of the eleven counties classified as rural or predominantly rural in California voted “yes” to the recall. These include Amador County, Calaveras County, Lassen County, Mariposa County, Modoc County, Plumas County, Sierra County, Siskiyou County, Tehama County, and Trinity County, according to California’s Secretary of State.

According to CNBC analysis, all 10 of these counties reported vaccination rates below 50% on election day.

President Joe Biden, who ran for Newsom on the eve of Election Day, reiterated the governor’s opinion of his victory.

“This vote is an overwhelming victory for the approach he and I share to defeating the pandemic: strong vaccine requirements, strong steps to safely reopen schools, and strong plans to distribute real drugs – not fake treatments – to help those out who get sick. “Said Biden in a statement on Wednesday.

While the preliminary election results suggest the majority of Californians support the state’s pandemic measures, it was initially Newsom’s response to Covid that threatened its political fate.

Nationwide mask requirements, stay-at-home orders, and a maskless appearance by the governor at a high-end Napa Valley restaurant at the height of the rising Covid cases helped the recall petition gain momentum late last year and close to 1, Made 5 million Californians sign it.

However, Newsom’s handling of the pandemic over the past few months, including its vaccine roll-out and mandates, became one of its strengths in the recall election.

The governor introduced Covid vaccine requirements for government officials and healthcare workers in late July entered into force on August 5th. He also introduced similar vaccination requirements for teachers and other school staff, a first in the nation that entered into force on August 12th.

California Governor Gavin Newsom attends a press conference to launch a Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19) Immunization Center on February 8, 2021 in San Diego, California.

Sandy Huffaker | Swimming pool | via Reuters

In the weeks leading up to the election, Newsom’s campaign criticized conservative talk show host Larry Elder, the Republican front runner, for agreeing to end such vaccine mandates and other pandemic measures.

The governor’s vigorous election campaign also promoted the state’s high vaccination rates in recent months. According to Friday, 59.23% of the state’s population is fully vaccinated Data compiled from Johns Hopkins University.

A September poll published in the run-up to the recall election found that more than 3 in 4 Californians believe the state government is doing “an excellent or good job” distributing Covid vaccines. And about 6 in 10 said they approve of the overall way Newsom has responded to the pandemic, according to the Public Policy Institute of California poll.

“While a small group of cowardly, corrupt scammers in the Republican Party seek to attract attention by undermining trust in science and public health, the vast majority of Americans have not been fooled – they understand that vaccinations save lives “And they” support vaccine mandates with common sense, “Los Angeles-based Democratic adviser Michael Soneff said in an email.

Mountain of Cash Fuels Newsom’s Surge to Recall Election End Line

Governor Gavin Newsom’s offer of defense a recall in California has been bolstered in the past few months by a tens of millions of dollars in infusion from major donors that gave him a tremendous financial advantage over his Republican rivals on the final leg of the race.

There had been moments over the summer when Mr. Newsom, a Democrat, had appeared in public polls as vulnerable as California’s unique callback rules seemed to provide an opening for the Conservatives in one of the nation’s most trusted democratic states. But Mr. Newsom raised more than $ 70 million in an account this year to combat the recall, much of it in July and August, which allowed him and his allies to dominate the television network and promote their opponents online .

California has no restrictions on donations to recall committees, and Mr. Newsom has taken full advantage of these loose rules. His contributions included an early $ 3 million from Reed Hastings, the CEO of Netflix; $ 500,000 from liberal philanthropist George Soros; and $ 500,000 from Hollywood producer Jeffrey Katzenberg. Dr. Priscilla Chan, a philanthropist and wife of Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg, contributed $ 750,000 and real estate tycoon George Marcus gave $ 1 million.

Millions of dollars more came from stakeholders doing business in front of the state, including unions representing service workers, teachers and prison guards, the real estate industry, and Indian tribes who run casinos.

On the Republican side, the financial cavalry never made it.

Mr. Newsom’s aggressive efforts to deter other prominent Democrats from running for office cemented the party’s financial power to protect his post. When dismissed in California, voters ask themselves two questions: first, whether the governor should be removed, and second, who should be the replacement. During the last recall election in 2003, Democrats struggled with the notoriously unwieldy slogan “no recall; yes on Bustamante ”when Arnold Schwarzenegger, a Republican, moved into governorship.

This year, the state’s Democrats and Republicans seem to agree on one thing ahead of Tuesday’s election: Money mattered. All in all, Mr Newsom spent more on fighting the recall than he did on his 2018 election.

“If Gavin couldn’t raise the money, he could have lost in the face of the amount of apathy and fear,” said Kerman Maddox, a Democratic strategist in California who also served as a party donor. “I’ll just be real.”

Dave Gilliard, a Republican strategist who was involved in the recall effort, said of the cash gap, “It definitely made a difference.”

Despite the large sums of money involved in the recall, the total cost of the race is actually less than that of a single election last year, than Uber and Lyft have teamed up to successfully push for rules App-based companies allow drivers and other workers to continue to be classified as independent contractors. This ballot has drawn roughly $ 225 million in spending because of the state’s many large and expensive media markets, including Los Angeles.

Mr Newsom used his financial advantage to overpower his Republican rivals and supporters of the televised recall in July and August by a ratio of almost four to one, giving the $ 20.4 million for the $ 5.6 million, according to data -Dollars of callback advocates from ad tracking company AdImpact. Some of these advertisements framed the race in the crassest of words, with a passage saying that was the result of the recall “it’s about life and death” because of the coronavirus.

On YouTube and Google, the financial inequality was even worse. Newsom has spent nearly $ 4.1 million, according to Google’s disclosure documents, while its leading Republican opponent, radio talk show host Larry Elder, has spent just over $ 600,000.

the sudden appearance of Mr. Elder As the Republican front runner – he entered the competition in July and had raised more than $ 13 million by the end of August – Mr. Newsom supplied a finished Republican slide. A blatant conservative, Mr. Elder had left a number of radio clips outlining unpopular positions with the Democrats on issues such as the environment, abortion, and the minimum wage.

“Lo and behold, he received a gift from the gods on behalf of Larry Elder, the conservative African-American version of Donald Trump,” said Maddox, adding that the specter of an elder-governor had motivated donors large and small alike.

Updated

9/10/2021, 1:05 p.m. ET

It hadn’t always been clear that Mr. Newsom would have such a crucial monetary advantage. Some party contributors were slow to get involved. Ron Conway, a San Francisco-based venture capitalist who made early stage efforts in the tech community to combat product recalls and fundraisers, said he was fired early. “Back then, a lot of people thought I was scare tactics,” he wrote in an email. “They don’t think so anymore!”

State records show that nearly two-thirds of donations of $ 10,000 or more went to Mr. Newsom’s primary account against recalls after July 1. And overall, more than 80 percent of the US $ 10,000 donations came from California.

“Democrats would rather not have to fund an off-year race in California,” said Dan Newman, an advisor to Mr. Newsom. “But they didn’t hesitate when it was clear what was at stake.”

Mr Newsom’s campaign said it was expecting 600,000 donations by the election after running a robust online donation program. Much of the money, however, came from huge donations, with $ 48.2 million in its main account against recalls from donations of $ 100,000 or more.

In late August, attendees at a donor retreat in Aspen, Colorado for Democratic Governors Association contributors said there was some grumbling and anger about the need to redirect all resources to a blue state like California – especially given the tough races in the world of governors are scheduled to take place in 2022.

The Governors Association has so far transferred $ 5.5 million to the Newsom operation against the recall.

“It’s not a good sign for the Democrats in 2022 when they have to burn millions of dollars on a recall in America’s most liberal state,” said Jesse Hunt, communications director for the Republican Governors Association.

From the start, Mr. Newsom’s campaign framed the recall as a Republican seizure of power, making it particularly unattractive for some major GOP contributors to get involved in the race, according to National and California Republicans. The unusual demand by the state that the names of the top donors appear in advertisements was also a deterrent, along with widespread disbelief that California could ever really be turned around.

“There are a lot of people who are for us but never believe it’s possible,” said Anne Hyde Dunsmore, campaign manager for Rescue California, one of the pro-recalls. “No, the money didn’t come in, and no, it wasn’t for lack of demand.”

Some major checks came. Mr. Elder received $ 1 million from Geoffrey Palmer, a real estate developer and major Republic donor. Saul Fox, a private equity manager, donated $ 100,000. And Mr. Elder quickly outstripped the rest of the Republican field in fundraising with donations large and small.

John Cox, the Republican who lost to Mr. Newsom in a 2018 landslide, has again spent millions of his own dollars. One of his costly moves was campaigning with a 1,000 pound Kodiak bear named Tag, Who else appeared in Mr. Cox’s advertisements.

Kevin Faulconer, a Republican former mayor of San Diego, raised more than $ 4 million for his candidacy, and Kevin Kiley, a Republican MP, raised more than $ 1 million.

Caitlyn Jenner, the transgender activist and former Olympian, received a wave of publicity their entry to the race. But their offer and fundraising have largely failed. By the end of August, Ms. Jenner had raised less than $ 1 million and had less than $ 28,000 in cash – with more than unpaid bills.

Gale Kaufman, a Sacramento-based Democratic strategist, said the fragmented and financially weak Republican field had “prevented them from ever launching a ‘yes’ campaign” – for the recall – “met with response.”

“They don’t speak with one voice and they don’t say the same thing,” she said.

Mike Netter, a Republican who was one of the early organizers of the recall, was frustrated by the Democratic attack that the push was a Republican attempt to seize power. He said there was little conservative support after supporters of the recall put the measure on the ballot.

“If we’re supposed to be so Republican, where’s our money? Where is the air cover from our supposedly right-wing secret organizations? ”Mr Netter said, referring to the lack of large donations from the party and leading Republicans such as MP Devin Nunes. “Nobody believed in us for so long. And it’s not that we have that much money. It’s not like the Koch brothers are my cousins ​​or anything. I went to the state of San Diego. “

Shawn Hubler contributed to the coverage.

Protestors name for ‘Arizona-style’ election audit

MADISON (WKOW) – With Arizona still in the midst of a privately held forensic review of the 2020 presidential election, some Wisconsinites are calling for similar proceedings.

Check out all of our political coverage here.

About 100 people gathered at the State Capitol Friday morning to campaign for a Wisconsin 2020 presidential election process review. First and foremost, they are calling on Republican leaders in the Wisconsin Legislature to force election officials from the Milwaukee and Brown counties to hand over voting machines for inspection.

State representative Janel Brandtjen (R-Menomonee Falls) has gone so far as to call for an audit similar to that of Arizona.

“We bought this material. We want to make sure these machines weren’t hacked during the election. said Brandtjen at the protest.

To date, despite numerous claims to the contrary, there has been no substantial evidence of widespread voter fraud in the 2020 election. At a panel of the Senate Electoral Committee earlier this week, State Senator Kathy Bernier (R-Chippewa Falls) agreed with the panel’s experts, who presented evidence to debunk allegations of fraud.

“I’m sorry, but there is no reason to spread misinformation about these past elections when we all have evidence to the contrary,” said Bernier at the hearing.

Our view: 2nd District election for state senator attracts curiosity and cash | Newest Headlines



MP Vince Mazzeo, D-Atlantic, left, and State Senator-elect Vince Polistina, R-Atlantic are the contestants in one of the most competitive and watched legislative races this fall.

When Senator Chris Brown announced that he would not run for re-election, those who followed the policy knew immediately that competition for the open seat would be intense and therefore a lot of money would be spent to win it.

Even so, South Jersey Democratic leader George Norcross was shocked to raise and spend $ 5 million on a contest in Atlantic County. That’s more than a third of what the Democrats spent on all legislative competitions in 2019.

The Norcross money will go to MP Vince Mazzeo, D-Atlantic’s campaign for the Senate seat of the 2nd, left by Brown. His opponent, Vince Polistina, a former Republican MP for the district, said the New Jersey Democrats would always be Republicans surpass, but he was surprised that so much money was announced so early. Polistina said he and his party had the resources to campaign effectively.

Partisans often think that money is a problem in politics when their enemies have more of it. Spending is useful in a campaign, no question about it, but increasing it leads to a decreasing return at a certain point. And funding is only one factor, and often not the most important. Campaigns that are expected to be successful can receive money from groups and people trying to support the winner. Well-funded campaigns often fail to change voters’ minds.

Consider the recent efforts of the New Jersey Education Association. In 2017, they were among the stakeholders who spent millions on Phil Murphy’s behalf. But the former Goldman Sachs financier was not short of money, and his contest ended with the highest spend since the record election for his Goldman Sachs predecessor, Jon Corzine.

Report: Most Federal Election Safety Cash Stays Unspent

Congress allocated hundreds of millions of dollars to shore up the country’s electoral system against cyberattacks and other threats, but about two-thirds of the money went unspent just weeks before last year’s presidential election.

A recent federal report said the states, the District of Columbia, and the U.S. Territories had spent just over $ 255 million of $ 805 million on election security grants as of September 30th last year, the latest numbers available.

States have been given leeway in how and when to spend their shares as electoral concerns and potential weaknesses in electoral systems vary widely. Several election officials cited two main reasons for the slow pace of spending: More than half of the money was not allocated until the 2020 elections were less than a year away, leaving election officials and state lawmakers little time to make key spending decisions. And the coronavirus pandemic turned last year’s election planning on its head, forcing officials to focus on election security and seek earlier voting and postal voting.

“Security was still on everyone’s lips, but it was being pushed into the background to make sure the elections go without a total collapse,” said Don Palmer, chairman of the US Electoral Commission, which published the report.

A State-by-state snapshot The commission, released last month, shows that the state’s 50 states plus the District of Columbia and five territories at the end of the federal fiscal year on September 30, when the early voting was already in the presidential election, accounted for around 31% of the funding for election security. The grant money has come in two servings since 2018 under the Help America Vote Act.

choice_security_funds_state_expenditures.png

US Electoral Aid Commission

A breakdown of electoral security funds by state in the Election Assistance Commission report shows Colorado spent $ 1 million of the $ 13.5 million in federal funds it received through September 30, 2020.

Louisiana, one of the last states to deploy aging paper-free voting machines nationwide, did not spend any of its $ 12.5 million in electoral security grants prior to the 2020 presidential election. Its initial efforts to replace thousands of voting machines were halted amid controversy over the selection process.

In July, the Democratic governor of Louisiana and his Republican lawmakers agreed on a process a verifiable paper trail required for any electoral system chosen by the GOP foreign minister.

In 2017, the federal government informed election officials in 21 states that hackers targeted their systems ahead of the 2016 presidential election. The spread of the attempts caused concern among some electoral officials and lawmakers at the time, even though the hackers failed to break into electoral systems or manipulate voter data or results.

North Dakota – one of the target states – did not spend any of the $ 6 million it received in electoral security grants as of September 30. The state told the Election Assistance Commission in its own financial report that it did not purchase any election equipment and did not conduct any security training during the year. Instead, other funding sources with expiration dates were prioritized. North Dakota originally applied for polling bail to purchase a nationwide digital scan voting system and electronic polling books for every polling location in the state.

Former Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s report says that in June 2016, Russian activists successfully compromised the Illinois State Board of Elections computer network and gained access to a voter registration database containing the information of millions of people. By September 30, however, Illinois officials had spent less than 16% of the $ 28.1 million in bail money for the federal election. EAC Commissioner Benjamin Hovland told lawmakers that Illinois spending seemed low as the state spent most of its money on a multi-year project called the Cyber ​​Navigator Program, which aims to defend, detect, and stay away from cyber attacks to recover them.

Pennsylvania, a presidential battlefield that was also one of the target states in 2016, spent nearly 90% of its $ 28.6 million prior to the 2020 elections mainly on replacing voting machines. Other politically important states that were targeted – Arizona, Florida, and Wisconsin – spent about half of their money.

Hovland said the electoral grant money had no expiration date and said it was “the first real money” to come into the states for elections in a long time, and people had no confidence that there would be additional federal funding .

A review of state progress reports by Commission officials found that a “joint activity” among states was to spend the money on examining the November presidential election. The report found that Colorado, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, and many other states are planning some form of audit.

According to the agency’s 2020 report, state spending on federal grants fell into three main categories: nearly 39% went to cybersecurity upgrades; approx. 25% were invested in new voting machines; and 11% updated voter registration databases.

During the 2020 general election, only 32 constituencies across the country relied on paperless voting machines. Nine states – Arkansas, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, New Jersey, Tennessee, and Texas – used electronic voting machines that had no verifiable paper trail in at least one of their territories.

Five states that had used voting machines without paper backup in 2018 had stopped using them by the 2020 general election. These were Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Pennsylvania, and South Carolina.

The lack of consistent federal money for election security is likely a reason why many electoral officials in the state don’t spend their federal grants, said Lawrence Norden, director of electoral reform at the Brennan Center for Justice.

Former Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach, who served as vice chairman of former President Donald Trump’s now-defunct electoral fraud commission, was the top electoral officer in the state when Kansas received the first infusion, ultimately worth $ 9.3 million. Nothing of this money was spent at the time.

Kobach said that when the federal money arrived, lawmakers did not meet to provide the necessary matching funds. Under his successor, Scott Schwab, Kansas spent only $ 19,200 on testing and training prior to the 2020 election to ensure electoral staff were using email “safely and securely”. State officials say they have since spent more than $ 3.4 million of grant funding, in part to improve the security of the Kansas statewide voter registration system and to complement cybersecurity efforts.

Some states have chosen to keep the federal money because the technology that now appears to be effective in securing elections could be out of date in 10 years, said Danielle Root, an electoral security expert with the Center for American Progress.

“Many states view the elections as a marathon rather than a race, and many states want to reserve some of that funding to update their systems as new threats and technological advances emerge,” she said.

Copyright 2021 Associated Press. All rights reserved.

Federal election officers need solutions from Rep. Lauren Boebert after marketing campaign cash used for private bills

RIFLE, Colorado (KRDO) – Federal election officials urge Congressman Laurens Boebert for responses after using $ 6,000 in campaign funds for personal use.

A spokesman for the South Colorado legislature told 13 Investigations that the expenses had been mistakenly made and reimbursed.

On Tuesday, the federal electoral commission sent a seven-page letter to Boebert’s campaign treasurer demanding answers to these personal expenses and an excess of campaign funds totaling over $ 50,000.

FEC officials are requesting more information on a total of $ 6,000 in personal Venmo payments made in May and June of this year.

The letter states that federal election campaign money from civil servants or a candidate cannot be used for anything “which would exist regardless of the campaign or the duties of the candidate as a federal official”.

According to her spokesman, the newly minted congresswoman fully refunded the money when her team discovered the mistake. It is not clear who received the Venmo payments or for what purpose they were used.

13 Investigates were advised that the refund would be included in their campaign funding reports for the third quarter.

The letter from election officials also indicates that Boebert’s campaign received more than $ 50,000 in excess donations. Federal law limits how much individuals and committees can donate to a candidate and requires that those funds be returned if the caps are exceeded.

Boerbert’s spokesman said any excess donations would be refunded in order to comply with the law.

The FEC informed Boebert’s campaign that it had to respond by September 21, otherwise this could lead to an audit and enforcement measure.

Your spokesperson tells 13 investigates that they will respond within the deadline.

Letter: Comply with the cash on Arizona election audit

Bill Windsor, Sun City West

Hopefully readers of the Daily Independent took the time to read and review two recent articles in the July 30th issue. The first was “Trump supporters raise US $ 5.6 million for election exams”.

What’s interesting here is that Senate President Karen Fann first got the ball rolling by hiring Cyber ​​Ninjas, an unknown company with no experience or credentials and at the helm of an outspoken Trump supporter named Logan.

The price of $ 150,000 … what a bargain. In reality, you can’t buy rye ham without a drink for $ 150,000 in these circles. But Logan knew what he was doing. The ticket is now $ 5.6 million and growing. Not to say he (Logan) will get it all, but he will likely need help getting to the bank.

Well, in fairness, Karen Fann has invested many extra hours (beyond her duty as a Senator) in promoting this exam fraud, and it is only reasonable that she should receive a portion of the $ 5.6 million as a “finder’s reward.” “For recommending Cyber ​​Ninjas, a company recommended to her by someone whose name she” cannot remember. “

Apparently, the names of entities (or people) who donated to this fiasco are sacred and do not need to be disclosed for the purposes of the First Amendment.

If a topic is so important to me personally that I would make a donation, I would like to see my name in lights.

The point I want to get across here is to follow the money. I am sure the Daily Independent will keep us updated.

The second article reads, “The DOJ is issuing the strongest warning on election scrutiny yet.” This article discusses the efforts Fann and Attorney General Mark Brnovich (among others) are making to undermine the credibility of President Joe Biden’s election. The two (Karen and Mark) want to intimidate minority voters, then and now. So comes the 2022 election time, which will give your party an advantage.

Voting is a right, not a privilege.

This couple know their efforts are in vain, but they will persist in this farce to keep their names until the next election. Their intent is to rally the Trumpers (with Trump’s help) and keep their support through thick or thin. This couple are so evident in their pursuit of political power that, for lack of a better word, they are disgusting (yet entertaining nonetheless).

For these two, power is money and money is power.

GOP Pushing For Arizona-Model Election Audits To Unfold Nationwide — However State Officers Already Maintain Discovering ‘No Proof’ Of Fraud

Top line

A Republican-led Michigan Senate committee investigating the 2020 state elections has found there is “no evidence of widespread or systematic fraud” A number of GOP state officials are now pushing for more controversial privately held audits across the country.

Ballots cast in the 2020 general election in Maricopa County, Arizona, will be cast in a … [+] Exam on May 6, 2021 in Phoenix.

RELATED PRESS

Important facts

A report Michigan Senate Oversight Committee, released Wednesday, rejected allegations of widespread fraud in the November election, including several right-wing conspiracy theories regarding electoral fraud, despite senators saying there were “serious weaknesses in our electoral system.”

The senators exposed a theory alleged voting machines swapped votes in Antrim County, Michigan – Senator Edward McBroom wrote that the allegations would continue to be viewed as “an utter waste of time” – and countered allegations of Dominion voting machine fraud promoted by the MyPillow CEO Mike Lindell.

Michigan’s Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson previously announced in March that more than 250 local audits in the state “confirmed the integrity and accuracy of the 2020 general election”.

Officials in Georgia checked the state paper ballots and found they “confirmed and confirmed” the state vote count, and state and county officials in Wisconsin and Maricopa County, Arizona, have also checked their voting machines and determined that there was no fraud or cases of tampering or “tampered” machines.

Nevada’s Secretary of State Barbara Cegavske – the state’s only nationally elected Republican woman –examined Allegations of electoral fraud in the parliamentary elections and in an April determined report that the GOP’s concerns about electoral fraud in Nevada “do not constitute evidence.”

Pennsylvania conducted a statewide, risk-limiting review of its votes that “provided strong evidence of the accuracy of the vote count,” despite Spotlight PA Remarks that while the audit confirmed that Biden received more votes than former President Donald Trump, it was not detailed enough to confirm the accuracy of the results.

Big number

32%. That’s the percentage of US adults who still believe that President Joe Biden won the presidential election for election fraud despite a lack of credible evidence, according to a Monmouth poll carried out from June 9th to 14th.

Ultimate quote

“The committee can confidently claim that it has thoroughly investigated numerous allegations of illegal activity, improper practice, fraud, vote theft, or any other description that would cast doubt on the integrity of Michigan’s 2020 election results,” it said the Michigan senators wrote in their report. “Our clear conclusion is that citizens should trust that the results represent the true results of the ballots cast by the people of Michigan.”

Key background

Trump and his GOP allies have repeatedly asserted that there was widespread voter fraud in the presidential election, and continue to advance those claims, even as more than 60 GOP lawsuits challenging election results fail in court and tests repeat accuracy the vote count confirmed. Federal and state officials, including former US attorney general William Barr said there was no widespread fraud in the elections, and a Statistical analysis The Battlefield States’ results also found “no evidence of fraud, manipulation or uncorrected errors”. The electoral fraud allegations have prevailed despite the lack of evidence on the right, sparking a new wave of controversial state levels Voting restrictions in the name of “electoral security”. Republicans have now also clung to a partisan and privately financed choice exam takes place in Maricopa County, Arizona, which has the Biden administration said could potentially violate federal law by removing ballots from the control of poll workers. The audit will not change the state’s certified election results, but critics warn that partisan recount could further undermine public confidence in the election results.

What to look out for

Audits like the one in Arizona that is going on now just before the end– could soon spread nationwide as lawmakers from states such as Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Michigan, Oklahoma, Tennessee, and Utah have traveled to watch the exam and have expressed an interest in potentially conducting their own investigations. “You’re definitely writing the playbook here in Arizona to get this type of audit, I don’t want to call it an audit, I want to call it other states,” said Arizona’s Secretary of State Katie Hobbs, a Democrat NBC news. “And it’s dangerous.” Wisconsin Congregation Speaker Robin Vos announced a new survey of the state’s election results in May and the Republicans are pushing with one effort Investigate ballots in Fulton County, Georgia, and other efforts could potentially be made in other battlefield states such as Pennsylvania and Michigan.

further reading

GOP Investigation Finds No Election Fraud In Michigan, Finds Many Claims “Ridiculous” (Bridge MI)

Voting machines in Phoenix were not manipulated, audit results (Forbes)

The Nevada Secretary of State finds no “conclusive support” for allegations of electoral fraud by the GOP (CNN)

Wisconsin Republicans hires ex-cops to investigate elections as Arizona exam sparks new investigations nationwide (Forbes)

“No Evidence” of Election Fraud in Battlefield States: Statistical Analysis Finds Trump Continues to Make False Claims (Forbes)

80% of Americans are in favor of the Voter ID rules – but less afraid of scams, poll results (Forbes)