Conservatives Fight Secretive Biden Voting Order as 'Bidenbucks' -- Federal 'Zuckbucks' on Steroids

RealClearInvestigations ^ | 26 Jul, 2023 | Ben Weingarten

[MtnClimber]

GOP lawmakers and other conservative critics are working to expose and fight a secretive executive order by President Biden to expand voter participation in elections, which they suspect has become a powerful government-wide complement to private left-wing election financing that could tip the 2024 campaign illegally and unfairly in Democrats’ favor.

Cast as a civil rights measure issued as the nation marked the 1965 “Bloody Sunday” police beatings of voting-rights marchers outside Selma, Ala., the president's 2021 directive orders every federal agency, more than 600 in all, to register and mobilize voters – particularly “people of color” and others the White House says face “challenges to exercise their fundamental right to vote.” It further orders the agencies to collaborate with ostensibly nonpartisan nonprofits.

Since issuing the order, critics claim, the Biden administration has stonewalled efforts to scrutinize its implementation by often ignoring document requests and litigating to shield relevant records. The critics, including members of Congress, state officials, and government watchdog groups, say the executive branch is attempting to federalize elections with an end-run around constitutionally prescribed state control over voting – in many cases using the resources of agencies with missions unrelated to registering voters.

Some have labeled the president’s order “Bidenbucks,” evoking “Zuckbucks” – Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg and wife Priscilla Chan’s funneling of some $400 million through two nonprofits into election offices across the country during the 2020 election. That money often flowed to left-leaning nonprofits managing critical aspects of election administration that were considered crucial to Biden's winning the White House.

In a notable recent defeat for conservatives, Judge Beryl Howell of the D.C. District Court, an Obama appointee to the generally liberal jurisdiction, on July 18 dismissed Freedom of Information Act requests from the America First Legal Foundation, siding with administration arguments

[MtnClimber]

This sounds like it could be a Hatch Act violation.

[silverleaf]

“the president’s 2021 directive orders every federal agency, more than 600 in all, to register and mobilize voters – particularly “people of color” and others the White House says face “challenges to exercise their fundamental right to vote.” It further orders the agencies to collaborate with ostensibly nonpartisan nonprofits.”

Yeah, about that Hatch Act ….

[BigFreakinToad]

No way, the government ran by the democrats’ would NEVER do such a thing. They are the party of fair and honest elections

[Chewbarkah]

– particularly “people of color” and others the White House says face “challenges to exercise their fundamental right to vote.”

If the order really says the part about “particularly people of color”, then is is unConstitutional and violates various federal laws. Favoring or punishing people by race is illegal. I guess the DoJ didn’t notice.

[DiogenesLamp]

to expand voter participation in elections, which they suspect has become a powerful government-wide complement to private left-wing election financing that could tip the 2024 campaign illegally and unfairly in Democrats’ favor. Cast as a civil rights measure issued as the nation marked the 1965 “Bloody Sunday” police beatings of voting-rights marchers outside

This effort to "expand" the voting franchise has *ALWAYS* been a liberal tactic to keep liberals in power, going all the way back to 1865.

It's *ONLY* purpose is to create more votes for liberals so that they can keep using their power to funnel government money into the pockets of themselves and their allies.

It is *NEVER* about civil rights. It is *ALWAYS* about power.

It backfired on them in 1965 when LBJ outsmarted them and grabbed all their newly created votes.

[Mariner]

Those who are advocates for “democracy” are thrilled with the implementation of Universal Suffrage.

Those who are advocates for liberty lament the fact they ever let it get this far.

We are at the point of no return and have been since Obama.

We are now an ochlocracy.

The good news is that some day soon somebody will seize power and make the trains run on time. Let’s hope it’s our guy.

[Pearls Before Swine]

Ochlocracy, not kakistocracy?

[Mariner]

Not a great deal of difference.

[TBP]

More deliberate destruction of the Constitution.

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp: "This effort to "expand" the voting franchise has *ALWAYS* been a liberal tactic to keep liberals in power, going all the way back to 1865."

Actually, the political tactic of winning elections by expanding voting rights began with Thomas Jefferson's Democrats.
Jefferson supported abolishing the old requirement of property owning to vote -- which could include property owning women and freed-blacks -- Democrats replacing that with universal voting for all men, but only men "free, white and 21".

It's how Jefferson defeated John Adams' Federalists bid for reelection in 1800.
In 1800, for the first time, Southern slaveholders allied with Northern Big City immigrant bosses -- i.e., Tammany Hall in NYC -- flipped New York from Federalist to Democrats, giving Jefferson a narrow victory.

After the Civil War, expanding voter rolls to include newly freed African Americans was very briefly a Republican tactic, but soon abandoned after the 1876 Compromise which forced Union troops to withdraw from former Confederate states and so returned control of elections back to racist white Democrats.

The 1920 19th Amendment was passed by majorities of both Republicans (80%) and Democrats (54%) with the strongest opposition from Southern Democrats.

Arguably, the 1964 election began to flip that script, but it still took half a century to reach our current alignments.

[DiogenesLamp]

Actually, the political tactic of winning elections by expanding voting rights began with Thomas Jefferson's Democrats. Jefferson supported abolishing the old requirement of property owning to vote -- which could include property owning women and freed-blacks -- Democrats replacing that with universal voting for all men, but only men "free, white and 21".

I stand corrected. Thomas Jefferson is probably the *ONLY* person I would believe would do such a thing because he thought it was the right thing to do. He was a bit of a nut for his time. He wanted to abolish slavery before it was a popular idea, so yeah, I can believe he would want to expand the franchise because he thought it was morally right.

All the rest only wanted to do it to gain power.

In 1800, for the first time, Southern slaveholders allied with Northern Big City immigrant bosses -- i.e., Tammany Hall in NYC -- flipped New York from Federalist to Democrats, giving Jefferson a narrow victory.

Jefferson was not a "Democrat." He was a "Democratic Republican." The modern Democrat party only traces back to Andrew Jackson in 1828, I think.

Even then, it has flipped it's ideology from what his was.

After the Civil War, expanding voter rolls to include newly freed African Americans was very briefly a Republican tactic,

That' all it ever was. Just like modern liberals keep wanting to allow illegal aliens to vote, so too were the Republicans motivated by getting more power rather than doing the right thing.

The 1920 19th Amendment was passed by majorities of both Republicans (80%) and Democrats (54%) with the strongest opposition from Southern Democrats.

And hindsight has shown it to be a mistake. The Southern Democrats appear to have been more correct than the Republicans. Women enfranchisement has been a disaster.

Arguably, the 1964 election began to flip that script, but it still took half a century to reach our current alignments.

FDR. 1932. *THAT* is when Blacks started peeling away from the Republicans and moving over to the Democrats.

LBJ just accelerated it.