yesIssie LapowskyNone
×

Get access to Protocol

Will be used in accordance with our Privacy Policy

I’m already a subscriber
Politics

What can Zuckerberg’s $300 million election donation really buy?

The sum is unprecedented and falls woefully short of the amount Congress should be allocating.

Mark Zuckerberg and Priscilla Chan

Mark Zuckerberg and Priscilla Chan announced they'll be donating $250 million to the Center for Tech and Civic Life and $50 million to the Center for Election Innovation and Research.

Photo: Ian Tuttle/Getty Images for Breakthrough Prize

Mark Zuckerberg has frequently found himself sitting before Congress, as lawmakers chastise him for Facebook's flaws and warn him that if he doesn't do his job, they will. Now, as the billionaire founder and his wife, Priscilla Chan, make an unprecedented donation to election infrastructure in the face of Congress' inaction on the multi-billion-dollar shortfall in election funding, the tables have turned.

On Tuesday, the pair announced they are donating $250 million to the Center for Tech and Civic Life, a nonpartisan organization that plans to use the funds to help state and local governments pay for things like hiring and training poll workers, renting polling places, buying protective gear for poll workers, purchasing equipment to process mail-in ballots, and voter education. The couple is also giving $50 million to the Center for Election Innovation and Research, which will fund outreach to inform voters about registration, mail-in voting, and other peculiarities of carrying out an election in a pandemic.

The $300 million outlay is almost as much as the $400 million Congress itself set aside in March as part of the $2 trillion CARES Act. Since then, though, Congress has failed to allocate any additional funding to help state and local officials adapt, despite reports suggesting Congress would need to spend $4 billion to truly meet the scale of the need. And yet, in mid-August, Congress adjourned without allocating any additional money for elections, leaving election officials and experts desperate to find new funding — even if that means taking it from the guy whose company stands perpetually accused of stoking chaos and confusion around elections.

"It is truly a shame that we need to rely on private donations in order to support the basic needs of our democracy, but if Congress is unwilling to step up, we need to find money wherever we can find it," said Nate Persily, a Stanford law professor and co-founder of the The Stanford-MIT Healthy Elections Project, which aims to help state and local officials safeguard the 2020 election.

"Ordinarily I would not want to look to the private sector to meet the basic budget for the infrastructure of our democracy, but we're at an extraordinary point here," said Wendy Weiser, director of the Brennan Center's Democracy program, which has produced multiple reports on the scope of the election funding gap this year. "We cannot let Congress' failure be a failure for democracy."

In a statement, Zuckerberg and Chan said the donations will "help provide local and state officials across the country with resources, training and infrastructure necessary to ensure that every voter who intends to cast a ballot is able to, and ultimately, to preserve the integrity of our elections."

But what can $300 million really buy between now and November? A whole lot and not enough.

Consider what it will take to handle the dramatic increase in mail-in voting that is likely to take place this year. Just one ballot drop box can cost as much as $10,000 to purchase and install. According to the Brennan Center's nationwide estimates, getting fully equipped for mail-in voting would cost $982 million to $1.4 billion. That includes the cost of printing ballots (at least $54 million), mailing them (at least $413 million), purchasing nearly 12,000 ballot drop boxes that would be needed to meet the estimated demand (at least $82 million), ballot tracking software ($4.2 million) and more.

In Pennsylvania alone, the Brennan Center estimates local officials would need at least $36.3 million just to cover the cost of mailing, processing and tabulating mail-in ballots. The technology governments are buying to do this work is mission critical, Persily explained. "Even if you're just talking about opening the envelopes, that could take a week for human beings to open a million mail ballots," he said. "You need to automate the process."

And yet, in many states, Weiser said even if local governments get the funding for these machines now, it's already too late for them to go through the procurement process to buy them, let alone to have them manufactured, installed and tested before Election Day. That means whatever funding comes through between now and November will predominantly be spent on personnel.

"That doesn't mean there's less of a need, there's just much greater labor costs," Weiser said, noting that governments will have to prepare for higher than usual no-show rates, as poll workers in high-risk groups opt to stay home on Election Day.

The cost of labor was already expected to be sizable, even before it became clear that states wouldn't be able to procure the equipment they need. In April, the Brennan Center estimated that simply maintaining in-person voting could cost $271.4 million nationwide.

All of which is to say that Zuckerberg and Chan's commitment can certainly make a dent, but it hardly lets Congress off the hook. It seems unlikely the donation will give Facebook much cover from its critics, either. Lately, the company has touted its efforts to register 4 million voters and surface reliable information about the election through its newly created Voting Information Center. But it's been unyielding on some of its most controversial policies, including refusing to fact-check politicians' speech and declining to take action against one of President Trump's posts that appeared to encourage violence.

Now, some watchdog groups say Zuckerberg and Chan's financial contribution is little more than a public relations maneuver to cover up for Facebook's misdeeds.

"Needless to say, this is a significant financial commitment to help state and local officials administer safe and secure elections amid unprecedented challenges, and we applaud that investment," Nicole Gill, director of the group Accountable Tech, which pushes social media companies on issues related to democracy, said in a statement. "But let's be clear: There's not enough money in the world to paper over the damage Facebook has done to democracy."

Still, Persily and Weiser said that whatever Zuckerberg and Chan's motivation may be, in the absence of leadership from Congress this funding is one of the only safeguards we currently have against a calamitous Election Day. "This is not the ideal situation," Persily said, "but if the alternative is that we have an election meltdown, I think we should take the money."

Protocol | Fintech

Jack Dorsey is so money: What Tidal and banking do for Square

Teaming up with Jay-Z's music streaming service may seem like a move done for flash, but it's ultimately all about the money (and Cash).

Jay-Z performs at the Tidal-X concert at the Barclays Center in Brooklyn in 2017.

Photo: Theo Wargo/Getty Images

It was a big week for Jack Dorsey, who started by turning heads in Wall Street, and then went Hollywood with an unexpected music-streaming deal.

Dorsey's payments company, Square, announced Monday that it now has an actual bank, Square Financial Services, which just got a charter approved. On Thursday, Dorsey announced Square was taking a majority stake in Tidal, the music-streaming service backed by Jay-Z, for $297 million.

Keep Reading Show less
Benjamin Pimentel

Benjamin Pimentel ( @benpimentel) covers fintech from San Francisco. He has reported on many of the biggest tech stories over the past 20 years for the San Francisco Chronicle, Dow Jones MarketWatch and Business Insider, from the dot-com crash, the rise of cloud computing, social networking and AI to the impact of the Great Recession and the COVID crisis on Silicon Valley and beyond. He can be reached at bpimentel@protocol.com or via Signal at (510)731-8429.

Sponsored Content

The future of computing at the edge: an interview with Intel’s Tom Lantzsch

An interview with Tom Lantzsch, SVP and GM, Internet of Things Group at Intel

An interview with Tom Lantzsch

Senior Vice President and General Manager of the Internet of Things Group (IoT) at Intel Corporation

Edge computing had been on the rise in the last 18 months – and accelerated amid the need for new applications to solve challenges created by the Covid-19 pandemic. Tom Lantzsch, Senior Vice President and General Manager of the Internet of Things Group (IoT) at Intel Corp., thinks there are more innovations to come – and wants technology leaders to think equally about data and the algorithms as critical differentiators.

In his role at Intel, Lantzsch leads the worldwide group of solutions architects across IoT market segments, including retail, banking, hospitality, education, industrial, transportation, smart cities and healthcare. And he's seen first-hand how artificial intelligence run at the edge can have a big impact on customers' success.

Protocol sat down with Lantzsch to talk about the challenges faced by companies seeking to move from the cloud to the edge; some of the surprising ways that Intel has found to help customers and the next big breakthrough in this space.

What are the biggest trends you are seeing with edge computing and IoT?

A few years ago, there was a notion that the edge was going to be a simplistic model, where we were going to have everything connected up into the cloud and all the compute was going to happen in the cloud. At Intel, we had a bit of a contrarian view. We thought much of the interesting compute was going to happen closer to where data was created. And we believed, at that time, that camera technology was going to be the driving force – that just the sheer amount of content that was created would be overwhelming to ship to the cloud – so we'd have to do compute at the edge. A few years later – that hypothesis is in action and we're seeing edge compute happen in a big way.

Keep Reading Show less
Saul Hudson
Saul Hudson has a deep knowledge of creating brand voice identity, especially in understanding and targeting messages in cutting-edge technologies. He enjoys commissioning, editing, writing, and business development, in helping companies to build passionate audiences and accelerate their growth. Hudson has reported from more than 30 countries, from war zones to boardrooms to presidential palaces. He has led multinational, multi-lingual teams and managed operations for hundreds of journalists. Hudson is a Managing Partner at Angle42, a strategic communications consultancy.
Protocol | Policy

Far-right misinformation: Facebook's most engaging news

A new study shows that before and after the election, far-right misinformation pages drew more engagement than all other partisan news.

A new study finds that far right misinformation pulls in more engagement on Facebook than other types of partisan news.

Photo: Brett Jordan/Unsplash

In the months before and after the 2020 election, far-right pages that are known to spread misinformation consistently garnered more engagement on Facebook than any other partisan news, according to a New York University study published Wednesday.

The study looked at Facebook engagement for news sources across the political spectrum between Aug. 10, 2020 and Jan. 11, 2021, and found that on average, far-right pages that regularly trade in misinformation raked in 65% more engagement per follower than other far-right pages that aren't known for spreading misinformation.

Keep Reading Show less
Issie Lapowsky
Issie Lapowsky (@issielapowsky) is a senior reporter at Protocol, covering the intersection of technology, politics, and national affairs. Previously, she was a senior writer at Wired, where she covered the 2016 election and the Facebook beat in its aftermath. Prior to that, Issie worked as a staff writer for Inc. magazine, writing about small business and entrepreneurship. She has also worked as an on-air contributor for CBS News and taught a graduate-level course at New York University’s Center for Publishing on how tech giants have affected publishing. Email Issie.
Transforming 2021

Blockchain, QR codes and your phone: the race to build vaccine passports

Digital verification systems could give people the freedom to work and travel. Here's how they could actually happen.

One day, you might not need to carry that physical passport around, either.

Photo: CommonPass

There will come a time, hopefully in the near future, when you'll feel comfortable getting on a plane again. You might even stop at the lounge at the airport, head to the regional office when you land and maybe even see a concert that evening. This seemingly distant reality will depend upon vaccine rollouts continuing on schedule, an open-sourced digital verification system and, amazingly, the blockchain.

Several countries around the world have begun to prepare for what comes after vaccinations. Swaths of the population will be vaccinated before others, but that hasn't stopped industries decimated by the pandemic from pioneering ways to get some people back to work and play. One of the most promising efforts is the idea of a "vaccine passport," which would allow individuals to show proof that they've been vaccinated against COVID-19 in a way that could be verified by businesses to allow them to travel, work or relax in public without a great fear of spreading the virus.

Keep Reading Show less
Mike Murphy

Mike Murphy ( @mcwm) is the director of special projects at Protocol, focusing on the industries being rapidly upended by technology and the companies disrupting incumbents. Previously, Mike was the technology editor at Quartz, where he frequently wrote on robotics, artificial intelligence, and consumer electronics.

People

WhatsApp thinks business chat is the future — but it won't be easy

From privacy policy screw-ups to UI questions, can WhatsApp crack the super-app riddle?

WhatsApp Business is trying to wrap shopping around messaging. It's not always easy.

Image: WhatsApp

At some point, WhatsApp was always going to have to make some money. Facebook paid $21.8 billion for the company in 2014, and since then, WhatsApp has grown to more than 2 billion users in more than 180 countries. And while, yes, Facebook's acquisition was in part simply a way to neutralize a competitor, it also knows how to monetize an audience.

The trick, though, would be figuring out how to do that without putting ads into the app. Nobody at WhatsApp ever wanted to do that, including co-founders Jan Koum and Brian Acton, who reportedly left Facebook after disagreements over ads. More recently, even Mark Zuckerberg has slowed the WhatsApp ad train, with The Information reporting that ads in WhatsApp likely won't come while the company's under so much regulatory scrutiny. So: $21.8 billion, no ads. What to do?

Keep Reading Show less
David Pierce

David Pierce ( @pierce) is Protocol's editor at large. Prior to joining Protocol, he was a columnist at The Wall Street Journal, a senior writer with Wired, and deputy editor at The Verge. He owns all the phones.

Latest Stories