The contents of the Democrats’ House Resolution 1 election bill are controversial enough by themselves. Now, a new report suggests that a dark money group financed by a foreign national is funding the lobbying for that bill along with other Democratic priorities.
According to Fox News, the Sixteen Thirty Fund has put almost $2 million “into the efforts to sway senators on issues ranging from H.R.1 to D.C. statehood to the Voting Rights Act Amendment.”
Fox News reported that $1.3 million has been spent on internal lobbyists, and another $480,000 was sent to government relations firm Keefe Singiser Partners between 2019 and 2020. That group is headed by Maura Keefe, who is the former chief of staff for Democratic Sen. Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire.
The Sixteen Thirty Fund would certainly be considered a dark money group by any reasonable person. According to The New York Times, Swiss billionaire Hansjörg Wyss indirectly shelled out $135 million to the group between 2016 and 2020, through the Berger Action Fund which “shares facilities and staff” with Wyss’ foundation.
The Times explained that “dark money” typically refers to political spending channeled through nonprofit groups that can be relatively secretive about their finances and donors. The outlet reported that this type of spending has become more prominent in the wake of multiple court rulings that loosened restrictions on campaign finances.
The Times made clear that despite the left’s accusations of Republicans making use of dark money funds, they have increasingly shown a willingness to do so themselves.
“While progressives and election watchdogs denounced the developments as bestowing too much power to wealthy interests, Democratic donors and operatives increasingly made use of dark money,” the outlet reported.
“During the 2020 election cycle, groups aligned with Democrats spent more than $514 million in such funds, compared to about $200 million spent by groups aligned with Republicans, according to an analysis by the Center for Responsive Politics.”
Wyss said in 2014 that he was not a United States citizen, Fox News reported. This raises further questions about his involvement in lobbying for bills such as HR 1.
In a separate article, Fox News explained some of the controversial provisions in the Democrats’ HR 1 election bill.
“H.R. 1, the largest overhaul of the U.S. election law in at least a generation, touches on many aspects of the voting process,” the outlet reported.
“It would require states to automatically register eligible voters, as well as offer same-day registration. It would limit states’ ability to purge registered voters from their rolls and restore former felons’ voting rights. Among dozens of other provisions, it would also require states to offer 15 days of early voting and allow no-excuse absentee balloting.”
Nearly all of these provisions would increase the possibility of fraud in elections. As we saw in 2020, increasing absentee and early voting also increases the likelihood of voter fraud.
On its face, the bill is already flawed and clearly a ploy for Democrats to win more votes. However, the involvement of a non-citizen in pushing the bill creates a whole new problem.
If this bill is truly an overhaul of American election law, do we really want a Swiss billionaire to be deeply involved in it? If the roles were reversed, Democrats would almost certainly accuse Republicans of allowing foreign election interference.
For nearly four years, the left spent large swaths of time and money accusing former President Donald Trump of engaging in foreign election interference without evidence. Now there is a foreign national outwardly involved in election lobbying on the left, and they are silent as the grave.
In fact, The Times reported that people, presumably left-leaning, went out of their way to avoid talking about Wyss.
“Mr. Wyss did not respond to requests to be interviewed for this article, and most of the people interviewed either declined to discuss him or requested anonymity to do so,” according to the outlet.
If the left had a consistent standard about so-called election integrity, maybe they would have more credibility. Instead, it appears that any standards they devise do not apply so long as the end result is beneficial to them.
This article appeared originally on The Western Journal.