The NGO Project Part XXVIII: CTCL in WA
The Evergreen State
Introduction
Question: Is CTCL misrepresenting the information on the IRS Form 990 stating that the PURPOSE of the grants were to help support the SAFE administration of public elections during the Covid-19 pandemic?
Answer: It appears so given the results of both aggregate, state and county by county analysis as we will see below. It appears this is a quantifiable democrat ballot harvesting operation.
Background
This is Part XXVIII in The NGO Project series which examines the role NGOs had in determinative outcomes in the 2020 Presidential Election. In prior articles, I focused on the effect the Center for Technology and Civic Life (CTCL) had on AZ, CO, CT, GA, IA, IL, ME, ME, MI, MN, NC, NH, NJ, NE, NM, NY, OH, PA, RI, TN, TX, UT, VT, VA and WI.
This article will solely focus on CTCL in Washington (WA).
Calculation Basis
The calculation basis was previously explained in detail here. In this article, I do make one adjustment and that is to calculate the 2020DIFF factor by weighted average rather than arithmetic average.
Analysis
16 of 39 WA counties (41%) received CTCL grants.
Total votes cast in CTCL counties were ~ 2,853,844 (68%) and NonCTCL counties was ~ 1,233,787 (32%). To state it a different way, on a per county basis, CTCL had the opportunity to influence 68% of WA voters.
The total amount of grants to WA was ~ $2,941,231 and the value of individual grants ranged from ~ $7,100 to $1.3MM.
This table includes the top 5 CTCL grants by county.
$2,495,352 of the grants (86%) were focused in the 5 counties above. 76% of that was in King County where Seattle is located. The $/vote spent by CTCL in these five counties range from $0.65/vote to $2.05/vote (all parties). The vote totals in these 5 counties account for ~55% of the votes in WA.
To state that a different way, 86% of the grants were spent on 55% of the total votes cast in WA. Is that fair if this was all about a Plandemic?
The average 2016 D/R ratio for CTCL Counties was 1.193 (not weighted). The average 2016 D/R ratio for NonCTCL Counties was 0.729 (not weighted). This means that CTCL grants were provided to more D leaning counties. The top 5 counties in terms grants had a average 2016 D/R ratio of 1.644….big time D areas for sure. This is ~2.5x the NonCTCL county average in 2016. More bias in favor of D.
To continue on this track, if you look at all the counties in 2016 that had a D/R ratio of less than one (R leaning counties), there were 27 (69%) counties. In total, they received ~ $433,000 in grants in 2020. This is a stingy ~ 15% of the total 2020 CTCL grants in WA. These counties contributed ~809,000 votes (all parties) in 2016 which is 25% of the vote total.
To put it a different way, 15% of the 2020 CTCL grants went to counties where 25% of the votes were cast in 2016 in NonCTCL counties. More bias in favor of D.
The top R leaning counties in 2016 that received CTCL money in 2020…..
Do these facts alone confirm or disapprove my thesis that the grants were NOT used for public safety?
2020DIFF Calculated with Weighted Average
For this analysis, I used a slightly different way to calculate the 2020DIFF using a weighted average based on total votes in a county. This is what it looks like.
w = Total County Vote / Total State Vote
a = D/R2020 - D/R2016 (for CTCL Counties)
a' = a * w (per county)
2020DIFF = sum(a'1:a'n)
This method in theory permits a better correlation for D vote harvesting because it is weighted for counties with higher vote totals.
Now things get weird in WA…..
Before I even get into this, WA broke the model. Why?
I believe due to the overwhelming concentration of funding to the counties in the NW corner of the state: King, Pierce, Clark, Mason, San Juan, Thurston and Whatcom totaled ~ 2.4MM or 83% of all of the grants for only 55% of the voters. I believe other counties adjacent to these benefited from the grants in some way, but I cannot count them as CTCL counties.
Here are the numbers anyway to illustrate my point.
The 2020DIFF for CTCL counties is 0.080 and for NonCTCL counties it is 0.099. This means that the CTCL D vote harvesting factor in CTCL entities is 0.080-0.099 = -0.02 or ~ -20%.
So I have to conclude one of the following
CTCL grants actually increased R turnout as a ratio to D between 2016 and 2020
or
Non CTCL counties adjacent to the mega grant center in the NW part of the state benefited D’s even though they do not have a grant listed on the IRS 990.
You decide.
These are all of the CTCL counties.
Noteworthy R Stalwarts
There was only one R stalwart in terms of -2020DIFF which indicates higher R turnout as a ratio to D between 2016 and 2020. Cowlitz.
To emphasize my point above, 26 counties had a D/R 2020 ratio less than 1. These counties only received ~$407,000 of the grant money (14%) even though they cast 25% of the votes.
This is a consistent theme with all of the states I have looked at.
Conclusion
CTCL issued ~$2.9MM grants in WA. It was not possible to calculate a D vote harvesting factor for this state. Either CTCL grants turned out R voters OR the grant money provided to certain counties benefited nearby counties that did no receive grants.
You decide.
All Counties
References
CTCL IRS Form 990 (revised form from Jan 2022 used)
Telegram - https://t.me/electiondataanalyzer
Truth - @ElectionDataAnalyzer
The math here is simple, try this on your own. It is a model to look for trends, not an exact science.