Last week, Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg made headlines over his mea culpa for caving to pressure from the Biden-Harris administration to suppress content related to the Covid pandemic and other news disfavored by the political establishment.
“I believe the government pressure was wrong, and I regret that we were not more outspoken about it,” Zuckerberg wrote in a letter to House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan. This was a clear admission that, in fact, Facebook (now referred to as Meta) yielded to pressure from the Biden-Harris administration to censor American citizens on a wide array of subjects, including Meta’s throttling of content related to the New York Post coverage of the infamous Hunter Biden laptop.
While a few political observers and officials had lukewarm praise for Zuckerberg coming clean, most were having none of it. Howard Kurtz, Fox News media reporter stated, “It’s good for Zuck to accept some degree of responsibility, but it’s kinda too late. By about three years.”
Even more harsh was law professor and First Amendment advocate, Jonathan Turley, who wins the award for the best take on Zuckerberg’s letter of apology: “For those of us who have criticized Facebook for years for its role in the massive censorship system, Zuckerberg’s belated contrition was more insulting than inspiring. It had all the genuine regret of a stalker found hiding under the bed of a victim.”
Was the apology the result of actual contrition? Or was it driven, in part, by efforts of Chairman Jordan who, last year, threatened to hold Zuckerberg in contempt for failing to turn over internal company documents subject to congressional subpoena?
No matter. The real benefit to “democracy” from Zuckerberg’s newly discovered moral compass is his promise to refrain from spending “Zuckerbucks” this November to convert a public election process into a private plaything. For that, those concerned with election integrity can be thankful.
Other Zuckerberg news from last week is not so pleasant.
Mark’s wife, Priscilla Chan, dropped some big time cash into the Yes on Proposition 5 effort. According to a Late Contribution Report filed last week, the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative, LLC (Mark Zuckerberg) made a $2.5 million campaign contribution to the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative Advocacy — Yes on 5 (Nonprofit 501(c)(4)) committee.
Proposition 5 is the worst measure on the November ballot for taxpayers. It would repeal an important taxpayer protection in Proposition 13 (and in earlier versions of the state Constitution) that requires a two-thirds vote of the electorate before a city, county or special district can issue bonds.
Related Articles
Douglas Schoen: Harris’ CNN interview did little to sway voters, but she did a good job
Susan Shelley: Jack Smith’s case against Trump is still an overreach
Trading places on war and peace is nothing new for Democrats and Republicans
Larry Wilson: Two of the three North American leaders may soon be women
Matt Fleming: Harris’s worst economic idea is taxing unrealized gains
Local bonds are repaid with higher property tax taxes. Those charges continue for decades, and each new bond measure that is approved by voters is added on top of previous charges, in addition to the basic property tax of 1% of assessed value.
Chan was also a big contributor in support of Prop. 15 (2020), the infamous “split roll” initiative, a direct attack on Prop. 13 that would have cut the iconic 1978 property tax limitation in half. It was defeated by a broad based coalition of taxpayers, property owners and businesses. Now that same coalition is mobilizing to ensure the defeat of Proposition 5.
Zuckerberg’s and Chan’s relentless attack on California taxpayers is difficult to understand. It appears they are just part of the political elite cabal who want to run – or ruin – the lives of everyday Californians. Voters would be well-advised to send this billionaire couple a strong message this election: They may have more dollars, but taxpayers have more sense.
Jon Coupal is president of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association.
