What is ‘Zuckerbucks’?
Over the last two years, a new word has entered the political lexicon: “Zuckerbucks.” While the term may seem harmless, it has a dark side – as well as implications for Jews and for American democracy.
Let’s dig in.
What is “Zuckerbucks”?
“Zuckerbucks” is a catch-all term that is used to describe election grant funding from private entities during the 2020 elections and beyond.
Where did it come from?
In 2020, cash-strapped local election departments couldn’t afford new expenses to safely hold elections. Through nonpartisan nonprofits, including Center for Tech and Civic Life (CTCL), Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg donated $350 million to 2,500 election departments across 47 states. The money was primarily used to purchase COVID-19 related equipment such as masks and plexiglass dividers to keep workers safe.
What’s the controversy?
Some lawmakers argued that allowing private entities to fund public election infrastructure could facilitate corruption if operatives of the private entities sought to impose an ideological agenda. But the conversation quickly took on shades of antisemitism – first, with the name “Zuckerbucks,” as individuals worked to associate private election funding with wealthy Jews; and then through insinuations by members of Congress and others that these payments were part of a pattern of wealthy Jewish individuals seeking to control governments and institutions through financial influence.
What happened?
As a result of the controversy, more than 110 “Zuckerbucks” bills were introduced across 37 states to prevent private individuals from helping to fund election offices. Ultimately, 35 “Zuckerbucks” bills were enacted across 26 states. Members of Congress introduced the End Zuckerbucks Act, and several complaints were filed with the Federal Election Commission (the FEC voted unanimously to dismiss the complaints).
After the backlash following the 2020 elections, Zuckerberg halted all donations meant to support election offices prior to the 2022 midterm elections.
Why does it matter?
Even though Zuckerberg stopped providing donations to election offices, “Zuckerbucks” has continued to resonate as a coded allusion to wealthy Jews attempting to influence elections and seize power. Opponents have also frequently included references to wealthy Jewish philanthropist George Soros – suggesting that these denunciations are part of a larger effort to paint wealthy Jews as sinister puppeteers.
ADL CEO Jonathan Greenblatt weighed in to JTA in 2021, noting that the term “Zuckerbucks” perpetuates an age-old antisemitic stereotype claiming that rich Jews use their money to exercise inordinate control over governments. “In recent years,” he noted, “we’ve seen antisemites alleging that Mark Zuckerberg is ‘proof’ of this stereotype.”
What’s the big picture?
The United States has experienced a significant increase in antisemitic incidents in the past few years; in fact, the Anti-Defamation League reported that 2022 saw the highest level of antisemitic activity since they started keeping records in 1979. Coded language like “Zuckerbucks” helps give conspiracy theories about Jews legitimacy in the public sphere, making them open to debate rather than being identified as bigotry.
What can I do?
First, it’s important to call out antisemitic coded language like “Zuckerbucks” in order to highlight its bigotry. We can also work towards a solution to actual good-faith concerns about private citizens funding elections by encouraging state and local officials to prioritize public election funding. Learn more about that here.
Can I learn more?
You bet. A few helpful links can be found here.
"Zuckerbucks" Didn't Throw the 2020 Election | Cato at Liberty Blog
'Zuckerbucks' for 2022 elections? Republicans say thumbs down | PolitiFact
FEC unanimously rejects complaints about Zuckerberg's 2020 election grant | Washington Post
What I Told Congress Today About Anti-Semitism | The Atlantic
Correction: An earlier version of this article incorrectly stated that Hansjorg Wyss is Jewish. A spokesman for Mr. Wyss confirmed he is not. We have corrected this article to reflect this information.
