The 80-year-old communications engineer from Texas had saved for decades, driving around in an old car and buying clothes from thrift stores so he’d have enough money to enjoy his retirement years.
But as dementia robbed him of his reasoning abilities, he began making online political donations over and over again — eventually telling his son he believed he was part of a network of political operatives communicating with key Republican leaders. In less than two years, the man became one of the country’s largest grassroots supporters of the Republican Party, ultimately giving away nearly half a million dollars to former President Donald Trump and other candidates. Now, the savings account he spent his whole life building is practically empty.
The story of this unlikely political benefactor is one of many playing out across the country.
More than 1,000 reports filed with government agencies and consumer advocacy groups reviewed by CNN, along with an analysis of campaign finance data and interviews with dozens of contributors and their family members, show how deceptive political fundraisers have victimized hundreds of elderly Americans and misled those battling dementia or other cognitive impairments into giving away millions of dollars — far more than they ever intended. Some unintentionally joined the ranks of the top grassroots political donors in the country as they tapped into retirement savings and went into debt, contributing six-figure sums through thousands of transactions.
To provide a snapshot of who these vulnerable donors are and how much money they have lost to increasingly aggressive fundraising campaigns, reporters reached out to more than 300 of the biggest and most frequent small-dollar political donors and their family members. Through these interviews and consumer complaints, reporters collected the accounts of more than 50 unwitting elderly donors and traced the path of where their money went.
Often coming in $5 or $10 at a time, contributions from this small sampling of donors alone added up to more than $6 million over the last five years — the majority of which ended up with Trump and a long list of other Republican candidates, CNN found.
While this is a small fraction of the billions raised by political campaigns, for many of the individuals who made the donations, the sums represented huge portions of their life savings.
Deceptive fundraising tactics, including those that trick elderly donors, were exposed in the wake of the 2020 election. While studies show that older Americans tend to lean more Republican, both parties have continued to rake in donations from elderly voters. And mainstream Republican candidates have only doubled down on this strategy, using more aggressive and predatory tactics than those used by Democrats, according to donor complaints, interviews with experts and a review of solicitations. The Republican fundraising machine has been subject to more than 800 complaints to the Federal Trade Commission since 2022 — nearly seven times more than the number of complaints lodged against the other side….
Category Archives: voters with disabilities
“Federal Court Issues Preliminary Injunction Against Town of Thornapple, Wisconsin, Requiring Use of Accessible Voting System during November Election”
“Brief – Generating Confusion: Stress-Testing AI Chatbot Responses on Voting with a Disability”
New from CDT:
Even as the “year of elections” draws to a close, the United States’ elections loom. From cyberattacks to mis- and disinformation spread on social media by foreign and domestic actors, digital technology has impacted the discourse, information environment, and perceived legitimacy of American elections in recent cycles. In 2024, the growth in popularity and availability of chatbots powered by artificial intelligence (AI) introduces a new and largely untested vector for election-related information and, as our research found, misinformation.
Many communities are concerned that digitally available misinformation will impact the ability of community members to vote, including the disability community. However, up until this point, there has been little research done surrounding the integrity of the online information environment for voters with disabilities, and even less focus on the quality and integrity of information relating to voting with a disability that one can receive from a generative AI chatbot.
Voters, both with and without disabilities, may use chatbots to ask about candidates or ask practical questions about the time, place, and manner of voting. An inaccurate answer to a simple question, such as how to vote absentee, could impede the user’s exercise of their right to vote. There are numerous opportunities for error, including potentially misleading information about eligibility requirements, instructions for how to register to vote or request and return one’s ballot, and the status of various deadlines – all of which may vary by state. Similarly, misleading or biased information about voting rights or election procedures, including the role of election officials and what accessibility measures to expect, could undermine voters’ confidence in the election itself. Both of these concerns – diminishing an individual’s ability to or likelihood of voting, and reducing perceptions of election integrity – can be amplified for voters with disabilities, particularly considering that the laws surrounding accessible voting are even more complex and varied than those regulating voting more generally.
This report seeks to understand how chatbots, given the range of ways they interact with the electoral environment, could impact the right to vote and election integrity for voters with disabilities. In doing so, we tested five chatbots on July 18th, 2024: Mixtral 8x7B v0.1, Gemini 1.5 Pro, ChatGPT-4, Claude 3 Opus, and Llama 2 70b. Across 77 prompts, we found that:
- 61% of responses had at least one type of insufficiency. Over one third of answers included incorrect information, making it the most common problem we observed. Incorrect information ranged from relatively minor issues (such as broken web links to outside resources) to egregious misinformation (including incorrect voter registration deadlines and falsely stating that election officials are required to provide curbside voting).
- Every model hallucinated at least once. Each one provided inaccurate information that was entirely constructed by the model, such as describing a law, a voting machine, and a disability rights organization that do not exist.
- A quarter of responses could dissuade, impede, or prevent the user from exercising their right to vote. Every chatbot gave multiple responses to this effect, including inaccurately describing which voting methods are available in a given state, and all five did so in response to prompts about internet voting and curbside voting.
- Two thirds of responses to questions about internet voting were insufficient, and 41% included incorrect information. Inaccuracies about internet voting ranged from providing incorrect information about assistive technology, to erroneously saying electronic ballot return is available in states where it is not (like Alabama) and, inversely, that it is not available in states where it is (like Colorado and North Carolina).
- Chatbots are vulnerable to bad actors. They often rebuffed queries that simulated use by bad actors, but in some cases responded helpfully, providing information about conspiracy theories and arguments for why people with intellectual disabilities should not be allowed to vote.
- Responses often lacked necessary nuance. Chatbots did not provide crucial caveats about when polling places would be fully accessible, and misunderstood key terms like curbside and internet voting.
- When asked to provide authoritative information, a positive use case for chatbots, almost half of answers included incorrect information. The scope of inaccuracies included incorrect webpage names and links and a recommendation for users to seek assistance from an organization that does not exist. This is particularly concerning because using chatbots as a starting point for finding other sources of information is an important and frequently recommended use case.
- Outright bias or discrimination were exceedingly rare, and models often used language that was expressly supportive of disability rights.
“Connecticut Ballot Measure Could Make Voting More Inclusive”
In 2020, as the world grappled with a deadly global pandemic, Connecticut officials lifted restrictions limiting who can vote by mail, allowing every citizen in the state to obtain an absentee ballot.
The results were historic: More than 650,000 Connecticut citizens voted absentee, roughly a third of all votes cast.
The liberalization of voting laws benefited everyone in the state who wanted to vote by mail, but the change particularly impacted those with disabilities. Researchers from Rutgers University and the U.S. Election Assistance Commission found that the “disability gap” in Connecticut—the gulf in turnout between voters who had disabilities and those who didn’t—was only 3.3 percent, compared to a national average of 5.7 percent that year.
“People with disabilities are more likely to vote when they have access to voting by mail,” said Douglas Kruse, the co-director of the Program for Disability Research at Rutgers University and one of the report’s authors.
But for the 2022 midterms, Connecticut reverted back, and voters once again needed to have an excuse if they wanted to vote by mail. The result was a disability turnout gap of roughly 11 percent—one of the highest in the country and significantly higher than that year’s national average of 1.5 percent. The turnout was “consistent with the idea that rolling back no-excuse absentee voting discouraged turnout among people with disabilities,” said Kruse.
“It’s not that people with disabilities are less interested in voting,” he continued. It’s that “they face a variety of voting difficulties, everything from getting to the polls, to requesting ballots, to getting inside polling places.”
Mail voting could become easier if Connecticut voters approve a ballot initiative this November that would amend the state Constitution and create a path for everyone to acquire an absentee ballot without needing an excuse. If the proposal passes, it will be up to state legislators to put it into law.
“In Some States, Having a Guardian Means Not Having a Vote”
“Maine Referendum Spotlights Voting Rights for People Under Guardianship “
Since its drafting in 1819, Maine’s constitution has barred people who are “under guardianship for reasons of mental illness” from voting in state and local elections. The state legislature tried to end that exclusion decades ago, putting constitutional amendments on the ballot in 1997 and 2000, but voters rejected the changes both times. A non-profit organization tasked by the state with protecting disabled residents eventually sued, arguing that the prohibition disenfranchised residents in violation of the U.S. Constitution. This led to a favorable federal court ruling in 2001 that declared Maine’s exclusion unconstitutional.
This fall, Maine voters will again decide whether to scrub that exclusion from their state’s constitution, echoing the court ruling. Question 8, one of several constitutional amendments on the state’s Nov. 7 ballot, asks voters if they want to “remove a provision prohibiting a person under guardianship for reasons of mental illness from voting.”
“How Many Disabled People Vote Over the Internet? We Need Better Data.”
Center for Democracy & Technology:
From a disability rights perspective, internet voting may be the best or even only way for some disabled voters to cast a ballot independently and thereby enhance access to the ballot. From a cybersecurity perspective, internet voting is considered untrustworthy and unauditable, and therefore poses such severe risks to democracy that internet voting should be limited as much as possible….
Because of the serious security risks posed by internet voting, we need to do the best possible job of ensuring that internet voting is available to those voters who truly need it—and no one else. Right now, we don’t know how well we are doing at that goal. But having better usage numbers will give us a sense and help us improve election policies in order to achieve it….
To help paint a clearer picture of who votes over the internet, the EAC should modify the surveys that it will send to election officials after the 2024 election. Specifically, it should modify the EAPS survey to determine which non-UOCAVA voters in each jurisdiction are allowed to use electronic ballot return, and it should modify the EAVS survey to collect quantitative data on how many non-UOCAVA voters returned their ballots electronically. Reliable data is critical for making informed decisions about election technology and election policy—not just for disabled people, but for everyone….
“Mississippi can’t restrict absentee voting assistance this year, US judge says as he blocks law”
AP reports: “A federal judge [Henry Wingate] blocked a new Mississippi law that would set criminal penalties for some people who help others with absentee voting — a ruling that comes as absentee ballots are already available in party primaries for governor and other state offices.” The press release from the League of Women Voters, one of the plaintiffs, is here with the court’s order.
“Voters with disabilities often overlooked in voting battles”
The AP with an update focused on Wisconsin and Chicago, given the pending state supreme court and mayoral runoff elections.
Wisconsin: “Dane County election review finds dozens of ineligible voters who cast ballots; A small number of cases shows why election officials say Wisconsin’s disorganized system for tracking those adjudicated ‘incompetent’ to vote needs a legislative fix.”
In 2015, Mark Wake was in a serious motorcycle crash that put him in the hospital for 10 months with a severe brain injury.
“I lost half my head,” he told Wisconsin Watch.
He also lost his voting rights when a Dane County judge placed him under a temporary guardianship.
The county’s register in probate sent that information to the Wisconsin Elections Commission, which added Wake’s name and Madison address to a list that contains more than 22,000 who have been “adjudicated incompetent” to vote in Wisconsin. The system is designed to protect mentally incapacitated people from having someone else fill out their ballot.
After Wake recovered, he said the guardianship was lifted, although no court records show his voting rights were restored — an additional step he apparently didn’t take at the time.
But in 2018, despite still being on the statewide ineligible voter list, Wake registered and voted in Poynette, a small Columbia County village where his name was not on the local ineligible voters list. In the 2020 presidential election, he voted again, this time in Madison as a previously registered voter.
Wake is one of 95 people in Dane County who altogether cast more than 300 ballots in past elections despite being on the state’s list of people deemed incompetent to vote, according to a county clerk’s office review of more than 1,000 records from the state’s list. The state elections agency is reviewing all 22,733 entries to ensure the list is accurate, spokesperson Joel DeSpain said.
“The ongoing review of this important topic involves multiple agencies and entities, each with different pieces at play,” DeSpain said. “Our goal is to be able to provide clean and complete statewide data.”
The number of confirmed cases of people voting after losing their voting rights is far more than previously known — and could mean there are hundreds more around the state. But the number is small compared with the millions of votes cast in statewide elections — and not enough to alter past results as former President Donald Trump and others have claimed.
The cases, however, point to a larger issue that election officials say requires a legislative fix: Unlike many other states, Wisconsin does not have a statutorily defined system for tracking people whom a judge rules are mentally incompetent to vote. In Wisconsin, some, but not all, counties notify state elections officials when a person is found incompetent to vote, DeSpain said.
“New Voting Laws Add Difficulties for People With Disabilities”
NYT:
Laura Halvorson was ready to vote. On Thursday afternoon, she sat in front of a ballot screen at the Igo Library in San Antonio, after spending a month preparing for this moment. It was the first time in years that she had been in a public place, other than a doctor’s office.
Sitting in her wheelchair, she wore two masks — one a KN95, the other a part of her breathing machine. Because Ms. Halvorson, 38, has muscular dystrophy, a condition that progressively decreases muscle mass, and makes her more vulnerable to Covid-19, she needed to use a remote-control device supplied by poll workers to make her ballot selections.
No one knew how it worked.
The glitch was one of many obstacles she had to navigate, both on that day and over the previous weeks, to fulfill what she saw as her civic duty. For Ms. Halvorson and others with disabilities, casting a ballot can always present a challenge. But new voting restrictions enacted in several states over the past two years have made it even harder.
A law signed last year by Gov. Greg Abbott of Texas, a Republican, has made it more difficult for voters to cast ballots by mail and narrowed their options for voting in person, according to groups that advocate for people with disabilities and voting rights. Other Republican-led state legislatures, including in Georgia and Florida, have passed similar measures as a part of what they say are efforts to prevent voter fraud, despite rare occurrences of the crime.
“Instead of embracing the more accessible forms of voting that sparked record turnout, including among voters with disabilities,” said Brian Dimmick, a senior staff attorney for the disability rights program of the American Civil Liberties Union, “states have doubled down on new and more restrictive voter-suppression laws.”
None of the new laws single out those with disabilities, but advocates say they have left many people who would otherwise vote by mail with burdensome options: face the greater risk that their mail-in ballot could be thrown out — as Texas did at a higher-than-usual rate during the March primary — or go to the polls in person, which involves its own set of inconveniences or, worse, physical barriers, and often deprives people with disabilities of a sense of privacy and independence that other voters can take for granted.
“Voters with disabilities face new barriers over Texas voting law”
Courthouse News Service reports.
“New election laws could create barriers for voters with disabilities”
USA Today reports.
“Designing Accessible Elections: Recommendations from Disability Voting Rights Advocates”
Ihaab Syed, Michelle Bishop, Sarah Brannon, Erika Hudson, and Kristen Lee have written this article in ELJ. Here is the abstract:
Disability is frequently cited as a reason that Americans do not vote. This article offers legal and policy practitioner perspectives on core challenges people with disabilities face in exercising their voting rights in the United States, from obtaining election information to casting their ballots. Drawing on our collective experience—which includes professional experience as advocates working to improve access to voting for people with disabilities, as well as first-hand knowledge of how people with disabilities navigate the voting process—we analyze some of the main reasons why barriers persist, despite robust federal accessibility mandates. In doing so, we provide insights into how local and state election officials can improve election policies, practices, and procedures. In presenting our recommendations, we suggest that there is no one-stop, “silver-bullet” solution for achieving accessible elections. An effective pathway toward improvement would involve consulting with a broad spectrum of local residents with disabilities, maintaining close and ongoing dialogue with them about their needs and preferences, and tailoring election programs accordingly.