Tags: presidential elections | big tech | social media | bias

George Mentz: Election Meddling the Most Corrupt in 200 Years

George Mentz: Election Meddling the Most Corrupt in 200 Years

George Mentz By Tuesday, 11 July 2023 02:04 PM EDT Current | Bio | Archive

According to estimates from the Wesleyan Media Project, which tracks political advertising, it was reported that Joe Biden spent approximately $115 million on digital ads, while Donald Trump spent around $43 million on digital ads in 2020.

In the 2018 U.S. midterm elections, for example, the average winning Senate candidate spent about $1.6 million on digital advertising, which included internet marketing efforts. Political spending in the 2020 election totaled $14.4 billion, more than doubling the total cost of the recordbreaking 2016 presidential election cycle.

According to a new Federal Court Injunction, it looks like there may be 50 key people in government who control, approve, or ban most everything you read. The Federal Judge had to ban countless leftists who were tampering with US election related news. The Louisiana Judge seems to be more educated than the media on rigging news and elections and the judge actually names these departments and many of the individual offenders.

  • The Department of Justice
  • The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
  • The Department of State
  • The Cybersecurity Infrastructure Security Agency
  • The Federal Bureau of Investigation
  • The National Institutes of Health
  • The Department of Homeland Security
  • The Department of Health and Human Services
  • The White House
  • The Surgeon General
  • The Census Bureau

Thus, presidential candidates, senate candidates and congressional candidates spend BILLIONS every 2 years on internet marketing. While Trump or Biden may have spent $200 million on digital ads, the question today is: Were viewers allowed to see all of the ads? Also, was anyone able to see the ads or videos if the digital advertisement was reposted, re-tweeted, posted in groups, or sent to others? I personally saw a good political advert on a show, and searched online to see if it was available for the public, and it was buried and nowhere to be found.

Here is a short list of media companies that the Judge exposes who may have been harassed by government operatives. Meta, Facebook, Twitter, YouTube/Google, WeChat, TikTok, Sina Weibo, QQ, Telegram, Snapchat, WhatsApp, Instagram, Kuaishou, Qzone, Pinterest, Reddit, LinkedIn, Quora, Discord, Twitch, Tumblr, Mastodon, and related companies.

Typically, reputation management and PR services are tailored to the unique needs of the client and can include various activities such as monitoring and managing online mentions, addressing negative press, strategic communication planning, media relations, crisis management, social media management, and more. The costs involved can range from a few thousand dollars to several hundred thousand dollars or even more, depending on the complexity and scale of the campaign. Major campaigns or high-profile individuals may allocate significant budgets to ensure effective reputation management and PR efforts.

Good press can be invaluable to a candidate in a political campaign. Positive media coverage and public perception can significantly impact a candidate's chances of success. Here are key ways in which good press can be worth millions if not billions of dollars:

  1. Visibility and Name Recognition: Positive media coverage helps raise a candidate's visibility and increases their name recognition among the electorate.
  2. Credibility and Trust: When a candidate receives favorable press coverage, it can enhance their credibility and build trust with the public. Positive news stories, endorsements, and positive commentary from reputable sources can validate a candidate's qualifications, positions, and character in the eyes of voters.
  3. Image and Perception: Good press can shape a candidate's image and public perception and help raise money
  4. Messaging and Agenda Setting: Favorable press coverage allows a candidate to control the narrative and highlight their ideas.
  5. Fundraising and Support: Positive press coverage can also have an impact on fundraising efforts.

Bad Press and Reputation Management

Bad press that goes viral on social media can have a significant impact on a political campaign and potentially damage a candidate's chances of success. Social media platforms have a broad reach and can amplify negative information rapidly, reaching a wide audience within a short period. Here are some reasons why viral bad press on social media can be detrimental to a campaign:

  1. Public Perception: Negative news or damaging information can shape public perception of a candidate and kill fundraising.
  2. Loss of Trust and Credibility: Viral bad press can erode a candidate's trust and credibility.
  3. Amplification and Echo Chamber Effect: Social media platforms often have algorithms that prioritize engaging or controversial content, which can lead to the rapid dissemination of negative news.
  4. Difficulty in Controlling the Narrative: Once bad press goes viral, it can be challenging for a candidate save their reputation.
  5. Fundraising and Support: Negative viral content can also impact fundraising efforts.

What makes this cabal of people who attack free press even worse is that government agents are colluding to control the press. Recently, 51 top U.S. intelligence government leaders signed a document to prevent the press from allowing news to get out to the public voters.  This is the sheer definition of fraud and deception. 

The Frontier Centre for Public Policy agrees with author that this Federal Court Decision in Louisiana is a major civil rights case that calls out countless government agencies and government employees for election interference and medical news interference.   Moreover, the Federal Judge actually exposes that there is vast “Deep State” election interference and potential for even more news control from DC operatives.

With this Federal Judge’s case, the federal judge’s may soon allow a class-action lawsuit by donors to a campaign to file federal lawsuits against social media or search engines  if it can be proved that press, links and news about a federal candidate was suppressed, amplified, de-amplified, banned, delisted, or shadow banned. Moreover, shareholders may be able to bring a securities class action if they own shares in a company that is participating in fraud, deception, or election tampering.

Ways that Any Employee of a Search Engine or Social Media Company Interferes with Elections and Boosts Fraud or Deception

Social media platforms and search engines have various mechanisms to manage and prioritize content, and sometimes posts or links may get buried or delisted for different reasons. Here are some ways this can happen:

  1. Algorithmic Filtering: Social media platforms and search engines employ complex algorithms to determine what content is shown to users.
  2. Content Moderation Policies: Platforms have content moderation policies which can be abused by communists, anti-American socialists, and leftist activists.
  3. User Reporting: Social media platforms can use fake complaints as an excuse to ban your posts or your account.
  4. Shadowbanning: Shadowbanning is a practice where a user's content is made less visible without their knowledge, and can cost candidates millions if not billions in advertising.
  5. Pay-to-Promote Models: If you don't engage in paid promotion, your posts or links may have reduced visibility compared to those who invest in advertising.
  6. Changes in Platform Policies: Social media platforms and search engines periodically update their policies, algorithms, and features that can affect the visibility.
  7. Legal or Copyright Issues: If your posts or links allegedly infringe upon someone's copyright or violate laws, your posts can be banned.

Over the past two years, I have had meetings with leaders in the field of news monitoring. These organizations aim to combat disinformation and even have good intentions of preventing terrorism or school shootings. While I cannot disclose my sources in my reporting, the discussions regarding suppression of free speech and surveillance were quite surprising to me.

In one particular instance, I met with a group of media executives, many of whom were from New York or Cable News. They were generating profits by flagging or removing news content from social media platforms. It seems that this has become a cottage industry. These companies possess advanced software and programs that scan for emerging trends.

If anything stands out, they have the ability to remove it, flag it, or possibly reduce the visibility or ranking of the post. These individuals may even have the authority to utilize the terms of service to suspend social media accounts. As a lawyer, I understand why companies like Facebook or Threads would prefer to place the responsibility of account moderation or group management on third-party entities, in order to mitigate liability.

In the second instance, a leader of an anti-terrorism group informed me that they have undercover operatives embedded within social media and online groups. This leader also mentioned that they maintain direct connections with federal law enforcement agencies in order to report potential terrorists.

Overall, as a licensed lawyer in Louisiana, I can comprehend why a federal judge would seek to issue an injunction to prevent collusion between government agents, social media platforms, and search engines.

In the current environment, it is alarmingly easy to manipulate an election by promoting fabricated evidence, as we recently witnessed with the Durham Report. Now, a powerful federal judge has confirmed and exposed interference in elections and violations of free speech, and as a lawyer licensed in the Federal Courts of New Orleans, I do not anticipate the esteemed 5th Circuit Court of Appeals disagreeing with the District Judge.

In sum, I was one of the first lawyers in the USA in 2002-3 to publish peer-reviewed articles about internet marketing and recruiting strategies with the emergence of SEO Search Engine Optimization and PPC. Initially, the cost of internet marketing was low, and then PPC “Pay Per Click” marketing dollars became the vast majority if search engine profits. Thus, one click for a auto dealer, plastic surgeon, or lawyer may cost up to 30-50$ dollars "per click". 

Sadly, if it only takes some guy with a federal government commission to call and threaten a search engine company to get news banned that helps one candidate over others, that is the end of free press. The Judge here actually provides various exceptions for the federal government to protect citizens, but totally bans the political tampering.

The most frightening fact the Judge exposed is that a tiny cabal of government operatives  in DC could potentially control 50-95% of what “General X” reads or views as important news. “Roughly half (51%) of online Gen Xers get political and government news on Facebook in a given week.” 

If you take those types of costs for marketing, the tampering with media distribution by DC insiders, fraudsters, and swindlers can provide BILLIONS of free marketing or reputation management to any media operation using extortion tactics and threats from a government agency and officers.

In the end, if anyone follows the money, we may even find folks actually taking cash for rigging “who can actually see the news.” At this juncture, it is all too easy for the the tech and government folks to simply create algorithms, keywords,  and clandestine AI artificial intelligence to suppress, amplify or ban certain news.


Commissioner George Mentz JD MBA CILS CWM® is an international lawyer, speaker, educator, tax-economist, and CEO of the GAFM Global Academy of Finance & Management ®. The GAFM is a ESQ accredited graduate body that trains and certifies professionals in 150+ nations under CHEA ACBSP and ISO 21001 standards. Mentz is also an award winning author and graduate law professor of wealth management for a top U.S. law school.

How Millennials, Gen Xers and Boomers Get Political News | Pew Research Center

Defendants:  Defendants consist of  Karine Jean-Pierre (“Jean-Pierre”), Vivek H Murthy (“Murthy”), Xavier Becerra (“Becerra”), Dept of Health & Human Services (“HHS”), Dr. Hugh Auchincloss (“Auchincloss”),  National Institute of Allergy & Infectious Diseases (“NIAID”), Centers for Disease Control & Prevention (“CDC”),  Alejandro Mayorkas (“Mayorkas”), Dept of Homeland Security (“DHS”),  Jen Easterly (“Easterly”), Cybersecurity & Infrastructure Security Agency (“CISA”), Carol Crawford (“Crawford”), United States Census Bureau (“Census Bureau”), U. S. Dept of Commerce (“Commerce”), Robert Silvers (“Silvers”), Samantha Vinograd (“Vinograd”), Ali Zaidi (“Zaidi”), Rob Flaherty (“Flaherty”), Dori Salcido (“Salcido”), Stuart F. Delery (“Delery”),  Aisha Shah (“Shah”),  Sarah Beran (“Beran”),  Mina Hsiang (“Hsiang”), U. S. Dept of Justice (“DOJ”), Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”), Laura Dehmlow (“Dehmlow”), Elvis M. Chan (“Chan”), Jay Dempsey (“Dempsey”),  Kate Galatas (“Galatas”), Katharine Dealy (“Dealy”), Yolanda Byrd (“Byrd”), Christy Choi (“Choi”), Ashley Morse (“Morse”), Joshua Peck (“Peck”), Kym Wyman (“Wyman”), Lauren Protentis (“Protentis”), Geoffrey Hale (“Hale”), Allison Snell (“Snell”),  Brian Scully (“Scully”), Jennifer Shopkorn (“Shopkorn”), U. S. Food & Drug Administration (“FDA”), Erica Jefferson (“Jefferson”), Michael Murray (“Murray”), Brad Kimberly (“Kimberly”), U. S. Dept of State (“State”), Leah Bray (“Bray”), Alexis Frisbie (“Frisbie”), Daniel Kimmage (“Kimmage”), U. S. Dept of Treasury (“Treasury”), Wally Adeyemo (“Adeyemo”), U. S. Election Assistance Commission (“EAC”),  Steven Frid (“Frid”), and Kristen Muthig (“Muthig”).  

© 2024 Newsmax Finance. All rights reserved.

According to estimates from the Wesleyan Media Project, which tracks political advertising, it was reported that Joe Biden spent approximately $115 million on digital ads, while Donald Trump spent around $43 million on digital ads in 2020.
presidential elections, big tech, social media, bias
Tuesday, 11 July 2023 02:04 PM
Newsmax Media, Inc.

Sign up for Newsmax’s Daily Newsletter

Receive breaking news and original analysis - sent right to your inbox.

(Optional for Local News)
Privacy: We never share your email address.
Join the Newsmax Community
Read and Post Comments
Please review Community Guidelines before posting a comment.
Get Newsmax Text Alerts

Newsmax, Moneynews, Newsmax Health, and Independent. American. are registered trademarks of Newsmax Media, Inc. Newsmax TV, and Newsmax World are trademarks of Newsmax Media, Inc.

© Newsmax Media, Inc.
All Rights Reserved
© Newsmax Media, Inc.
All Rights Reserved