2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 | 2014 | 2013 | 2012 | 2011 | 2010 | 2009 | 2008 | 2007 | 2006 | 2005 | 2004 | 2003 | 2002 | 2000 | 1996

January 30, 2018
NTD Interview
  January 30, 2018
KABC - Radio Interview

January 16, 2018
CNN Interview - Part 1

January 16, 2018
CNN Interview - Part 2

January 16, 2018
Press Conference

January 16, 2018
Press Conference

October 24, 2017
CNN Interview

October 18, 2017
CNN Interview

October 10, 2017
i24News Interview

October 6, 2017
The Epoch Times Interview

September 27, 2017
RT America Interview

September 26, 2017
NTD Interview
September 25, 2017
i24News Interview
  July 21, 2017
KABC - Radio Interview
November 9, 2016
NTDTV Interview

Steel: ‘Zuckerbucks’ Corrupted the 2020 Election for Big Tech

May 30, 2021

Dark Money. Citizens United. The Koch Brothers.

Remember when Democrats used to decry the corrupting influence of corporate money in politics?

“Today, the Supreme Court kept open the floodgates to uninhibited special interest spending in our campaigns and in our politics,” Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi lamented following a 2012 Supreme Court decision to uphold Citizens United. “Their disappointing decision to uphold Citizens United deals yet another blow to a fundamental American value: that the voices of the people determine the outcome of our elections, not the checkbooks of the few.”

Nine years later, the Democrat Party is content to see American elections outsourced to “the checkbooks of the few” – so long as the checks are signed by Big Tech.

While mainstream media headlines have focused on President Trump’s bans from TwitterFacebook, and Instagram after the election, Big Tech’s greatest election manipulation came well before voters cast their ballots and in a decidedly traditional way.

Good old-fashioned money in politics.

Too late to affect the outcome, the public is slowly learning more about how Facebook founder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg, and his wife, Priscilla Chan, funneled more than $419.5 million through two non-profit organizations to influence the 2020 election.

At the time, Zuckerberg framed the donation as necessary to help election officials prepare for unforeseen challenges posed by the COVID-19 pandemic. Yet far from personal protective equipment for poll workers and contactless voting, Zuckerberg’s millions bankrolled get-out-the-vote campaigns.

The public should be deeply troubled by the partisan affiliation of the private groups tapped by Zuckerberg to enhance voter participation. The bulk of the Zuckerberg money – $350 million – was channeled to the Center for Technology and Civic Life (CTCL). The group’s founder and executive director, Tiana Epps-Johnson, is a former Obama Foundation Fellow and Election Administration Director of the far-left New Organizing Institute. According to CTCL’s own report, election officials spent the funds on “social media and advertising” and allowed government officials to “purchase thousands of dollars in billboards, television commercials, radio, etc.”

The second group receiving Zuckerberg election funds, the Center for Election Innovation and Research, spent $69.5 million in 23 states. Its funding was inequitably distributed to aid battleground states. More than half of CEIR grants were distributed to just four swing states: $13.2 million to Pennsylvania, $11.9 million to Michigan, $5.6 million to Georgia; and $4.8 million to Arizona.

New York has double the population of Michigan, yet received just $5 million – less than half of Michigan’s funding. If the funds were truly meant “to provide nonpartisan, accurate, and official voting information to the public,” why did more populous but uncompetitive states receive less money?

More than six months after the election, the public still doesn’t have a full accounting of the full extent of how these organizations spent nearly a half-billion dollars. The only available accounting: a locked Google spreadsheet that identifies the 2,500 government agencies that received funding, but that doesn’t share how much each entity received or how the funds were spent.

“The full extent of the grants isn’t known,” NPR News concluded in its December 2020 investigation into the unprecedented privatization of the 2020 election administration. “The Center for Tech and Civic Life declined repeated interview requests from APM Reports to discuss the funding and how it was used. In late October, the group listed the jurisdictions that received funding on its website but didn’t disclose dollar amounts or funding priorities for each jurisdiction.”

In addition to the partisan affiliations of its founders and lack of transparency for how the money was spent, the public should be concerned that the group’s voter turnout efforts were heavily concentrated in Democrat strongholds in swing states.

The Associated Press confirms that CTCL distributed “$6.2 million to Wisconsin’s five largest cities, $10 million to Philadelphia, and $6 million to Fulton County, which includes Atlanta.” A March 2021 report by the Foundation for Government Accountability found that Democrat counties received 92 percent of CTCL’s funding in Pennsylvania.

“It just doesn’t pass the smell test,” says Nicholas Horton, research director for the Foundation for Government Accountability. “Government should be a neutral, fair arbiter of the election process, and the public should have no doubts and full confidence in that process when going to vote in the polls.”

Shawn Steel, a former chairman of the California Republican Party, is a member of the Republican National Committeeman.

Top Republicans: Ousting Governor Newsom is the last chance for the middle class

March 26, 2021

Our reporter Shang Ying reported from Los Angeles

California Gov. Gavin Newsom's final deadline for removing the agency received more than 2.1 million signatures, well above the 149,5709 required by state law, according to In response, Mr. Shawn Steel, the Republican member of the RNC, said it was no surprise that the signatures were enough to satisfy California's gubernatorial recall election this year. He sees the removal of incumbent Governor Newsom and the change of California as the last chance for the state's middle class to preserve their homes.

Under California rules, election officials in 58 california counties are required to verify valid signatures and notify the secretary of state by April 29 after submitting recall signatures. Steele revealed that the recall organizers pre-verified the collected signatures to ensure efficiency before submitting all signatures to the secretary of state. By the March 17 signature deadline, counties had confirmed nearly 1.2 million valid signatures. As a normal scenario, 1.495709 valid signatures are required to collect only about 1.6 million signatures, but in order to ensure that nothing is lost, organizers eventually collect more than 2 million. He admitted that, unlike California's usual elections, which do not check signatures, which determine whether to call a recall election, the state requires a check to verify signatures, and that they may find various reasons to invalidate signatures, or even half of the 1 million signatures. As a result, the recall organizers sought 2 million or more signatures in support to ensure that there were still enough valid signatures in such cases.

For now, the nation is watching the California governor's ouster, which Steele believes is about policy-related disasters and not partisanship. Although the state filed a lawsuit against the recall, he expects a 97 percent chance that the state will start a gubernatorial recall election this fall. Because of the loss of control and record unemployment in California after Newsom ben governor, tax increases have burdened California businesses and middle-class families, and many businesses and residents have moved out of the state. Steele pointed out that California's biggest problem is the disaster of far-left policies, Newsom signed a number of far-left bills after taking office, and poor management of 10 billion unemployment benefits were fraudulently claimed, California's crime spree and many other facts, the governor is to blame. California's environment is deteriorating, so that only the richest and poor are fit to live in the state, and small business owners and the broader middle class, the engine of the economy, are forced to move out. So he's looking forward to a successful gubernatorial election to change california, because it's the last chance for the state's middle class.

Steele also acknowledged that the success of recall elections is not easy and rare. There have been only two successful cases of ousting a governor in U.S. history, including the successful ouster of former Governor Davis by California voters more than 20 years ago. This time California is worse off, forcing voters to make that choice again. If the recall election is successfully launched, there will be two questions on the ballot paper on election day, first, whether voters agree to remove the current governor, Newsom? If voters agree, continue with the second question, selecting a candidate on the list to replace Newsom. As long as a simple majority votes in support of a recall, Newsom steps down. On the shortlist, the candidate with the majority of support wins the election to become the new governor of California. Currently, California has 5 million registered Republican voters and 7.5 million Democratic voters, and more voters are increasingly choosing nonpartisan, with a majority in california that is 1 more conservative or more liberal. Steele revealed that the recall election, the Democratic Party must launch another candidate, or once Newsom is removed, the governor automatically for the Republican candidate. But the launch of another Democratic candidate is bound to create divisions within the party. Once recall election day is set, it will be interesting.

He stressed once again that only by ousting Mr. Newsom would Californians have new opportunities, and that a better state should not be brought down by far-left and government union organizations. The disaster caused by California's far-left policies is also reflected in the fact that California's policies make life unaffordable for young and old. Many young people were born in California, where their parents provided them with comfortable homes, but as adults they were unable to buy a home in the state and have the standard of living that their parents had provided them with. But in Texas, Florida can. Much of California's wealth is spent on social welfare and free health care, but not for the average California taxpayer. So California is currently the state with the highest number and proportion of poor people in the country, which was not the case in California. Alabama and South Carolina used to have the largest percentage of the poor, but that changed. California's welfare policies attract more and more poor people, and the state's middle class pays for California's heavy taxes under the welfare policies. The super-rich don't care about California tax increases, and they don't live in California most of the time. In the end, the middle class was forced to move out of California.