Why Doesn’t The FBI Want To Get To The Bottom Of Alleged Massachusetts Cash-For-Vote Scheme?
It’s no secret by now that the 2020 election was not the “most secure in American history,” as federal officials previously claimed. The willful violation of election laws in states such as Wisconsin; unlawful changing of election procedures by executive fiat in states such as Michigan and Pennsylvania; Big Tech censorship; and interference by federal intel agencies and Mark Zuckerberg represent a collective effort to boost then-candidate Joe Biden’s electoral prospects that cast doubt on the “fairness” of the process.
Combined with Democrats’ weaponization of the FBI and Justice Department to kneecap Donald Trump’s 2016 and 2024 presidential campaigns, the unprecedented level of interference in the 2020 contest has caused many Americans to scrutinize potential irregularities in their elections. Yet, even in instances where there is evidence suggesting possible crimes occurred, some government officials have declined to investigate and ensure the integrity of the electoral process.
Case in point: Springfield, Massachusetts, where the FBI is refusing to investigate evidence indicating a potentially illegal election operation involving the city’s mayoral race. In the days leading up to the Nov. 7 contest, surveillance video emerged showing a man affiliated with mayoral candidate Justin Hurst’s campaign “allegedly paying people to vote.” According to a local outlet, election workers testified in signed affidavits that “they noticed groups of people being dropped off for early voting at City Hall, many listing their address as a homeless shelter in Springfield [and] some seemingly intoxicated or under the influence, and confused as to why they were at City Hall.”
According to one election worker, there was a man “hovering over some voters’ shoulders while they were standing at the voting booth. At times he appeared to be pointing at the place on the ballot where the person should vote.”
Furthermore, 22News reported that “Several workers and a Springfield police officer assigned to work at the election office said they were asked multiple times throughout the day for a $10 payment when someone was done voting.”
Under Massachusetts law, it is illegal to pay someone to “influence his vote or to induce him to withhold his vote,” under penalty of up to one year in prison. To do so is also a felony for which those convicted could face fines, imprisonment, or both.
Affidavits obtained by Western Mass News also contain alarming allegations of impropriety, including one from a poll worker who said, “I heard people asking ‘where is my payment’ and ‘I was promised ten dollars.’” Another election worker, Lillian Lisojo, observed “it appeared groups of people who were brought in were told who to vote for,” and purportedly heard one voter say, “oh this is the one we’re supposed to vote for – where is Hurst?”
According to 22News, “another poll worker said she witnessed Hurst’s campaign volunteer handing out cash to some of these voters in exchange for an ‘I Voted’ sticker. Some of those voters then got in an SUV being driven by Hurst.” Hurst has since denied the allegations and blamed the controversy on his opponent, incumbent Mayor Domenic Sarno, who Hurst accused of leading the “coordinated effort” to “smear” his campaign.
Sarno defeated Hurst by nearly 15 points in Springfield’s Nov. 7 election.
Despite the severity of the matter, Springfield Election Commissioner Gladys Oyola-Lopez — who signed an affidavit alleging unlawful misconduct — confirmed to a local outlet on Wednesday that the FBI declined to investigate the situation. In his remarks to 22News, city solicitor John Payne said the agency’s decision is “disappointing given the fact that issues of election fraud and paying people to vote is something that’s very serious.”
“I wish it had been investigated,” Payne said, adding, as 22News described, that “he’s not aware of any other law enforcement agencies pursuing an investigation.”
The FBI’s abdication of its investigative responsibilities does little to assuage Springfield voters’ concerns about the integrity of their elections. If lawbreaking did, in fact, occur, refusal to investigate and punish those who brazenly violated state and federal statutes will only further incentivize such illegal behavior in future elections.
While regime-approved media have often chosen to ignore or downplay evidence of election fraud, some courts have found the evidence compelling enough to step in to defend the integrity of their jurisdictions’ elections. Last month, for example, the Louisiana Supreme Court let stand a lower court ruling ordering a new local sheriff’s race after it was determined there were enough illegal votes to call into question the election’s outcome. Similarly, a Connecticut superior court judge recently ordered a new mayoral primary election in Bridgeport after determining there was enough evidence of fraud involving absentee ballots to warrant a new contest.
Had neither of these cases been investigated, it’s almost certain both original election results would have been allowed to stand.
It’s incumbent upon government authorities to provide Americans with secure and transparent elections they can trust. Refusal to inspect potential wrongdoing in elections is a willful abandonment of that responsibility.
Shawn Fleetwood is a staff writer for The Federalist and a graduate of the University of Mary Washington. He previously served as a state content writer for Convention of States Action and his work has been featured in numerous outlets, including RealClearPolitics, RealClearHealth, and Conservative Review. Follow him on Twitter @ShawnFleetwood
Comments are closed.