A Smartmatic representative demonstrates his company’s system which has scanners and touch screens with printout options, at a meeting of the Secure, Accessible & Fair Elections Commission, Aug. 30, 2018, in Grovetown, Ga.
Main Idea: US prosecutors say Smartmatic executives bribed Philippine election officials to win a $1 million contract and speed payments tied to the country’s 2016 presidential election.
Key Points:
The bribery case may erode trust in voting tech firms and election contracts, which can worry US voters and taxpayers about fraud, waste, and higher legal costs.
No clear positive impact identified.
Rate how each entity in this article affected the American people.
Central company accused in the superseding indictment and the main subject of the article.
Named former co-founder and executive accused in the bribery case and discussed throughout.
Court where the superseding indictment was filed and where the criminal case is proceeding.
Major media outlet central to the defamation lawsuit discussed in the story.
Foreign government tied to the alleged bribes and the contract at issue.
Named foreign leader referenced in the Venezuela-related allegations and context.
Country referenced in allegations about a luxury home and Smartmatic’s prior operations there.
Mentioned in the defamation and election context, but not a main focus of the bribery charges.
Comments here are the same thread shown when this article appears in The Pulse.
No comments on this article yet.
Sign in to commentMentioned as part of the 2020 election context, not a central actor in this article.
Mentioned only as the side complaining to Fox News about the disputed reporting; not a named public entity.