Well the message basically is ; this is bad and should be illegal. I assume the republicans have money as well so they could do the same if they so wish. Saying no one should do it, therefore sounds reasonable.

And as for the source, reading from Europe I must say I don't really see that much unbiased news/articles anymore not here and certainly not in the U.S. Everything political seems to have a leaning to it - left or right so there is from my pov no good unbiased sources.

Or maybe you could point me in the direction of the list over approved sites? :)

If I were to make a guess, I would say that the Heritage Foundation thinks that all funding of GotV efforts are bad and should be illegal. They are not really fans of enfranchisement beyond the elite they serve. While Republicans have money, it is a commonly held belief that almost all increases in participation by infrequent voters (or eligible but unregistered voters) tends to favor the Democratic party. If the benefit goes to the other party then there is no reason for Republicans to spend in this particular area.

I apologise that this probably reads more troll-like than intended but I’m actually not much clearer after that honestly. What part here was bad and should be illegal?

Why would you assume that $400 million in election spending is nonpartisan? Has Zuckerberg otherwise established himself as an altruist?

Fun fact, Facebook tried to recruit me onto their elections team due to my past leadership experience with GOtV (Get Out the Vote) initiatives and I bailed from the interview process because nobody could describe the work in a way that didn’t sound creepy as fuck.

I didn’t mention Facebook once and I sure as hell didn’t ask anyone to “trust Zuck”.

I asked why they were uncritically quoting the position of one of the most high profile partisan groups who have an extensive history of bad faith claims as though this was some neutral third party.