Crye and the MyPillow Conspiracy Circus: A Dangerous Misuse

---

Anyone following American politics is familiar with Mike Lindell, the CEO of MyPillow, whose post-2020 election crusade has made him a central figure in election-denial circles. Once known for business success, Lindell has instead gained notoriety for amplifying unfounded claims that the 2020 presidential election was “stolen” through widespread fraud and compromised voting systems — claims repeatedly dismissed by courts and bipartisan election authorities (Anguiano, 2023).

Despite legal setbacks and failed attempts to substantiate his allegations, Lindell has continued to invest millions in proving his theories. His widely-promoted 2021 “cyber symposium” in South Dakota promised decisive proof of foreign interference. Instead, attendees walked away without credible evidence, and Lindell responded to scrutiny by insisting critics “just forget about the evidence” — a statement observers argue underscores a shift from fact-based inquiry to ideological conviction (Anguiano, 2023; Beam, 2024).

What does this have to do with Shasta County? According to reporting, Supervisor Kevin Crye chose to consult with Lindell — and to do so using public funds.

A Taxpayer-Funded Trip to Minnesota — to Consult a Controversial Figure

In early 2023, shortly after Patrick Jones moved to terminate Shasta County’s contract with Dominion Voting Systems, Crye used county resources to travel to Minnesota for a meeting with Lindell — who was at the time facing a $1.3 billion defamation lawsuit tied to election-fraud claims (Mangas, 2023a; Mangas, 2023b).

Crye stated the purpose was to research election administration alternatives, including hand-counting and legislative options (Pierce, 2023). Yet the decision to seek guidance from a figure so publicly associated with debunked election theories raises serious questions about judgment, due diligence, and the responsible use of taxpayer dollars.

The issue isn't whether Crye has the right to explore election policy — he does. The problem is whether aligning Shasta County’s governance decisions with a nationally controversial political personality was prudent, fiscally responsible, or grounded in verified expertise.

The Hand-Counting Push — Evidence vs. Ideology

Crye’s subsequent push to implement county-wide hand counting mirrors themes commonly promoted in election-denial circles. California lawmakers responded with AB 969 in October 2023, restricting hand-counting to very small jurisdictions in rare situations — a direct policy response widely linked to Shasta County’s efforts (Battaglia, 2023b; Parks, 2022).

Independent research consistently concludes that full manual counting is slower, introduces more errors, and significantly increases costs compared to certified voting systems (Parks, 2022).

So why did Crye champion a path contradicted by data, expert consensus, and state law?

Was this a genuine oversight-driven initiative — or a political project influenced by fringe voices and outside agendas? And given reported offers of private financial backing for potential lawsuits, what assurances were in place to protect taxpayers from risk?

Residents deserve clarity.

Timing, Relationships, and the Public Interest

Critics have also noted an overlap between Crye’s Lindell outreach and the eventual appointment of Clint Curtis as Registrar of Voters in May 2025 — a figure discussed in national election controversy circles (Chamberlain, 2024; Hall, 2024).

There is no confirmed evidence of wrongdoing. But the timing, shared networks, and willingness to rely on politically polarizing advisors make it reasonable and necessary for the public to ask difficult questions about influence, priority setting, and transparency.

Good governance doesn't just avoid misconduct — it avoids situations that undermine public confidence.

Conclusion: Leadership Should Build Trust, Not Test It

Shasta County residents deserve evidence-based policy, fiscal stewardship, and decision-making grounded in verified expertise. Crye’s choice to consult a figure at the center of national election-denial controversies, combined with a costly and impractical push for hand-counting, raises legitimate concerns about judgment and priorities.

Leadership is not about theatrics, ideological crusades, or symbolic battles. It's about safeguarding public trust, protecting taxpayer dollars, and ensuring election administration rests on facts — not influence, speculation, or political performance.

At a minimum, Shasta County taxpayers deserve answers. At best, they deserve leaders who strengthen democratic systems instead of steering them toward controversy, uncertainty, and unnecessary risk.

Please be sure to click here to read emails, text messages, and other communications from the Shasta County Board of Supervisors in response to American Oversight’s request for communications regarding the cancellation of Dominion contracts.