“The Algorithm and the Pillow”: How Mike Lindell amplified Clint Curtis—and why it matters

Executive summary

Beginning in August 2022, Mike Lindell—known for funding and hosting events focused on disputing the 2020 election—featured longtime election-technology critic Clint Curtis at his live programs and media platforms. This association provided Curtis a larger audience and gave Lindell a high-profile guest presenting himself as a “Democrat-turned-skeptic," a pairing that resonated within election-denial communities. Public reporting notes that efforts associated with this movement have not produced proof accepted by courts or credentialed experts and have been associated with increased public-records activity and pressure on election offices (Marks, 2021; Toomer, 2022; Riccardi & Slevin, 2025).

Who is Clint Curtis—and how he entered Lindell’s orbit

Curtis first moved into national view in 2004 after making allegations that a Florida politician sought vote-flipping software. Those claims drew attention and were also disputed by others involved, and elements of the account were questioned contemporaneously (Zetter, 2004). Nearly twenty years later, while being considered for a California elections-administration role, Curtis publicly highlighted his appearances alongside prominent election-machine critics, including Lindell, and reiterated arguments against voting machines (Anguiano, 2025).

When did Curtis and Lindell present together?

The earliest publicly documented collaboration appears to be August 20–21, 2022, at Lindell’s Moment of Truth Summit in Missouri, where Curtis spoke about vote-flipping “algorithms” (IMDb, 2022a; Rumble, 2022). Independent news coverage confirmed the event, its content, and its focus on 2020 election claims (Bacharier, 2022; ABC News, 2022; Colorado Newsline, 2022). Curtis’s appearance has since circulated broadly within Lindell-aligned media (Anguiano, 2025; Rumble, 2022).

Lindell had previously held a widely publicized 2021 Cyber Symposium intended to present digital evidence of election interference; cybersecurity experts invited to review the data reported that the materials did not substantiate such claims (Marks, 2021).

Joint messaging: framing and audience impact

For Lindell, Curtis offered a figure with prior Democratic political involvement articulating machine-skeptic arguments. For Curtis, Lindell’s productions offered broad viewership and established channels within an audience interested in claims of election system vulnerabilities (Anguiano, 2025). External reporting indicates that these presentations were widely disseminated even as specialists and courts did not find evidentiary support for the underlying assertions (Marks, 2021; Riccardi & Slevin, 2025).

Evidence test: public and legal scrutiny

Expert review at the Cyber Symposium did not validate the promised data (Marks, 2021).

Court outcomes have also rejected core false claims advanced within the broader movement. A Denver jury awarded damages in 2025 after finding defamatory statements against a former Dominion employee (Riccardi & Slevin, 2025). Separately, a judge found statements about Smartmatic to be defamatory (Karnowski, 2025a).

Regarding Lindell’s “$5 million challenge,” a district-court ruling in 2024 found the submitted data did not support election-hacking claims, and although an appellate court later vacated the monetary award on contractual grounds, the opinion recounted those factual findings (Tunheim, 2024; U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, 2025; Karnowski, 2025b).

Independent reporting and legal records indicate that the movement’s claims have not been substantiated (Marks, 2021; Anguiano, 2025).

Real-world impact

News coverage documents increases in coordinated records requests and pressure on election officials following Lindell-aligned broadcasts and events (Toomer, 2022; Gardner & Marley, 2022). Election officials nationwide have described heightened threats in that period (Kim et al., 2022).

In Shasta County, California—where Curtis was later appointed registrar—local reporting described extensive activism aligned with machine skepticism and noted that Curtis referenced his appearances with Lindell as part of his background (Huseman, 2024; Anguiano, 2025).

The Minnesota context and Shasta County timeline

In March 2023, Shasta County became a focal point in election-administration debates. Supervisor Kevin Crye traveled to meet with Lindell during a period when the county was considering abandoning its Dominion contract (Ting, 2023). Records show Lindell emailed Crye offering financial and legal support if the county faced litigation related to the decision (American Oversight, 2023). The Board subsequently voted to end its Dominion contract, a move publicly criticized by California officials as impractical and unlawful (Ting, 2023).

Also that month, Curtis attended a meeting at the county elections office concerning hand-count planning. Former interim Registrar Joanna Francescut confirmed his presence and stated she did not know why he was included. Reporting quotes:

“Francescut told SFGATE … she first met Curtis in March 2023 … ‘I’m not sure why he was brought in’…”  (Sosa, 2024)

Curtis later applied for and received the registrar position. Reporting notes he referenced his machine-skeptic background and public appearances, including those with Lindell (Anguiano, 2025).

There is no public evidence that Lindell directed the hiring. However, the proximity of events and aligned policy advocacy have drawn public interest and speculation regarding influence and timing.

Broader implications

Public records establish that:

• Lindell offered legal and financial support to Shasta County if it pursued hand-counting (American Oversight, 2023). 
• Curtis had appeared with Lindell prior to his eventual appointment (Anguiano, 2025). 
• State officials later found the county’s plan inconsistent with California election requirements (Ting, 2023).
   

These events have prompted questions in reporting and public discussion about how national election-skeptic networks and messaging affect local election policy debates.

While no documentation shows a requirement linking Lindell’s support to Curtis’s appointment, the overlapping timeline, shared positions on voting machines, and publicly acknowledged interactions have made the Shasta County case a subject of continued public interest and scrutiny.