>>24202627 (PB)

OK, its Wiki. They do write up on some issues though.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hart_InterCivic

In July 2011, Hart received what Hart described as "a strategic investment" from H.I.G. Capital,[7] in a transaction that Hart's advisors called an "acquisition."[8]

As of July 2020, H.I.G. no longer listed ownership in the company on its website.

Hmm…wonder what "strategic investment" means?

https://hig.com/news/h-i-g-capital-completes-strategic-investment-in-hart-intercivic/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H.I.G._Capital

Because everyone needs Microsoft as part of a "trusted" election system:

https://www.hartintercivic.com/hart-and-microsoft-announce-partnership-to-make-elections-more-secure-verifiable/

Hart InterCivic overview:

https://pitchbook.com/profiles/company/12205-99#investments

Some general voting system information here:

https://www.eac.gov/voting-equipment/registered-manufacturers/hart-intercivic-inc

https://www.gastongazette.com/story/news/2019/07/14/whos-behind-voting-machine-makers-money-of-unclear-origins/4695810007/

Bits from the article:

"RALEIGH — The voting-machine makers that aim to sell their systems in North Carolina are largely owned by private equity firms that don't disclose their investors.

The companies didn't want the public to know even that much.

The three companies — Omaha, Nebraska-based Election Systems & Software; Boston-based Clear Ballot; and Austin, Texas-based Hart InterCivic — were told to disclose anyone holding a 5 percent or greater stake, or in a parent company or any subsidiaries.

All three private companies responded by listing their executives and equity funds as chief owners. And all three asked that even these responses be kept confidential.

Hart InterCivic said that it "derives independent actual value from this information not being generally known or readily ascertainable and makes reasonable efforts to maintain the secrecy of this information."

Not only are we not allowed to check the "proprietary" programming, we're also not allowed to know who owns the voting systems.

>>24203650

Why would a private equity firm invest in a voting system? States don't buy them every year. Maintenance and upgrade charges, etc, sure. Programming for each election.

Not a big ROI there- or is there?

>>24203650

A little more from this site:

https://www.gastongazette.com/story/news/2019/07/14/whos-behind-voting-machine-makers-money-of-unclear-origins/4695810007/

The impetus for the question was the Mueller investigation into the phony Russian claim- which may have backfired when questions started being asked:

"Their concerns about potential foreign interference have grown since Maryland officials learned last year that a company maintaining that state's election infrastructure did not disclose its financing by a venture fund whose largest investor is a Russian oligarch."

Now why would a Russian oligarch be involved? Maybe Ukraine?

(Sit is now going behind a paywall but got there three times before it did)