Piece by @yaelwrites on how "Democracy Live", a peddler of discredited Internet voting systems, has attempted to buy credibility by laundering paid-for endorsements of its inherently untrustworthy products through universities.
https://cyberscoop.com/democracy-live-research-online-voting/
Online voting provider paid for academic research in attempt to sway U.S. lawmakers 

Democracy Live directed academic research to demonstrate its product's security and used that material in lobbying campaigns.

CyberScoop
Just to be clear, experts (who disagree about all sorts of things) are virtually unanimous that online voting is inherently too risky and untrustworthy for use in US civil elections. It is well beyond possible with the state of the art, and would require several fundamental breakthroughs in computer science before we could even try it. See, for a good discussion, the National Academies "Securing the Vote" consensus study, which is unequivocal about this. https://nap.nationalacademies.org/catalog/25120/securing-the-vote-protecting-american-democracy
Securing the Vote: Protecting American Democracy

Read online, download a free PDF, or order a copy in print or as an eBook.

The National Academies Press

@mattblaze Just to be clear to everyone who is replying (not to Matt Blaze, he is very well aware of this): there are a ton of things we do online that people often point to in order to ask "why not voting?".

Amongst others:
- The threat model is different
- The risks are different
- Possible mitigations are different.

E.g.: we can reimburse a financial loss which can mitigate a ton of things. We do not know how to reimburse your vote.

@mattblaze As Matt Blaze often rightly points out, elections are complex and consist of many more processes than just casting a vote.

But even for that one aspect, we're not really sure how to do it online in a way to guarantees the strict requirements we'd like to have, in the (very hostile) environment of the internet.