America’s elections aren’t for sale — but that won’t stop powerful billionaires from trying.
With another presidential election approaching, states should be on high alert to prevent undue influence by political activists, the federal government, Big Tech, and other special-interest groups. Between the federal government trying to steamroll them and billionaires meddling in local election offices, states have their work cut out for them in 2024.
One area that states should pay particular attention to is the push for outside funding and influence by groups like the Center for Tech and Civic Life (CTCL). CTCL was at the heart of the 2020 “Zuckerbucks” initiative. States received hundreds of millions of dollars from Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg under the guise of “COVID-19 relief.” But records and correspondence between CTCL and election officials revealed that funds were more likely to be used as get-out-the-vote operations for left-leaning jurisdictions than they were to purchase hand sanitizer or PPE.
The good news? State lawmakers have bolstered election integrity efforts. States responded to serious concerns of private influence by passing reforms that strengthened protections for absentee voting, voter roll cleanup, ballot counting, and more. With Louisiana’s recent amendment vote to ban private funding of elections garnering nearly 72 percent support from voters, 27 states have passed bans or restrictions on outside financing for local election offices, including bipartisan action in states like Virginia and Pennsylvania.
The bad news? CTCL is again developing a new business model to dodge state reforms. The group rebranded itself as the U.S. Alliance for Election Excellence and has indicated its intention to distribute $80 million in funding while providing “coaching” and other support to select election officials — again with no public oversight or accountability. According to public records requests filed by the Foundation for Government Accountability, millions of dollars of this funding have already been distributed to key states, from Wisconsin to Nevada. The Alliance and its affiliates are supplying absentee ballot postcards, providing general election guidance, funding and more — this time under the banner of “partnerships.” It offers advice on how local officials and activist groups can effectively oppose election integrity efforts. It’s not just about the money — it’s about “guidance” now. But it’s still outside influence, so the fight is far from over.
The newly rebranded Alliance continues to target pivotal swing states, determined to find cracks in the law to exploit. While nearly every state that banned Zuckerbucks saw the outside funds dry up, CTCL found a loophole in Georgia’s 2021 election reform package and funneled an additional $2 million grant to dark-blue DeKalb County at the end of 2022. This was in addition to the nearly $10 million DeKalb County accepted from CTCL during the 2020 election cycle.
Lawmakers will have to remain vigilant in safeguarding election procedures from activists looking to put a thumb on the scale. That is why Gov. Brian Kemp of Georgia signed a new election integrity bill into law requiring all costs related to elections to be paid for with lawfully appropriated public funds. The strengthened measure closed the loopholes exploited by the Alliance.
The valuable lesson for states is that they are not powerless to protect themselves against those who would interfere in their jurisdictions. In addition to the states that have already banned or restricted outside money in state election administration, Wisconsin voters will soon have a chance to ratify a constitutional ban on Zuckerbucks in early 2024.
Unfortunately, Zuckerberg is not the only powerful interest attempting to undermine local elections.
The Biden administration ordered federal agencies to contract with third-party organizations to register and mobilize voters in states across the country. It’s a massive get-out-the-vote effort using the power and resources of the federal government. It’s Zuckerbucks on steroids, and states should shut down this federal influence as swiftly as they’re slamming the door on outside money.
State elections can’t function as designed when billionaires or the federal government meddle in local voting. Through Zuckerbucks bans and requiring state oversight over federal involvement in local elections — among other reforms — states have several tools at their disposal to restore trust in elections and protect the integrity of the democratic process.
States, not the federal government or groups like the Alliance, have the authority to manage elections. Now more than ever, Americans need their state leaders to hold strong and protect elections.
1 thought on “Opinion: Out-of-State Donors Still Influence Local Election Offices – Inside Sources”
Seems largely a nothing burger here, as very littlwe has changed, especially in AZ. Thisa starts from the first line, saying “elections are not for saale”, then continuing nto describe how they have been b ought, whether Zuckerbucks or other modalities.
The thread is common with our reps speaking of ifs and modes, all ty[ical political word salad to give the impression that they are effecting some election cleanup, while in reality, changing nothing.
Comments are closed.