Opinion Private Funding of Elections

So this recently was brought up in a WSJ report about Zuckerberg's contributions to public election administrations that pointed that out of his 400M contribution, nearly three-quarters of the funding went to jurisdictions that President Biden won. Some more:

We also found wide disparities in per capita funding between red and blue areas. In Pennsylvania, Biden-supporting counties received nearly $5 per registered voter, compared with a little more than $1 in places that voted for Donald Trump. Other states saw big gaps, too. This wide disparity increases the likelihood that private funding benefited Democratic candidates. In North Carolina that includes Gov. Cooper, who was narrowly re-elected in 2020.

Click to expand...

The reference to Gov Cooper there is because may Republican held legislators are passing bills that look to limit or ban this practice in the future. North Carolina had a bill like this go through legislator but was vetoed by Gov Cooper. These bills in general however could be questioned on their constitutionality. If money in elections has been defined as speech, I don't see how it can be okay to direct it to campaigns but not to public administrations to support the ability to vote.

Anyways, though this recently has reflected on Zuckerberg, other rich people could follow in doing this, both from the left and right. Additionally, thought a rich person might target favorable districts/ states, the public officials are not allowed to discriminately use the funding to aid either party. What are your thoughts on this matter? Should people be allowed to fund public elections? Is it even constitutional to be able to ban it? What long term consequences (good or bad) could come of this? Furthermore, will this become a new narrative that serves to undermine the legitimacy of our elections and harm public perception of our democracy? Last question is what made me hesitant to even make a thread on this as I am not implying at all 2020's elections weren't legitimate, free and fair.


What Role Should Mark Zuckerberg Play in U.S. Elections?
WSJ

In “No Facebook Funding for Elections” (op-ed, Dec. 31), Tarren Bragdon and Joe Horvath endorse a ban on private funding for public election administration. The problem they target—partisan spending by public officials—may be real, but their proposed ban is a significant infringement on free speech. Contributions by the private sector, whether by Mark Zuckerberg or Charles Koch, should be fully protected. But public-sector recipients of those contributions must not spend them in a politically discriminatory manner.

Under current law, unlimited private, independent expenditures on behalf of candidates or parties are permissible. Direct contributions to candidates and parties are, regrettably, capped. They should not be. Ditto for private contributions to fund elections. Mr. Zuckerberg should have every right to fund get-out-the-vote drives in Democratic, but not Republican, districts (although he denies that allegation). Voluntary contributions for such purposes are preferable to coerced taxpayer funding. On the other hand, the law should prohibit expenditures by public-sector officials that favor any party or candidate.

Click to expand...

No Facebook Funding for Elections
WSJ

What’s a good way to erode Americans’ trust in elections further? The answer can be found in North Carolina, where Gov. Roy Cooper recently vetoed a bill that would ban private funding for public election administration. Such funding was rampant in 2020—in North Carolina and nationwide—and it likely benefited Democrats. Some states have already enacted a ban, and more should follow before the 2022 midterms.

Gov. Cooper vetoed a bill passed by the Republican legislature. Lawmakers were responding to 2020’s unprecedented phenomenon of individuals and organizations, usually from out of state, providing grants directly to state and local election officials. The money came from a variety of sources, but the largest by far was $400 million from Mark Zuckerberg, the founder of Facebook, and his wife, Priscilla Chan. Primarily routed through the Center for Tech and Civic Life, the funding was dispersed to roughly 2,500 counties in 47 states and the District of Columbia. The center described it as a means of ensuring “safe and reliable” voting amid the pandemic, and while jurisdictions had to request the money, there was no mechanism for oversight or accountability once they had the funds in hand.

Click to expand...

It’s a subversion of democracy and a disgusting practice in my opinion, as it allows the wealthy to buy politicians. Reasonable political contribution limits should be applied to all voters and only be allowed within the district where they are a registered voter. Not sure what the magic number is, but it should be low enough that the vote from a wealthy person doesn’t count more than that of an average citizen.

Politicians love their grift and care more about $ than they care about voters, so not surprising that this is still going on.

Should be treated like professional sports: salary cap, all money is transparent and published in the newspaper, and regular injury reports.

$5000 per person max, only within your jurisdiction. No money acceptable from corporations or lobbys.

All donations received tracked and vetted in public databases for review at any point.

Fix the god damn problem, it's pretty evident where to start. Anything else is an excuse.

Lead said:

Is it even constitutional to be able to ban it?

Click to expand...

No and I don't trust any system that would ban it. I also don't think funding is super influential for general elections, despite thinking it is depressing how much money is wasted to elect some empty suit. The DNC dumped a ton of money into Amy McGrath only to have her get shellacked twice.

Let them spend with no caps. If Bloomberg wants to flush $1B down the toilet, let him. If dumbasses want to be grifted by the Lincoln Project, let 'em. A bigger thing that needs to be investigated is the lobbying and sweetheart deals friends and family of politicians get, as well as the money circuit when they are out of office. It's just bribery with more steps.

It should continue to be allowed, and I don't believe we should ever try to ban it. Banning it may create even worse ways to gain allegiance from politicians. However it should not be hidden from public view, it should be completely transparent.

Nobody has a right to fund administration and it sends the wrong message in regards to election integrity.

I agree with the point by Andrew Yang that eligible voters get a certain amount of money that can only be used to donate to the presidential candidate of their choice. This way the collective regular people contribution should outweigh these PACs or rich individual donors by a lot, which in theory would make politicians actually work for the people. Not sure how this plan would work for house or local level election, but something similar could be done

I think we should skip voting and just have an autistic billionaire with a lego person haircut just appoint who he wants as president to save him the money of buying the seats.

I do find it amusing how many dolts thing they're part of the "our" in "our democracy".

It should be an amendment to be disallowed.

I’ll wait about 15 minutes before I’m told that such an argument is an attack on freedom of speech.

1 dollar max contribution.