GOPers Crack Down On The Private Election Grants That Helped Avoid A Pandemic Fiasco | Talking Points Memo

As the global pandemic required election officials to drastically rethink how voting would work in 2020, philanthropic groups stepped up and contributed millions of dollars that paid for much of the changes needed to election infrastructure. Officials have since said that that money — particularly in light of how Congress struggled to provide enough federal election funding — helped them thwart a pandemic voting fiasco. The charity grants covered everything from election equipment to temp workers to personal protective gear, and some local election offices saw their 2020 budgets doubled by the private funding they received. 


This is a companion discussion topic for the original entry at https://talkingpointsmemo.com/?p=1369787

Republicans lose elections when people can vote.

13 Likes

Former Gov. Scott Walker’s ® think tank, the Capitol Research Center, blasted out a headline that claimed that “Mark Zuckerberg Changed the Outcome of the 2020 Election.”

WOW… I bet that’s news to the tw{i|a}t Zuckerberg… If he had his way Trump would still be president.

6 Likes

But wait, doesn’t that constitute infringing on free speech? Don’t private groups have a constitutional right to express their desire for well-funded elections by spending money on well-funded elections?

Sure, let’s get all private money out of elections, and then let’s put a lot more public money in.

Also… 9 of those paragraphs were single sentences, and apparently the Republicans are pushing “to prohibit private election election”.

Please, @TPM @josh_m, copy editors.

10 Likes

I wonder who is paying for the development of the anti-voting legislation ‘spontaneously’ springing up in all the Republican dominated states?
Of course, outlawing charitable funding to help government properly perform a basic function makes sense if you believe in smaller government. Those who believe in smaller government aren’t fans of socially beneficial programs, by and large, unless the segment of society being benefited is white and wealthy.

9 Likes

Can we ban ALEC then?

9 Likes

11 Likes

Ah, I see money-speech is now frowned upon? Oh, that’s right, Mitch made that very clear last week.

Rich people and corporations (their base) are no longer R-allies.

Cool.

Isn’t it fun to watch the R’s continue to step on their own dicks?

7 Likes

GOP is skeeeeeeeeered. The trends are all against them, and it won’t consider altering its ‘platform’ to recruit a wider audience. All that’s left is rigging the playing field.

Speaking of rigging the playing field, TPMs pay-to-comment decision means dedicated freeloaders like myself will be leaving. The decision is its to make, of course. And I have made mine.

6 Likes

But corporations are people, and people can donate money however they wish, according to SCOTUS, right?

Nevertheless, watch out for those putting up one idea (here, stopping private donations which help administer elections), while their real agenda is something else geared to more nefarious purposes. As an example, they are very likely to fight against use of paper ballots. They’ll say paper ballots are not safe, etc., etc., while promoting voting machines which 1. are profitable to the manufacturers (think money they spread around, while 2. are hackable (think anything goes).

3 Likes

Where did you see this new rule? Sad to see you go.

5 Likes

Yeah, I faced the same decision. Decided to give them a year to unfuck their shit, maybe hire that copy editor.

It shows up in a big white-on-black box if you’re not a subscriber, saying that as of May 1, comments will be pay-to-play.

4 Likes

So…they like the private contributions to modernize their election processes quickly right up to the point where TRUMP LOST. And then they not only told the selfsame ‘private’ Corporations to stay out of politics but they lied about the ‘problem’. No WONDER the Corporations told them to go p!ss up a rope…

5 Likes

I’m sorry to see you go, my poet, but I understand.

That change was completely transparent to those of us who are paying :frowning: It’s Josh’s business, of course, but this place will poorer without you.

7 Likes

It used to be (several iterations ago) that you had to be on Facebook to post in here, and I’m not and won’t be, so didn’t post.

I hope this move goes away like that one did.

7 Likes

Legal Action against Trump would shift this calculus.
A lot.

But we have GOT to have the VR Bill.

7 Likes

TPM wants more revenue. It hopes regular commenters will pay to maintain their habit. I doubt that the decision will be undone in the future.

2 Likes

“Private funding of elections is a band aid. It’s not something that actually is a real good solution for the long term,” Grose said. “The ideal solution is for states and localities to spend the right amount on elections.”

I can see where private funding could be a problem, I can see where directing monies to the state’s SoS office, if they’re in charge of doling out monies to county election boards could also be a problem. But I really can’t see states up the amount of money for running elections.

I know you all are getting tired of me saying this but. why in the hell are states changing their voting laws and procedures after we just completed an election with the highest turn out in decades? And during a pandemic?
The amount of proposed and enacted changes would make one believe that there were major problems with running the past election, but there weren’t.

5 Likes

There were major problems for Republicans. High turnout means they lose power.

6 Likes

Gee, and here I thought it was “Corporations are people too, my friend” as some guy from Utah said when speaking of free speech. How things change.

5 Likes