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.
Former Gov. Scott Walker’s (R) 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.
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”.
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.
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.
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).
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…
“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.
It’s Josh’s business, of course, but this place will poorer without you.