Congress needs to do more to avoid private funding in elections, lawmakers agree

Republican House committee members on Wednesday alleged that Meta founder Mark Zuckerberg used large donations to mobilize Democratic voters in battleground states during the 2020 general election.

Several Republican lawmakers said they were willing to use taxpayer money to help administer elections, but said they would ban donations such as “Zuckerbucks,” a term used to refer to individual donations.

Zuckerberg and his wife Priscilla Chan said: The “one-time” donation to the Center for Tech and Civic Life (CTCL) was made to train poll workers, provide protective equipment, and expand mail-in voting during the COVID-19 pandemic. I did. Republican committee members argued that money was often funneled to Democratic-leaning districts to mobilize voters.

“These funds are intended to support recruitment efforts for poll workers and the purchase of new equipment,” said Rep. Brian Still (R-Wis.), chairman of the House Administration Committee. . “But in reality, some of these funds were used for voter registration events and get-out-the-vote efforts in primarily Democratic-leaning cities and towns.”

“Americans have a right to have confidence in their elections, and that means elections should be free from undue private influence,” Steil added.

Democratic lawmakers agreed with Republicans that public funds should be spent on election administration, but Republicans cited private funding to support cash-strapped local election administration as a reason for holding the hearing. It was argued that the particular focus on who the person was attracted attention.

“We can all agree that private money should not be funding our elections. It should be public funding,” said Rep. Terry Sewell (D-Alabama). . “The relentless assault by the partisan and extremist organizations represented by today’s Republican witnesses is completely unacceptable,” Sewell said.

“When you have a hearing like this with these types of witnesses, it’s a great challenge to the leadership of this committee and where we’re going and our shared goal of trying to get things done for the American people.” will really be called into question,” the lawmaker said. said Norma Torres (D-Calif.).

“If there is enough money, there is no need for charities to donate to elections,” said ranking member Rep. Joe Morrell of New York.

There are more than 8,000 local election jurisdictions in the United States, all of which receive funding from local sources, said Zachary Mohr, an associate professor at the University of Kansas.

Through audits of these jurisdictions, the University of Kansas estimates that these local election agencies collectively incur $2 billion in operating costs, Mohr said.

“There may be good reasons for states banning private funding, but if so, election administration has been underfunded for years. But now we’re becoming critically underfunded. We need the resources we need, and this is where the federal government needs to step in,” Mohr said.