Article:
In a recent legislative development, Wisconsin has emerged as the newest state to stop the private funding of elections. A change that seeks to protect the integrity of the electoral process by giving equal opportunities to all candidates, regardless of their financial resources.
Wisconsin Governor, Tony Evers, signed Assembly Bill 173, banning outside private funding for election operations in Wisconsin on March 1, 2022. This move comes as part of an increasing trend across the United States, as states aim to limit outside influence on election outcomes.
According to the bill, No person other than the state, a county, a city, village, town, or other government entity may make a contribution, grant, or donation, of any kind to the commission or to a local government in connection with the administration of an election. Not only does this law provide every candidate with a level playing field, but it also fortifies the electoral system’s autonomy.
The push for the Assembly Bill 173 was primarily informed by the 2020 elections, in which various nonprofit organizations funded elements of the electoral process, particularly in cities and states that were unable to fund due to the Covid-19 pandemic. Through their financial input, these organizations influenced aspects such as vote counting, ballot collection, and election worker training.
A primary player was the Center for Tech and Civic Life (CTCL), a non-profit based in Chicago that granted more than $300 million in grants to aid local election offices. CTCL received its funding from numerous sources, with Facebook’s former CEO Mark Zuckerberg and his wife, Priscilla Chan being prominent contributors.
The fear surrounding private funding of elections isn’t baseless. Risk arises from the potential for such funding to create undue influence upon the processes and outcomes of elections. Critics argue that these contributions might create a bias towards one candidate or party, disrupt the fairness of the electoral system, and compromise the democratic principle of equal representation.
Like Wisconsin, several other U.S. states have also enacted legislation limiting private funding in election administration. Montana, for instance, passed a similar ban in April 2021. North Carolina followed with its own measure in June 2021, and Arizona enacted a law in September 2021. Additionally, states such as Georgia, Idaho, and others have implemented comparable arrangements.
The move by Wisconsin reaffirms reduced reliance on private funding for elections to maintain the impartiality and independence of their local electoral processes. By banning private funding, many believe it can secure the integrity of the election, keeping it solely under the control of the state, ensuring it’s of the people, by the people, and for the people.
Despite the potential benefits, there are voices of opposition to such restrictions. Critics argue that these bans might stifle the capacity for important adaptations to the electoral process, such as increasing accessibility for voters with disabilities or investing in improved technology for vote counting. They also argue that in some cases, these laws prevent local election offices from receiving much-needed funds during crisis situations, like the COVID-19 pandemic.
Simultaneously, there is a call for a proper legal framework to regulate private donations without completely prohibiting them. This approach acknowledges the potential benefits of private funding in enhancing the country’s electoral processes while mitigating its risks by stipulating how such funding can be utilized.
In conclusion, Wisconsin’s recent legislation banning private election funding opens new avenues for discussion about the control and integrity of the American electoral process. As more states follow this trend, the United States is entering a new era of electoral financing, one where transparency, fairness, and autonomy are at the forefront of conversations.