Posted on 04/01/2024 6:24:59 AM PDT by MtnClimber
Two amendments to Article III of the Wisconsin Constitution are being voted on this week. They are pivotal for Wisconsin, arguably the Nation. Why? Neither Wisconsin’s founders nor America’s ever wanted elections run by private companies, the process influenced or worse subcontracted to private partisans. Yet, without these amendments, wealthy partisans get to call the shots.
By all accounts, from 2020 press releases and tax returns to later news accounts and investigators, America’s wealthy social media mogul Mark Zuckerburg punched $400 million into 49 states during the 2020 election cycle, cleverly in September that year, to help “manage” elections.
In practice what that meant was two national non-profits, with seemingly partisan leanings, were empowered to push tens of millions of dollars into selected cities, counties, and states – including Wisconsin – to promote what they considered good election practices.
But hold on, what were those practices? Dressed up as half a billion from Mr. Zuckerburg’s good heart to help the country with “staffing, training, and equipment…so that this November every eligible voter can participate in a safe and timely way,” the money quickly took on dark tones.
First, no one – no company, person, domestic, or foreign entity – had ever sought to effectively buy the administration of elections across America, which is what occurred in many of these states. The money was enormous, effectively dwarfing resources counties and cities had to work with.
Second, the money did not go just for masks and lights, but got directed to very specific purposes, reportedly including to buy “vote navigators” (a novel phrase for independent thought) to “assist voters, potentially at their front doors, to answer questions, assist in ballot curing…and witness absentee ballot signatures,” as well as to help with “counting votes.”
Third, in practice, many of the activities promoted are ones that – in the US and Europe – are considered “irregular,” liable to reduce accountability and increase fraud. These included “proliferation of unmonitored drop boxes (which created chain-of-custody issues), and opportunities for novel forms of ‘mail-in ballot electioneering,’ allowed for the submission of…questionable post-election-day ballots… opportunities for illegal ballot harvesting.”
According to some reports, the giant slush fund for “electioneering” “greatly increased funding for temporary staffing and poll workers, which supported the infiltration of election offices by paid Democratic Party activists, coordinated through a complex web of left-leaning nonprofit organizations, social media platforms and social media election influencers.”
Whether this happened everywhere or only in select states, counties, and cities is secondary, because the effect was to sow doubt about the process, power up the historically irregular practices, and tip the process to private over public, something the founders never envisioned or wanted to happen.
In some states, such as Georgia, money seems to have found Democrat-affiliated groups, while in others, like Wisconsin, the five biggest Democrat counties got large sums, which investigators imply explains a curious surge in Democrat votes.
Also, somewhat strangely, this money appears to have played an outsized role in “battleground” states, many of which were decided – including Wisconsin – by margins smaller than the assessed impact of the increased voting from these new methods.
Does any of this prove the 2020 cycle was decisively changed by this money, that Zuckerburg committed an illegal act, or that those like him who wanted to affect the process, if not the outcome, did anything illegal?
No, it does not. However, laws are worth reviewing. Individual donations to candidate committees were capped at $2800 per candidate by the FEC in 2020. Until 2020, all elections were conducted with government money, thus ostensibly above reproach.
In short, while Zuckerburg and his wife appear to have violated no campaign laws, that does not mean they had no influence, and certainly does not imply they did not intend to. They gave more than $400 million to 2,500 jurisdictions, an average of $160,000 per jurisdiction – and they changed the entire election process, and its perceived veracity.
So, why should Wisconsin vote to keep private money out of administering local, state, and federal elections? Because the founders wanted that clarity, and we know doubt is sown about outcomes tied to private partisans. That is why these two amendments need to pass big, and hopefully will not be counted by any privately funded counters.
I hope the votes are not counted by Zuckerburg-funded election workers.
3-4 more states to go. We’ve had 4 years to correct it.
Wisconsin has done a LOT since 2020 to straighten our ship. Zuck and crew did serious damage in 2020 - but it did not go unnoticed.
Voting tomorrow in our Wisconsin ‘Primary’ for president. I’m predicting a Trump Win. :)
I read half the article before I gave up. The author wanted to rant about Zuckerburg, but would not explain the significance of the amendments.
They have, and they will move light years ahead of the last election once speaker Robin Vos has been shown the door.
That cannot happen quickly enough.
https://statedemocracy.law.wisc.edu/explainers/2024/explainer-proposed-wisconsin-constitutional-amendments-on-election-administration/
Wisconsin Question 1: No Private Funds to Administer Elections Amendment
The first proposed amendment on the April ballot would add language to the Wisconsin Constitution declaring that no state or local agency, officer, or employee “may apply for, accept, expend, or use any moneys or equipment in connection with the conduct of any primary, election, or referendum if the moneys or equipment are donated or granted by an individual or nongovernmental entity.”
Wisconsin Question 2: Only Designated Election Officials to Conduct Elections Amendment
The second proposed amendment on the April ballot would prohibit “any individual other than an election official designated by law from performing any task in the conduct of any primary, election, or referendum.”
The legislative record on this proposed amendment is relatively thin, providing little concrete guidance on the amendment’s intended scope. A few snippets of legislative testimony from supporters of the amendment convey a desire to ban the use of outside elections consultants, like those who advised on election administration in 2020. A description from the Legislative Reference Bureau, however, largely just repeats the proposal’s language, explaining that it would “prohibit[] any individual other than an election official designated by law from performing any task in the conduct of any primary, election, or referendum” and “[p]rohibit[] any individual other than an election official designated by law from performing any task in election administration.”
Thank you! 😀
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.