Nearly 20 States Have Restricted Private Funding of Elections

Author: David Meyers
Created: 25 May, 2022
Updated: 14 August, 2022
2 min read

Editor's Note: This article originally appeared on The Fulcrum, and has been republished on IVN with permission from the publisher.

In 2020, Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg and his wife, Priscilla Chan, donated more than $400 million to state and local governments to boost election administration funding. Since then, more than a dozen states, nearly all controlled by Republicans, have passed laws banning such private contributions.

The funds, which were administered by a pair of nonprofits, were used to train poll workers, purchase protective gear and upgrade election equipment amidst the Covid-19 pandemic. The money covered gaps in states’ limited budgets for elections.

Since 2021, 15 states have instituted prohibitions on private funding for elections, according to the Capital Research Center, a right-leaning think tank. Similar bills are awaiting the governor’s signature in Alabama and Missouri, while Texas and West Virginia have created regulations instead of bans.

All of these states have Republican governors, except Kansas and Kentucky. Gov. Laura Kelly vetoed the Kansas bill, but the Legislature overrode her action. And in Kentucky, the bill allows state officials to make exceptions for some outside funding instead of instituting an outright ban.

The National Institute for Civil Discourse noted in a recent report that “a consensus exists within the election administration community that elections are underfunded nationwide, even if they are more underfunded in some places than others.”

According to that report, states spend about the same amount on elections as they spend on public parking facilities. And with the federal government only sporadically contributing funds, private donations played a key role in closing the gap during the 2020 cycle.

But with some states banning private funding (plus Zuckerberg and Chan saying they will not be donating again this year), election officials may be hard-pressed to cover all their costs.

IVP Existence Banner

A group of Democratic senators introduced a bill last week that would provide $20 billion in federal funds for election administration. But the legislation faces a difficult path to approval in the Senate.

But conservatives have been fighting against private funding almost since the announcement from Zuckerberg and Chan, arguing that such “privatization” undermines elections. The Thomas More Society is still trying to get the court system to declare the use of Zuckerberg-Chan funds illegal in Wisconsin, although so far they have failed to win their case.

With legal battles failing, legislation has proved to be a more successful path for people trying to cut off private funding.

Georgia and Kansas were the first to enact bans, in March 2001, followed a month later by Arizona, Arkansas and Georgia.

Latest articles

Poll Shows Strong Support for 'Top Two' Measure in South Dakota
A recent poll shows that 55% of South Dakota voters support Amendment H, which if approved in November will implement a nonpartisan, top-two primary in the state similar to systems used in California and Washington....
13 June, 2024
2 min read
Washington DC
Report: Half of 2024 US House Races Already a Done Deal
Editor's Note: The following article on The Fulcrum and has been republished with permission from t...
12 June, 2024
3 min read
Arizona Initiative: Parties Can Either Accept Open Primaries or Pay for Them
Arizona is ground zero for a novel approach to voting reform that is not getting any attention from the national press, but could have tremendous implications for future elections and provide a fairer process for all voters -- regardless of their political affiliation. ...
12 June, 2024
5 min read