100 Days into Mark Zuckerberg’s Latest Acquisition: The 2020 election shows why there are some functions that must be limited solely to the government, without private funding

Government sometimes needs help. It can’t do everything… and it most certainly can’t do everything well. What we learned of late is that some Americans have stepped up and use their resources and expertise to help the government function more effectively.

An example of this is Michael Bloomberg’s efforts to fund “Special Assistant Attorneys Generals” in actual Attorneys Generals’ offices in half a dozen large cities across the country. These SAAGs focus specifically on climate change and act as liaisons between AG leadership, NGOs, and other interested parties. The goal is to step up and move the issue of climate change forward in the face of Congress’s refusing to act.

Another more recent effort to address government dysfunction had to do with voting. After the chaos of 2000, the Russian influence scandal of 2016, and complaints about lines and closed precincts after almost every election, it was clear that America’s voting system could use some assistance.

As might be appropriate for the high-tech world in which we live, it was a master of the Silicon Valley universe who stepped into the breach to provide assistance to the very low tech world of voting: Mark Zuckerberg. He and his wife contributed over $350 million to the nonprofit Center for Tech and Civic Life (“CTCL”) to pay election workers, drop boxes, foreign language information, train poll workers, rent polling locations, and count votes during the 2020 elections.

The result was a far more robust election functionality in the locales where Zuckerberg focused his money. It was what you would call a home run. Take Maricopa County Arizona, for example. The county, with its 2,000,000 votes – including Phoenix – represents over 60% of Arizona’s electorate. CTCL spent approximately $3 million in the county. The result? Much higher turnout.

Americans expect government to treat everyone equally and, according to a report released by the Amistad Project, Zuckerberg’s CTCL not only didn’t do that, the expenditures directly violated federal law:

This privatization of elections undermines the Help America Vote Act (HAVA), which requires state election plans to be submitted to federal officials and approved and requires respect for equal protection by making all resources available equally to all voters.
The provision of Zuckerberg-CTCL funds allowed these Democrat strongholds to spend roughly $47 per voter, compared to $4 to $7 per voter in traditionally Republican areas of the state.

While there are most certainly areas of government where private / public partnerships can play a role –-- things such as feeding the hungry, sheltering the homeless and substance abuse aid -- none of those things involves the government’s police power or methods for determining representation in the government itself. Bloomberg’s efforts involve the former and Zuckerberg’s impact the latter.

Government is supposed to be objective when executing the laws. By illegally allowing private entities to take over the state’s core functions, the government is essentially putting its thumb on the scales that keep the Republic balanced. Just as it would be unconstitutional for Exxon to fund the EPA’s enforcement actions, the NRA to fund ATF agents, or the Proud Boys to do enforcement work for the Border Patrol, it’s equally unconstitutional for billionaires or anyone else unaccountable to the people to be bankrolling election processes and activities.

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.