Please disable your Ad Blocker to better interact with this website.

NewsU.S. News

Wisconsin Bans Zuckerbucks

Leftists struggled to explain why letting special interests fund elections is a good thing.

While the votes haven’t been fully counted, enough of the votes have come in to say that Wisconsin’s Question 1 ending the private funding of elections, also known as ‘Zuckerbucks’ for the massive injection of cash by the Facebook boss that some say may have swung the 2020 election, has passed and will become the law.

The majority of people across Wisconsin voted to end the practice except in Milwaukee, Madison’s Dane and Iowa counties, and a few of the other predictable places.

The Zuckerbucks faction seemingly wasn’t hopeful and made sure the money got in before the votes came in.

Milwaukee received more than $1 million in private donations to help administer elections nearly a week before residents decide whether injecting private funding into elections is unconstitutional.

Tuesday’s vote came soon after the Milwaukee Election Commission received a $787,000 grant from the nonprofit Cities Forward. The commission’s executive director, Claire Woodall-Vogg, said she welcomed the funding because the state and federal governments aren’t spending enough to ensure elections run smoothly. Most of the funding has been allocated, she said, and she intended to spend it all before the constitutional amendment takes effect when the state certifies the vote totals in the coming weeks.

While banning private funding of elections is an important piece of the puzzle, massive amounts of money will still be injected into nonprofits engaged in voter registration and turnout.

While Question Two has flown under the radar, it’s arguably even more important. “Shall section 7 (2) of article III of the constitution be created to provide that only election officials designated by law may perform tasks in the conduct of primaries, elections, and referendums?” And it’s currently winning by a more decisive margin of nearly 60%.

Part of the reason here is that leftists are still struggling to explain why letting special interests fund elections is a good thing and there’s not much enthusiasm for it.

After weeks of media squawking about “unfounded election conspiracy theories”, most voters liked the idea of limiting election involvement to designated officials and government funding.

Article posted with permission from Daniel Greenfield

Daniel Greenfield

My name is Daniel Greenfield. I am a blogger and columnist born in Israel and living in New York City. I am a  Shillman Journalism Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center and a contributing editor at Family Security Matters. My original biweekly column appears at Front Page Magazine and my blog articles regularly appear at Family Security Matters, the Jewish Press, Times of Israel, Act for America and Right Side News, as well as daily at the Canada Free Press and a number of other outlets. I have a column titled Western Front at Israel National News and my op eds have also appeared in the New York Sun, the Jewish Press and at FOX Nation.

Related Articles

Back to top button