Is Private Funding Of Election Offices Legal Or Constitutional?

[SheepDog4Life]

I believe the actions of the elections offices violated both the federal constitution and state constitutions by creating unequal voting opportunities in democratic strongholds.

I don't see that contention anywhere in the article.

The article makes that pretty clear but the courts, I believe, will not get involved in this because orange man bad.

No, it doesn't, in fact does not mention violating fed/state constitutions... AT ALL.

The watchdog that filed the action, Center for Renewing America (CRA) contends that the donations funded partisan activities that they contend violates 501(c)(3) non-profit guidelines.

They are arguing 501(c)(3) non-profit status.

Like so many things from the election until now, they cannot be shown to back up Trumps assertions that the election was stolen.

How so? Get out the vote and making it easier to vote during COVID constitute stealing the election?

That the IRS will not do anything is hardly surprising and a continuation of their actions where conservatives get investigated and leftists skate by.

THIS... we agree upon... IRS should issue a ruling whether or not allowed activities done only in certain election subdivisions constitutes partisan activity or not. If it is, Zuck owns taxes on the $400M. If not, then we need our own.

The left also creates new entities constantly so they rarely are caught up with.

They definitely constantly try new "tricks" and call foul if the Rs duplicate it in the next election cycle.

 

[Ingomike]

I don't see that contention anywhere in the article.

Did not mean to imply the article said that.

No, it doesn't, in fact does not mention violating fed/state constitutions... AT ALL.

The watchdog that filed the action, Center for Renewing America (CRA) contends that the donations funded partisan activities that they contend violates 501(c)(3) non-profit guidelines.

They are arguing 501(c)(3) non-profit status.

If the shoe was on the other foot I guarantee it would found to violate civil rights of both constitutions. I think some low level suits were filed but tossed on standing.

In an election ran by the government if Trump gave $50,000,000 to republican strongholds in each battleground stat, to boost turnout, would it be met with a “ho-hum”? Would it be called “partisan activities”?

How so? Get out the vote and making it easier to vote during COVID constitute stealing the election?

These were nakedly partisan organizations handing out money to specific areas, controlled by dems, with specific instructions as to what the money was for. If an organization were to give Marion county and the other blue areas of Indiana more money per voter than our elected representatives designated for the entire election would you think that is equal protection specified under the constitutions?

If it were reversed and some millionaires gave that money to the red areas of the state to get republican votes in, the courts would say that was just “getting out the vote”?

 

[Cynical]

Did not mean to imply the article said that.


If the shoe was on the other foot I guarantee it would found to violate civil rights of both constitutions. I think some low level suits were filed but tossed on standing.

In an election ran by the government if Trump gave $50,000,000 to republican strongholds in each battleground stat, to boost turnout, would it be met with a “ho-hum”? Would it be called “partisan activities”?

These were nakedly partisan organizations handing out money to specific areas, controlled by dems, with specific instructions as to what the money was for. If an organization were to give Marion county and the other blue areas of Indiana more money per voter than our elected representatives designated for the entire election would you think that is equal protection specified under the constitutions?

If it were reversed and some millionaires gave that money to the red areas of the state to get republican votes in, the courts would say that was just “getting out the vote”?

Um, yeah... kinda hard to argue with that. I always taught my girls that if you don’t like losing put in the work and try harder. I know I’m a terrible father for not propping them up and telling them they were still the best. I feel like I’m starting to have to eat crow, how do you beat the media and an a half apathetic population.

 

[wingrider1800]

Anything that benefits the nuts is legal and everything else is illegal. Simple as that.

 

[Ingomike]

Some states are trying to stop this practice…

WI Republicans Introduce Measures To Ban ERIC, 'Zuckbucks'

Wisconsin Republicans introduced measures to ban 'Zuckbucks' and withdraw the state from a leftist-linked voter-roll 'maintenance' group.

thefederalist.com

 

[Tombs]

Considering the media is private, and can entirely dictate voter turnout depending on narratives, I'm not sure how this is a feasible problem to solve.

It would run afoul of the constitution to stop it.

And the things you can stop, are going to be of little measurable impact by comparison to things you can do to get around it.

 

[Ingomike]

Considering the media is private, and can entirely dictate voter turnout depending on narratives, I'm not sure how this is a feasible problem to solve.

It would run afoul of the constitution to stop it.

And the things you can stop, are going to be of little measurable impact by comparison to things you can do to get around it.

Do you understand the topic here? Not sure how this fits with the issue being discussed, which is billionaires giving mega cash to the government election offices in cities like Detroit, Milwaukee, and Philadelphia, but not to government election offices in red parts of the states. Nothing to do with media…

 

[Ingomike]

Hope this gets some traction. What are the odds it is dismissed on standing?

“The legislature has the authority to propose an amendment to the Constitution involving a vote of the people under Article 12, Sec. 1. But any election-law amendment to the Constitution that bypasses the legislature is illegal. According to both the U.S. Constitution and the Michigan Constitution, only the state legislature has the authority to regulate the times, places, and manner of federal elections. The passage of an election-related ballot referendum without first gaining legislative approval violates both the U.S. and Michigan Constitutions. The Michigan Constitution provides that the legislative power to regulate elections is vested in the Senate and House of Representatives.”

BREAKING---GAME CHANGER! 11 HERO Lawmakers Sue MI SOS Jocelyn Benson and MI Director of Elections In Federal Court For Violating US and MI Constitution To Change Election Laws | The Gateway Pundit | by Patty McMurray

Eleven Michigan state legislators have filed a lawsuit today in federal court against state election officials.

www.thegatewaypundit.com

 

[Ingomike]

Still at it. Stuffing the dem areas with money ahead of a vote to stop outside funding of elections.

Milwaukee takes more than $1 million in ‘Zuckerbucks’ ahead of vote to ban private election funding

The Milwaukee Election Commission and the Milwaukee Public Library received a $250,000 grant, while the commission received a separate $785,850 grant from the nonprofit Cities Forward for election administration.

justthenews.com

 

[Ingomike]

I believe that elections are a function of government and must be held to the 14th amendment standards. Since the constitution explicitly designates the state legislatures the define the manner any outside funding should be held unconstitutional unless that funding is explicitly designated by the legislature and even then it must be equal per the 14th amendment.

@KLB @1nderbeard @Knight Rider

Where am I wrong? What in the constitution makes this legal?

 

[Shadow01]

It’s just free speech.

 

[Tombs]

I believe that elections are a function of government and must be held to the 14th amendment standards. Since the constitution explicitly designates the state legislatures the define the manner any outside funding should be held unconstitutional unless that funding is explicitly designated by the legislature and even then it must be equal per the 14th amendment.

@KLB @1nderbeard @Knight Rider

Where am I wrong? What in the constitution makes this legal?

I think you're still failing to grasp that it's an unstoppable problem. There's plenty of money on the right and we should be matching or exceeding them in every instance like our souls depend on it.

If you figure out a way to make it illegal, you will only be stopping the right from participating in it. We play by the rules, THEY DON'T.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

I think you're still failing to grasp that it's an unstoppable problem. There's plenty of money on the right and we should be matching or exceeding them in every instance like our souls depend on it.

If you figure out a way to make it illegal, you will only be stopping the right from participating in it. We play by the rules, THEY DON'T.

Kinda like GFZ's or any other "common sense gun law" they come up with. Only the law abiding will abide by the law.

 

[Ingomike]

It’s just free speech.

I am perplexed by the responses to this. Some of the same folks that want to restrict the people’s speech have no issue with corporations and billionaires buying election offices. WOW!

 

[Ingomike]

I think you're still failing to grasp that it's an unstoppable problem. There's plenty of money on the right and we should be matching or exceeding them in every instance like our souls depend on it.

If you figure out a way to make it illegal, you will only be stopping the right from participating in it. We play by the rules, THEY DON'T.

Do you think conservatives can match the spending of oligarch billionaires? Conservatives have few globalists corporations to fund them…

 

[Tombs]

Do you think conservatives can match the spending of oligarch billionaires? Conservatives have few globalists corporations to fund them…

Yes, Elon coughed up 44 billion to save free speech online.

People need to learn to grow a pair and put their principles in public instead of hiding.

 

[Ingomike]

Yes, Elon coughed up 44 billion to save free speech online.

People need to learn to grow a pair and put their principles in public instead of hiding.

Many say he has not lived up to the billing. Any other names to add to that one? It is interesting that many of the big donors in the GWB era were why we never got immigration reform, they wanted cheap labor and republicans did their bidding. They are either still doing the same BS or switched to dems. The people are being outgunned.

 

[Tombs]

Many say he has not lived up to the billing. Any other names to add to that one? It is interesting that many of the big donors in the GWB era were why we never got immigration reform, they wanted cheap labor and republicans did their bidding. They are either still doing the same BS or switched to dems. The people are being outgunned.

He may not be perfect but I legitimately believe he is trying. When it comes to the border, he's probably the most outspoken billionaire on the planet.

He's gone to court to defend not hiring illegals.

 

[Ingomike]

He may not be perfect but I legitimately believe he is trying. When it comes to the border, he's probably the most outspoken billionaire on the planet.

He's gone to court to defend not hiring illegals.

If I recall correctly he already lost his country, he gets it…

 

[Shadow01]

I am perplexed by the responses to this. Some of the same folks that want to restrict the people’s speech have no issue with corporations and billionaires buying election offices. WOW!

I guess I should have used purple.