Dangerous Partnership In America’s Election Process

Many Americans have become disillusioned with the integrity of our election system, a sentiment intensified by changes during the pandemic such as expanded absentee voting, widespread mail-in voting, ballot harvesting, and opaque ballot custody processes. These developments have sparked significant debate and skepticism about the fairness of the electoral process, highlighting the need to scrutinize the origins and funding of these practices.

Across the country, over half of the states have moved to prohibit private funding in elections, a decision underscored by concerns over the influence of billionaire donors like Mark Zuckerberg. It has been reported that Zuckerberg channeled over $350 million into the 2020 election via left-leaning nonprofit organizations. This influx of private capital often came with strings attached, effectively transforming these contributions into Democratic voter mobilization campaigns.

The funds were particularly targeted at government election offices in major cities within key swing states, which are typically Democratic strongholds. The spending focused on voter outreach, ballot design and translation, harvesting, curing, and counting operations. This raises evident conflicts of interest: partisan, private funds were funneled through Democrat-aligned organizations to public election offices, with a clear focus on Democratic voters.

This shift has led to a decline in voter confidence, prompting more than half of U.S. states to ban private election funding. The pandemic provided initial justification for these changes, but the momentum for maintaining such systems has been sustained by a recent executive order from President Joe Biden.

President Biden’s executive order, titled “Promoting Access to Voting,” aims to enhance voting accessibility and mandates federal agency involvement. The order’s directives include expanding vote-by-mail and engaging approved third-party organizations, although the criteria for selecting these organizations lack transparency. The Foundation for Government Accountability has criticized this order as an “unconstitutional taxpayer-funded ‘get out the vote’ effort designed to benefit the president’s political party.”

Revelations from an oversight project included an email detailing cooperation between a third-party nonprofit, Dēmos, and the Department of Agriculture. Dēmos is noted for its connections to the progressive wing of the Democratic Party, linked to figures like U.S. Senator Elizabeth Warren. This partnership between a distinctly partisan group and a federal agency raises further concerns.

These circumstances underscore broader issues about the influence of progressive financial power in transforming America’s electoral landscape. With the government potentially stepping in to replace figures like Zuckerberg or George Soros, concerns grow about the deep pockets of Uncle Sam influencing electoral outcomes.

As these changes become increasingly normalized—such as the push for expanded early and mail-in voting—questions persist about the future of America’s electoral system, especially given the fervent advocacy for these methods by leftist groups and their media allies.