Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Nearly 20 states have restricted private funding of elections

Priscilla Chan and Mark Zuckerberg

Nearly half the states have passed laws restricting private election funding such as the money donated by Priscilla Chan and Mark Zuckerberg in 2020.

Ian Tuttle/Getty Images

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.

Made with Flourish

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.”

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter

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.

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.

Read More

Connecticut lawmakers consider new bill to ban female genital mutilation/cutting

Every U.S. state needs a comprehensive law against female genital mutilation and cutting.

U.S. End FGM/C Network and Equality Now

Connecticut lawmakers consider new bill to ban female genital mutilation/cutting

Optimism is growing that a new Bill in Connecticut will lead to the introduction of a statewide ban against female genital mutilation/ cutting (FGM/C). Thousands of women and girls across the state have undergone or are at risk of this harmful practice. Despite this, Connecticut remains one of just nine U.S. states that still lack state-level legal protections—something advocates hope this legislation will finally change.

Survivors and others from impacted communities, alongside women’s rights advocates and civil society organizations - including the U.S. Network to End FGM/C, Sahiyo, Equality Now, and the Connecticut General Assembly’s Commission on Women, Children, Seniors, Equity, and Opportunity - have long called for state legislation against FGM/C in Connecticut, citing how a law would help those at risk and their families resist cultural and social pressures to continue the practice.

Keep ReadingShow less
Anti-LGBTQ+ policies harm the health of not only LGBTQ+ people, but all Americans

Courts across the nation are debating whether LGBTQ+ people should be protected from discrimination.

Anti-LGBTQ+ policies harm the health of not only LGBTQ+ people, but all Americans

In 2024, state legislatures introduced an all-time record of 533 bills targeting LGBTQ+ populations. These policies create a patchwork of legal landscapes that vary widely between and within states, affecting aspects of everyday life ranging from how kids learn and play to where adults live and work.

All of these policies have implications for the health of not only LGBTQ+ people but also the general public.

Keep ReadingShow less
Transgender Athletes: President Trump’s Executive Order is Merely Symbolic

U.S. President Donald Trump signs a series of executive orders in the Oval Office at the White House on February 10, 2025 in Washington, DC.

Getty Images, Andrew Harnik

Transgender Athletes: President Trump’s Executive Order is Merely Symbolic

On February 5th, President Trump signed an executive order regarding transgender athletes and their participation in women’s sports, effectively outlawing the practice. But is it law?

While the President has tremendous power, especially when it comes to directing the Department of Justice’s (DOJ’s) interpretation of statutes, his executive order likely won’t survive.

Keep ReadingShow less
If we can come together on family policy, so should Congress
man in long sleeve shirt standing beside girl in pink tank top washing hands
Photo by CDC on Unsplash

If we can come together on family policy, so should Congress

The issues facing families with young children in our country are numerous and well-known. It’s our politics that’s been the problem.

We know that the share of the federal budget devoted to children is relatively small and declining as a share of spending. Parents frequently want different arrangements for care and work than they can afford or negotiate, and parents’ jobs may not leave enough time or flexibility to care for young children. The share of people having children is declining, with many citing cost concerns. People with children are citing higher levels of pessimism about the future that awaits their kids. But our divided politics has gotten in the way of addressing these challenges. Or so it seemed.

Keep ReadingShow less