Private Funding for Election Administration

Private Funding for Election Administration

September 26, 2023
Private Funding for Election Administration
State and local election offices sometimes receive private
The changes states and localities made to their election
donations of money, goods, or services to help them carry
processes in 2020—along with other effects of the
out their work. Following the onset of the Coronavirus
pandemic, such as increased difficulty recruiting election
Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic in the 2020 election
workers and obtaining paper for ballots—introduced new
cycle, private individuals funded grant programs for state
costs. For example, many jurisdictions had to invest in
and local election administration that were particularly
supplemental pay for election workers or in new workers or
notable in their scale and sources. Those grant programs—
equipment to process a higher volume of mail ballots.
and the role of private funding in election administration in
The federal government provided some funding to help
general—have been subjects of congressional interest in
cover the additional costs. Congress included $400 million
subsequent Congresses, including in hearings and
in HAVA funding in the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and
legislation in the 118th Congress.
Economic Security (CARES) Act (P.L. 116-136)
This In Focus offers an overview of private funding for
specifically to help states address the effects of the
election administration. It starts by providing some
pandemic on the 2020 elections. Other HAVA grant
background on funding for election administration in
funding, including funds provided for FY2018 (P.L. 115-
general and the role of private funding in the 2020 election
141) and FY2020 (P.L. 116-93), could also be applied to
cycle. It then describes some proposals from Members of
COVID-related costs.
Congress and federal agency officials for responding to
However, some states and localities reported that the
private involvement in funding elections.
federal contributions did not address all of their new needs.
Funding for Election Administration
Private businesses donated goods and services to help meet
some of those needs. For example, professional sports
The federal government has provided some grant funding
teams in some cities made their stadiums available to serve
and agency support for election administration (for more on
as vote centers, and various companies gave PPE.
federal elections grant programs, see CRS Report R46646,
Election Administration: Federal Grant Funding for States
Some private individuals also donated funding for grants to
and Localities, by Karen L. Shanton). However, there is no
state and local election offices. According to media reports,
ongoing federal mechanism for funding the general
some particularly prominent sources of private funds
expenses of administering elections. Those costs are
included the following:
covered, instead, by states and localities.
• Priscilla Chan and Mark Zuckerberg. Chan and
Exactly how financial responsibility for election
Zuckerberg reported committing up to $419.5 million in
administration is distributed between the state and local
the 2020 election cycle for grants to be distributed by
levels varies by state. Some states perform and fund most
two nonprofit organizations: the Center for Tech and
election administration duties at the state level. A more
Civic Life (CTCL, $350 million) and the Center for
common arrangement is for localities to cover most of the
Election Innovation & Research (CEIR, $69.5 million).
costs, with support from the state for certain types of
According to grant documents and other reporting, the
elections or expenses. For example, some states share the
CTCL funding was broadly available for ensuring safe
costs of elections when state-level candidates are on the
and secure election administration and the CEIR grants
ballot, and most provide for the statewide voter registration
were for voter education. The organizations reported
databases required by the Help America Vote Act (HAVA).
making the funding available to all election offices
Private Funding in the 2020 Elections
responsible for administering election activities and to
all 50 states and the District of Columbia, respectively,
The emergence of the COVID-19 pandemic in the 2020
and, with the exception of one state that withdrew its
election cycle led many states and localities to change the
application, funding all of the requests they received.
way they ran their elections that year. Concerns about the
health risks posed by close contact prompted changes to in-
• Arnold Schwarzenegger. Schwarzenegger donated
person voting, such as distributing personal protective
$2.5 million to be distributed by the Schwarzenegger
equipment (PPE) to voters or election workers, increasing
Institute for State and Global Policy at the University of
access to curbside voting, and relocating polling places.
Southern California. The institute reported that the
Health and safety concerns also led many states to expand
funding was for supporting access to voting in states that
mail voting for 2020. Some states that required an excuse to
had historically been required to submit changes to their
vote by mail suspended the excuse requirement for some or
election laws for federal preclearance under the Voting
all voters for the 2020 elections, for example, and some
Rights Act and that it awarded grants to all eligible
states extended their deadlines for requesting a mail ballot.
applicants (for more on preclearance, see CRS Report
https://crsreports.congress.gov

Private Funding for Election Administration
R47520, The Voting Rights Act: Historical Development
American Confidence in Elections (ACE) Act in both
and Policy Background, by R. Sam Garrett).
Congresses (H.R. 8528, 117th Congress; H.R. 4563, 118th
Congress), would generally prohibit organizations that are
The individuals who funded those grant programs do not
tax-exempt under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue
appear to have made similar contributions in subsequent
Code from making donations to election offices. The
election cycles; Chan and Zuckerberg said that their 2020
precise scope of the prohibition differs across versions of
donations were a one-time response to the pandemic, and
the bill, with variations in the kinds of contributions
Schwarzenegger has not announced similar elections grants
covered and the availability of exemptions for donations of
for 2022 or 2024. One of the groups that helped distribute
space to be used as a polling place.
the 2020 funds, CTCL, has continued awarding grants with
A second type of approach some have proposed to reducing
new funding as part of a new program, the U.S. Alliance for
private involvement in election administration is
Election Excellence. Another, CEIR, connects election
supplementing state and local funds with a consistent
officials with pro bono legal and communications services
stream of federal funding. The unique circumstances of the
to help them address issues like threats and misinformation.
2020 elections posed particular financial challenges for
Proposed Responses to Private Funding
election officials, but concerns about underfunding of
election administration predate the COVID-19 pandemic.
Private funding has been credited by some with helping
For example, the subsector-specific plan for the Election
facilitate safe and accessible elections in 2020 under unique
Infrastructure Subsector established by the U.S. Department
and challenging circumstances. For example, recipients of
of Homeland Security in response to foreign efforts to
the funding reported that it enabled them to provide
interfere in the 2016 elections says that, “It is impossible to
protections for voters and election workers and avoid delays
make an honest assessment of the Election Infrastructure
in reporting election results.
Subsector’s risk and the potential to mitigate that risk
Many—including some of those who have helped provide
without an understanding of the chronic resource issues the
private funding—have expressed reservations, however,
Subsector faces at all levels of government.”
about reliance on private philanthropy. One concern some
In testimony at House and Senate hearings on the U.S.
express is that the availability of private funding is
Election Assistance Commission (EAC) in June 2023, EAC
contingent on the choices of private entities. Private
Commissioner Benjamin Hovland shared that quote and
individuals and organizations are not obligated to provide
suggested that the government might reduce reliance on
election administration funding, and, as illustrated by the
private elections funding by increasing public funds.
post-2020 actions of that election cycle’s donors, they
Providing more—and more predictable—federal funding
might choose to opt out of ongoing contributions.
for election administration could help reduce or eliminate
Another is that private involvement in funding election
the demand for private assistance.
administration could translate to private influence over
The Biden Administration and some Members of Congress
elections, including potential foreign influence. Some worry
have proposed additional federal grant funding for election
that donors, including foreign nationals, could use private
administration, including long-term or ongoing funding. For
funding for election administration to try to influence
example, the President’s FY2024 budget request includes
election outcomes, such as by targeting their assistance to
$300 million for elections grants for FY2024 and a proposal
jurisdictions with a particular partisan leaning.
to provide another $5 billion to be distributed over 10 years.
Nearly half the states have responded to such concerns by
Bills introduced in the 117th and 118th Congresses, such as
prohibiting election officials from accepting some or all
the Freedom to Vote Act (S. 2747, 117th Congress; H.R.
private donations. According to the National Conference of
11/S. 1/S. 2344, 118th Congress) and the Sustaining Our
State Legislatures, 24 states had set limits on acceptance of
Democracy Act (H.R. 7992/S. 4239, 117th Congress; H.R.
private contributions for election administration as of July
5292/S. 630, 118th Congress), would establish mechanisms
25, 2023. Those state laws, which range from total bans on
for providing states with consistent elections funding.
acceptance of any non-public donations to limits on
The two types of proposals for reducing private
acceptance of contributions from certain entities or with
involvement in elections funding described in this section
certain exceptions, were all enacted after the 2020 elections.
approach the issue from different angles. The first aims to
A similar prohibition has been proposed at the federal level.
limit the supply of private donations, while the second tries
The Protect American Election Administration Act, which
to limit the demand for them. Those two approaches are not
was introduced in the 117th Congress (H.R. 7117) and the
necessarily mutually exclusive. Members who are
118th Congress (H.R. 2934), would prohibit states from
interested in reducing reliance on private funding for
soliciting, accepting, or using private donations of funding,
election administration might choose to limit private
property, or personal services for the administration of
contributions, ensure states and localities have the resources
federal elections, with an exception for donations of space
to administer elections without private help, or both.
to be used as a polling place or early voting site.
Some Members of Congress have also proposed
Karen L. Shanton, Analyst in American National
complementary prohibitions on contributions by certain
Government
private entities. The End Zuckerbucks Act, introduced as a
IF12501
standalone bill in the 117th Congress (H.R. 4290) and 118th
Congress (H.R. 1725; H.R. 4501) and as part of the

https://crsreports.congress.gov

Private Funding for Election Administration

Disclaimer
This document was prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). CRS serves as nonpartisan shared staff to
congressional committees and Members of Congress. It operates solely at the behest of and under the direction of Congress.
Information in a CRS Report should not be relied upon for purposes other than public understanding of information that has
been provided by CRS to Members of Congress in connection with CRS’s institutional role. CRS Reports, as a work of the
United States Government, are not subject to copyright protection in the United States. Any CRS Report may be
reproduced and distributed in its entirety without permission from CRS. However, as a CRS Report may include
copyrighted images or material from a third party, you may need to obtain the permission of the copyright holder if you
wish to copy or otherwise use copyrighted material.

https://crsreports.congress.gov | IF12501 · VERSION 1 · NEW