– Editorial – - Proposed amendment is a half-measure without state funding commitment

By Editorial Board

The Wisconsin Legislature needs to either put up or shut up, when it comes to telling municipalities how they can fund elections.

Wisconsin has systematically starved counties, school districts and municipal governments for the past two decades, by limiting them from raising taxes or other revenues to remain equal with inflation rates. Local governments have become experts in doing more with less and in searching for non-taxpayer money sources, wherever they can find them.

Now, the legislature is attempting to push through a constitutional amendment, prohibiting the use of private funds in election administration. If passed by the voters at next month’s spring election, it would create a constitutional prohibition on accepting, or applying, for any grants or donations used in connection with the conduct of any primary, election or referendum.

While the view may be different in the legislature sitting on the mountain of unspent surplus funds paid in by Wisconsin taxpayers, for the boots-on-the-ground elected official or public employee, every dime of grant funds is savings that passed directly onto taxpayers through additional services that are able to be provided.

At the grassroots level, local governments are continually stretched thin, and have turned to donations and grants as a way to stretch taxpayer money. It is up to the local elected officials to determine if the strings that are attached to grants and donations are worth the trade off. Often, local boards decide the restrictions and obligations are not worth the effort of applying for, or accepting grants.

Now, the state legislature wants to take that authority away from local elected leaders, when it comes to determining if any outside funding should be able to be used for elections, regardless of what is on the ballot.

The proposed constitutional amendment is in response to some Wisconsin municipalities accepting grant funds from outside privatelyfunded groups, in the 2020 election. These have been pejoratively labeled as “Zuckerbucks,” referencing Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg, who was one of the major donors to provide grant funds to municipalities, to help with election expenses.

The reality is, that elections cost money and proper administration of larger elections, such as hotly contested presidential races, cost a lot of money — almost all of which comes from the local taxpayers.

In the absence of the state government committing to fully funding the cost of running elections at all municipalities in the state, local leaders are showing fiscal responsibility, by looking to alternate sources of funding for the critically important obligation of having wellrun elections.

Preventing billionaires from picking up the tab when it comes to funding basic government functions, such as elections, is short-sighted. Yes, governments should always be aware of the strings attached to any apparent gesture of largess, but to shut the door on any potential outside funding is short-sighted and does a disservice to taxpayers.

Voters should reject the proposed constitutional ban on governments accepting outside funding for election costs as being incomplete. As it stands now, the proposal is a halfway attempt and must include a constitutional commitment by the state, to fully fund the cost of elections at all levels.

Members of the Courier Sentinel editorial board include publisher Carol O’Leary, general manager Kris O’Leary and Star News editor Brian Wilson.