Remember when folks were up in arms about Mark Zuckerberg pouring hundreds of millions of dollars into local elections back in 2020?
Conservatives across the country called it what it was — a dangerous experiment in privately funded elections. They even gave it a nickname: “Zuck Bucks.”
And for good reason.
The money — $419 million from Zuckerberg and his wife — was handed out to certain counties through non-profits like the Center for Tech and Civic Life.
While the goal was dressed up as “helping with COVID safety,” what it really did was flood election offices in Democrat-leaning areas with resources while Republican-leaning places were left scrambling.
The Foundation for Government Accountability reported that 92% of those funds went to counties Biden won. That doesn’t smell like fairness — it smells like favoritism.
Well, here in Nevada it looks like history might be repeating itself.
Tucked inside Assembly Bill 287 is Amendment 123. And if you read it closely, it’s laying the groundwork for the same kind of meddling.
Let me explain in plain terms.
The amendment creates something called the Voter Access Grant Program. On the surface, it sounds fine. Who could be against “voter access,” right?
But look deeper. This program would let the Secretary of State accept private donations into a special account, and then hand out those funds to counties, cities, and even tribal governments for anything from “supplies” to “programs for voter outreach.”
The Secretary gets to decide what qualifies — and who gets the cash.
Let’s call it what it is: a slush fund. And one that can be filled by anyone with deep pockets and political motives.
Here’s the real problem — elections are the backbone of our democracy. They’re supposed to be run by the people, for the people, with public funds.
Once you start letting billionaires or special interest groups pick up the tab, you give them a seat at the table. And it won’t be long before they start setting the menu.
What’s to stop a tech tycoon from dumping a few million dollars into this program to “support voter education” in areas that lean their way? Or a union, or a foreign-connected non-profit, or a mega-donor PAC?
We’ve seen it before. We’d be fools to think it couldn’t happen again.
Critics will say, “But the money’s going to good things — education, turnout, supplies.”
Sure — until it isn’t. The second that money starts influencing where polling places are opened, who gets hired, or how ballots are processed, we’ve lost the level playing field.
Now to be fair, supporters of the bill say it’s about helping underfunded counties, especially rural areas. And look, no one is saying election offices shouldn’t have what they need.
But that’s the job of the legislature — to fund elections through public, transparent means. If we’ve got a funding issue, let’s fix it in the budget. Not by passing the hat to billionaires and hoping they have good intentions.
A Rasmussen poll from 2021 found that 65% of likely voters opposed private funding of election offices, including a majority of Democrats, Republicans, and independents.
Americans of all stripes don’t want billionaires bankrolling ballot boxes. They want fair, clean elections — period.
And let’s be honest here. Would we feel good if a conservative billionaire funded a voter program in deep-red Nye County? Probably not. So why should it be okay the other way around?
What Amendment 123 does is open the door to favoritism, outside influence, and a potential arms race of campaign cash disguised as “grants.”
And worst of all, it puts enormous power in the hands of one office — the Secretary of State — with far too little oversight.
That’s not transparency. That’s not accountability. And that’s not how you protect democracy.
We should be working to restore trust in our elections, not add more reasons to doubt them.
And whether you’re in Elko or Las Vegas, Carson City or Mesquite, you ought to know your vote counts just the same — no matter how much money someone pours in from the outside.
So let’s learn from the mistakes of 2020. Let’s keep our elections fair, local, and publicly funded. Let’s say no to “Zuck Bucks,” Nevada-style.
And most importantly, let’s say no to Amendment 123.
