Criminal justice agencies and government organizations at the city, county, and state-level can sometimes accept funding to run their organizations. However, receiving such funds can result in various political and legal issues regarding whether the funds should be accepted and used. The chosen article shows how local authorities used private funds amounting to $300 million donated by Mark Zuckerberg to support the funds for the elections. The result was that it led to multiple legal and political issues when republicans felt that the provision of those funds was unfair. Local authorities receiving private funding for elections created multiple legal and political challenges regarding the access and use of the funds.
From the given article, I accept the provision of private funds by the local government authorities. The reason for the decision is that it appears that the private funds were issued fairly and followed all the appropriate legal procedures. Mark Zuckerberg directed the funds to the two organizations Center for Tech and Civic Life and the Center for Election Innovation and Research. The two organizations were non-partisan and did not provide the funds based on political affiliations but on the present need. The funds were largely meant for states that had been struggling with funding their elections. In Delaware County, the funding helped to train poll workers and acquire drop boxes that had already been dispatched to Republican municipalities. The use of private funding has been applied in different areas to facilitate different activities such as research and innovation (Fajardo-Ortiz et al., 2020). The funds were used to facilitate the ability of voters to exercise their right, making it seem as the right approach.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
The external environmental factors that played a huge role in the criminal justice agencies receiving the funding was the Coronavirus pandemic that led to an increase in the overall expenditure for elections. The additional costs related to the pandemic included the use of ballot-folding machines, labeling of printers, using personal protective equipment, and sanitizers at the polling place. The election costs were higher compared to previous elections.
The outside factors that played a role in the agency needing and accepting the funding was that the congress did not approve for additional funding in a timely manner. Congress had initially allocated $400 million for the election administration but it was a fraction of the $4 billion additional costs required with running the 2020 elections (Vogel, 2020). The failure by the congress to allocate the additional $3.6 billion in time meant that election administrators sought for private funding.
The other way that the funding could have been secured would have been through the congress. The given states could have requested for additional funding and pushed their agenda in the Congress. Exercising a little more patience as they waited for the funds could have been a better approach. There were renegotiations regarding the new stimulus package that include election funding. However, local election administrators observed that the funding would be of little help as it could be too late.
The organization donating the funds did not have a direct effect on any policy. The Center for Election Innovation that provided the funds observed that it was a non-partisan organization. The funds could also have a little effect on swaying the decisions of voters. However, the challenge presented is that the funds created a bad image where it could be observed that billionaires owned a specific local authority. Additionally, it could create the appearance that there was the funding meddled with the decisions of election administrators. However, the use of such funds show how public and private partnerships can help fulfill various government initiatives (Bayliss & Van, 2018). The fact that the funds could be used to improve the voting process by educating voters and increase the number of polling stations made it appear that the funds helped many Americans fulfill their right to vote.
References
Bayliss, K., & Van W. E. (2018). Unpacking the public private partnership revival. The Journal of Development Studies , 54 (4), 577-593.
Fajardo-Ortiz, D., Hornbostel, S., Montenegro-de-Wit, M., & Shattuck, A. (2020). “Funding CRISPR: Understanding the role of government and private sector actors in transformative innovation systems”. Social and Information Networks . (11)9 https://arxiv.org/abs/2009.11920
Vogel, P. K. (2020). “Short of money to run elections, local authorities turn to private funds”. Nytimes, https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/25/us/politics/elections-private-grants-zuckerberg.html .
