Money always finds a way. After the 2020 election, dozens of states banned private funding of elections. But despite repeated promises by Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg to ban campaign finance, To avoid spending more money Visit your local election office. This year, “Zac Bucks” team We recommit to distributing cash wherever we can legally do so.

Recall that in late 2020, Zuckerberg directed his philanthropic arm to donate $350 million through an unnamed nonprofit called the Center for Technology and Civic Life.CTCLThe Democratic Party provides funding to election offices large and small across the country. Millions of dollars have been given to politically important counties, but not to other counties. As of today, 28 states have banned it Despite the practice being banned, CTCL's activities continue. In effect, the ban is directing cash towards new paths of least resistance.

Earlier this month, CTCL Announces “Rural and Non-Urban Areas” Grant Program For election offices in 19 states and U.S. territories. Counties and municipalities with voting-age populations of fewer than 250,000 can apply for grants of $5,000 to $100,000. Within these population requirements, CTCL determines eligibility based on the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Rural-Urban Code System.

This targeting system doesn't seem like it will be effective at swaying the election in any immediate way, and that's a problem. The minds and money behind “Zack Bucks” '24 are playing the long game. (Related article: Democracy in name only: Kennedy Jr. sues Mark Zuckerberg for censoring election video)

If CTCL wants to test the technical aspects of a ban in Iowa, they can certainly do so, but why take the legal risks when they can just put their money where their mouth is in Illinois? Put a ton of money in politically important urban centers and suburbs. Without a doubt Affected 2020 election. But looking back at the big-city “Zack Bucks” drama of four years ago, the brilliance of the ’24 Plan is clear. Big political interests don’t care about rural, fly-in-reach jurisdictions. A $5,000 check doesn’t raise alarm. But in counties and towns across America, $5,000 is a big windfall.

The 2020 “Zack Bucks” provided at least $5,000 to nearly every jurisdiction that applied. These small figures were intended to appear bipartisan and fair. Many assumed these were public relations grants, not material. The financial situation of these local offices in 2020 was as follows: Deeper ImpactIn late 2020 and into 2021, I collected financial information on Zach Bucks recipients and measured the amount of the subsidy against their original tax budget covering presidential election operations. Take Coleman County, Texas, for example. It had an initial budget of $11,000 and received $5,200 in Zach Bucks. Stonewall County, Texas, had a budget of $15,000 and received another $5,000 in Zach Bucks. Early County, Georgia, had a budget of $9,000 that was topped up with $26,864. Ravalli County, Montana, had a budget of $19,593 that was topped up with another $19,592 in Zach Bucks. You get the gist.

“Zack Bucks” are even more prevalent in rural America. Take a look at a population density map of U.S. counties. Rural counties outnumber urban and suburban counties by a wide margin. That means more county election officials are asking state legislators for more funding or risking outside funding. My research in Montana Proven How a County Clerk Went from Ignorance to 'Zuckbucks' Addiction in a Few Months. (Related story: Left-wing megadonor to “Zack Bucks” fires dozens in “bloody mayhem”)

Building a network of local counties will build a customer base for a parallel election infrastructure, using private funding to secure services from ideologically aligned organizations. These CTCL partners and allies will: Can provide Redesigning ballots, collecting voter data, tracking misinformation and disinformation, risk-limiting audits, and more.

Now, the stakeholders behind “Zack Bucks” aren't waiting for major reforms to federal or state election laws. Buying local is the new strategy. How do you work toward fundamental change in state and federal elections? Start small.

Logan Churchwell: Public Interest Law Foundation.

The views and opinions expressed in this commentary are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official position of the Daily Caller News Foundation.

As an independent, nonpartisan news service, all content produced by the Daily Caller News Foundation is available free of charge to any legitimate news publisher with a large readership. All republished articles must include our logo, reporter byline, and affiliation with the DCNF. If you have any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact us at licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.