One measure would ban the use of private funds in election administration, while another seeks to clarify the role of an election worker.
Wisconsin voters will decide on two low-profile yet controversial constitutional amendments backed by Republicans that would change how elections are run in the pivotal battleground state.
Wisconsin voters will decide on two low-profile yet controversial constitutional amendments backed by Republicans that would change how elections are run in the pivotal battleground state. One measure would ban the use of private funds in election administration, while another seeks to clarify the role of an election worker. Opponents contend that these measures are a result of unfounded conspiracy theories following Joe Biden's 2020 election win and that passing either or both would create obstacles to smoothly administering elections this fall.
Wisconsin voters will approve two election-related amendments to the state constitution.
<br>More than two dozen states have banned, limited or otherwise regulated private donations for elections since the 2020 contest.<br>
Supporters say these measures would effectively ban 'dark money' from elections.
Accuracy
, which marks a victory for conservative activists who have denounced what they have called
More than two dozen states have banned, limited or otherwise regulated private donations for elections since the 2020 contest.
,
Deception
(30%)
The article is deceptive in several ways. Firstly, the author claims that private money donated by Mark Zuckerberg and his wife helped shape the outcome of the 2020 election in Wisconsin when there is no evidence to support this claim. Secondly, it states that more than two dozen states have banned or limited private donations for elections since 2020 but fails to mention that many of these bans were lifted after legal challenges and some are still being contested. Lastly, the article presents a one-sided view on the issue by only quoting opponents of private money in election administration without providing any counterarguments from proponents.
The author claims that private money donated by Mark Zuckerberg and his wife helped shape the outcome of the 2020 election in Wisconsin when there is no evidence to support this claim.
The article presents a one-sided view on the issue by only quoting opponents of private money in election administration without providing any counterarguments from proponents.
Fallacies
(70%)
None Found At Time Of
Publication
Bias
(85%)
The author of the article demonstrates bias by using negative and accusatory language to describe the private donations for election administration. For example, she calls it 'Zuckerbucks' and implies that it was partisan and unfair. She also uses phrases like 'baseless claims', 'unfairly shaped' and 'blocked election changes' to portray the Republican lawmakers in a negative light. The author does not provide any evidence or counterarguments for these assertions, nor does she acknowledge the potential benefits of private funding for elections. She also seems to favor the Democratic governor over the Republican-controlled legislature, as she mentions his veto without providing any context or explanation.
An effort to do so legislatively in Wisconsin was vetoed by the state's Democratic governor, Tony Evers
Ban the use of private money in election administration
Opponents have argued that ... it helped Democratic turnout that year and unfairly shaped the 2020 election outcome as Wisconsin flipped from Donald Trump to Joe Biden.
Proponents said ... it was needed to guard against outside consultants participating in the process.
Site
Conflicts
Of
Interest (50%)
Fredreka Schouten has a conflict of interest on the topic of private money in election administration as she reports on Mark Zuckerberg and Priscilla Chan's $350 million donation to a nonprofit that ultimately helped administrators around the country carry out the 2020 election amid the challenges of the COVID-19 pandemic. The article also mentions conservative activists who have denounced what they have called 'Zuckerbucks', and opponents argue that the money helped Democratic turnout in Wisconsin.
$350 million donation to a nonprofit that ultimately helped administrators around the country carry out the 2020 election amid the challenges of the COVID-19 pandemic.
Mark Zuckerberg
Priscilla Chan
Author
Conflicts
Of
Interest (50%)
Fredreka Schouten has a conflict of interest on the topic of private money in election administration as she reports on Mark Zuckerberg and Priscilla Chan's $350 million donation to a nonprofit that ultimately helped administrators around the country carry out the 2020 election amid the challenges of the COVID-19 pandemic. She also has a conflict of interest on Wisconsin voters as she reports on their approval of election law changes championed by Republicans.
Fredreka Schouten reported on Wisconsin voters' approval of election law changes championed by Republicans.
Fredreka Schouten reported that Mark Zuckerberg and Priscilla Chan donated $350 million to a nonprofit that ultimately helped administrators around the country carry out the 2020 election amid the challenges of the COVID-19 pandemic.
Wisconsin voters will decide on two low-profile yet controversial constitutional amendments backed by Republicans that would change how elections are run in the pivotal battleground state.
One measure would ban the use of private funds in election administration, while another seeks to clarify the role of an election worker.
Opponents contend that these measures are a result of unfounded conspiracy theories following Joe Biden's 2020 election win and that passing either or both would create obstacles to smoothly administering elections this fall.
Wisconsin is among a handful of states where lawmakers refer proposed constitutional amendments to the ballot so voters can decide. In other states, voters can try to directly place such measures on ballots via signature-gathering processes.
Supporters say these measures would effectively ban 'dark money' from elections.
A second question on the Wisconsin ballot Tuesday will ask voters to decide whether election officials designated by law may perform tasks in the conduct of primaries, elections, and referendums.
Opponents argue that these laws already clearly outline who qualifies as an election official and that this amendment would needlessly narrow the number of people who qualify accordingly.
Supporters say this law would help clarify and streamline election administration.
Both of these are measures were passed by the Republican majority in the Legislature and vetoed by the governor.
Republican politicians, both from Wisconsin and elsewhere, have been pushing voters to pass them in recent weeks.
Sen. Ron Johnson urged Wisconsinites to vote 'yes' on both questions last week, saying it would ban Zuckerbucks.
Rep. Jim Jordan also urged voters to support the proposals in a video he released last week.
The Wisconsin GOP formally supports both proposals, while the state Democratic Party urges voters to oppose them.
These measures being placed before voters are part of a growing trend by the opposition to manipulate and undermine direct democracy.
We can expect these types of misleading ballot measures led by conservative lawmakers to escalate as we head further into 2024.
Accuracy
No Contradictions at Time
Of
Publication
Deception
(50%)
None Found At Time Of
Publication
Fallacies
(85%)
The article contains two GOP-backed ballot measures that would affect how elections are run in Wisconsin. The first measure seeks to ban the use of private funds in election administration while the second aims to clarify the role of an election worker. Both measures have been criticized as being a result of unfounded conspiracy theories following Joe Biden's 2020 election win and that passing either or both would create obstacles to smoothly administering elections this fall, as Wisconsin is set to host key races for president and the U.S. Senate.
The first measure seeks to ban the use of private funds in election administration while the second aims to clarify the role of an election worker.
Bias
(85%)
The article contains two examples of bias. The first is the use of language that dehumanizes and demonizes private donations to election administration efforts by referring to them as 'Zuckerbucks'. This creates a false dichotomy between public and private funding for elections, implying that only one option is acceptable when in fact both can be beneficial. Additionally, there are claims made about the motivations behind these measures which are not supported by evidence or facts presented in the article.
Claims made about the motivations behind these measures without supporting evidence or facts
The use of language that dehumanizes and demonizes private donations to election administration efforts
Mark Zuckerberg donated $400 million to help fund election offices as they scrambled to deal with the coronavirus pandemic late last summer.
Republican legislatures are granting him that wish by passing bans on donations to election offices this year.
Accuracy
No Contradictions at Time
Of
Publication
Deception
(30%)
The article is deceptive in several ways. Firstly, it implies that Mark Zuckerberg's donation was solely for election offices when in fact the money went to a nonpartisan organization and was used for various purposes such as protective gear for poll workers and public education campaigns promoting new methods to vote during the pandemic. Secondly, it suggests that there is evidence of favoritism in the distribution of grants from Zuckerberg's donation but provides no concrete proof or analysis to support this claim. Lastly, it presents a one-sided view on the issue by only citing conservative groups and their opinions without providing any countering perspectives.
The article presents a one-sided view on the issue by only citing conservative groups and their opinions without providing any countering perspectives.
It suggests that there is evidence of favoritism in the distribution of grants from Zuckerberg's donation but provides no concrete proof or analysis to support this claim.
The article implies that Mark Zuckerberg's donation was solely for election offices when in fact the money went to a nonpartisan organization.
Fallacies
(80%)
The article contains several examples of the appeal to authority fallacy. The author cites multiple sources without providing any evidence or context for their claims. Additionally, there are instances where the author presents information as fact without providing any supporting data or statistics.
When Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg donated $400 million to help fund election offices as they scrambled to deal with the coronavirus pandemic late last summer, he said he hoped he would never have to do it again. Republican legislatures are granting him that wish.
The response is spurred by anger and suspicion on the right that Zuckerberg’s money benefited Democrats in 2020.
Bias
(100%)
None Found At Time Of
Publication
Site
Conflicts
Of
Interest (50%)
The article discusses a $400 million donation made by Mark Zuckerberg to help fund election offices during the coronavirus pandemic. The author is also affiliated with Heritage Action and Center for Tech and Civic Life (CTCL), which are conservative organizations that have been criticized for their role in influencing elections. Additionally, the article mentions Louisiana attorney general who has been involved in legal battles related to election laws.
Heritage Action and Center for Tech and Civic Life (CTCL) are conservative organizations that have been criticized for their role in influencing elections, which raises questions about Mark Zuckerberg's motivations for making this donation.
The $400 million donation made by Mark Zuckerberg to help fund election offices during the coronavirus pandemic is a clear example of a conflict of interest as it could be seen as an attempt to influence the outcome of elections.
The article mentions Louisiana attorney general who has been involved in legal battles related to election laws, further raising concerns about potential conflicts of interest.
