Bill Overview
Title: Protect American Election Administration Act of 2022
Description: This bill generally prohibits a state from soliciting, receiving, or expending any payment or donation of funds, property, or personal services from a private entity for the purpose of administering a federal election. For example, the bill prohibits the use of these payments or donations for programs related to voter education, outreach, and registration. The prohibition shall not apply to a state's acceptance and use of a private entity's donation of space to be used for a polling place or an early voting site.
Sponsors: Rep. Cole, Tom [R-OK-4]
Target Audience
Population: All eligible voters in countries that hold federal elections
Estimated Size: 258000000
- The bill directly affects how federal elections are managed by states, which involves election administrators and officials.
- By prohibiting states from receiving funds from private entities for certain election-related activities, it limits the financial resources available for voter education, outreach, and registration programs.
- Citizens relying on these voter education and outreach programs, especially in underserved or rural areas where state funding might be inadequate, will be impacted.
- The bill might lead to unequal access to voter education across different states depending on state-level funding availability.
- Election officials will need to adjust their operational plans due to changes in funding sources.
- Ultimately, voters who benefit from expanded voter education and registration efforts previously supported by private donations might find less support.
Reasoning
- I focused on including perspectives from different demographics and states to capture the diversity of impacts, considering both those heavily involved in election administration and marginalized voters who might be affected by reduced voter outreach.
- With the policy budget outlined, it seems significant but needs to be spread over a vast number of people and programs. Therefore, impacts might vary greatly by state and demographic.
- The population most directly impacted would be election officials, and indirectly, voters relying on well-funded voter outreach programs.
- Based on the size of the target population, it's crucial to highlight the proportion who might experience significant changes in their election engagement experience due to the policy.
Simulated Interviews
Election official (Atlanta, Georgia)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The restriction will make it hard to maintain our voter registration drives.
- We might need to cut back on outreach programs which are crucial in educating new voters.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Community organizer (Detroit, Michigan)
Age: 29 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy limits our ability to educate communities about voting rights.
- Our programs are essential for increasing voter turnout in underrepresented areas.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 4 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 7 |
Retired (Rural Montana)
Age: 65 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I worry I won't have the information I need to vote properly.
- Our local gatherings and information sessions might not happen anymore.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 6 |
Software engineer (Austin, Texas)
Age: 37 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I don't think this will affect me much personally.
- I always find my election information online.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 9 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 9 |
Journalist (New York City, New York)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This might lead to a lack of resources in certain states, affecting election coverage.
- Ensuring fair elections should be a priority, however, where's the balance against influence?
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Graduate student (Los Angeles, California)
Age: 23 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 7.0 years
Commonness: 11/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It seems like it might get harder for student organizations to fund voting initiatives.
- I'm worried about staying informed on changes in election processes.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Non-profit manager (Portland, Oregon)
Age: 39 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Our work depends on external funding and this bill could severely impact it.
- We are at risk of not being able to support all the communities we aim to reach.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 4 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 8 |
Small business owner (Birmingham, Alabama)
Age: 56 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 4.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This bill might help keep elections impartial but at what cost to voter access?
- I'm concerned about how it will influence local voter outreach efforts.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 7 |
Teacher (Phoenix, Arizona)
Age: 48 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 8.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It's disheartening, as it restricts resources for educating young voters.
- We need all possible support to encourage voting from an early age.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 8 |
Retired military (Miami, Florida)
Age: 60 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 6.0 years
Commonness: 13/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This bill might ensure fairer processes, but can it address all funding gaps?
- Concerned about transparency and funding allocation.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 9 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $50000000 (Low: $30000000, High: $100000000)
Year 2: $52000000 (Low: $31000000, High: $105000000)
Year 3: $54080000 (Low: $32040000, High: $109200000)
Year 5: $58368640 (Low: $34514400, High: $117136000)
Year 10: $71069184 (Low: $42017280, High: $142064000)
Year 100: $203073111 (Low: $120960768, High: $408512000)
Key Considerations
- States will need to adjust their budgetary plans to accommodate the new restrictions on private donations for federal election administration.
- There could be increased pressure on state budgets, particularly in financially strained states.
- Administrative costs related to ensuring compliance with the bill's provisions may arise.
- Long-term effects might include reevaluation of state election funding strategies and potential calls for federal support.