Overview
Title
To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to prohibit certain tax-exempt organizations from providing funding for election administration.
ELI5 AI
H.R. 8291 wants to stop certain non-profit groups from giving money to help run elections, except they can still let people use their space for voting. This rule would start in 2025.
Summary AI
H.R. 8291, known as the “End Zuckerbucks Act,” aims to change the Internal Revenue Code to stop certain tax-exempt organizations from using their funds to support election processes. Specifically, it prevents these organizations, under section 501(c)(3), from giving direct or indirect financial support to state or local governments for election administration. However, the bill allows these organizations to continue donating space for polling places. This change would take effect for taxable years starting after December 31, 2024.
Published
Keywords AI
Sources
Bill Statistics
Size
Language
Complexity
AnalysisAI
The proposed legislation, known as H.R. 8291 or the "End Zuckerbucks Act," seeks to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986. The bill aims to prevent certain tax-exempt organizations, specifically 501(c)(3) entities, from providing funding that could be used for the administration of elections. This includes both direct funding and indirect funding where it is reasonable to expect the funds would be used for election-related purposes. An exception is made for instances where these organizations donate space to be used as polling places. The changes specified by the bill would take effect starting with the 2025 tax year.
Summary of Significant Issues
The bill introduces several complex issues that merit discussion:
Ambiguity in Language: A significant concern lies in the phrasing "reasonable to expect such funding will be used," which introduces uncertainty and can lead to varied interpretations. This ambiguity could result in legal challenges as stakeholders argue over what constitutes "reasonable" expectation.
Perception of Bias: The short title, "End Zuckerbucks Act," appears to specifically target certain individuals or entities, particularly in the context of past controversies around election funding. This could be perceived as prejudiced, affecting the perceived fairness and neutrality of the legislative process.
Potential Loopholes: The clause allowing for the donation of space as polling places lacks detailed guidelines. Without clear criteria, there may be inconsistencies in its application, potentially resulting in loopholes or misuse.
Transition Period and Compliance Challenges: The bill's effective date creates a transition period which may lead to confusion among 501(c)(3) organizations regarding compliance requirements during the interim period until the new rules become applicable.
Complexity in Language: Minor language amendments, such as those found in Section 2, could be seen as unnecessarily complicating the law, possibly leading to misunderstandings or misinterpretations.
Impact on the Public and Stakeholders
The bill may have broad implications for how elections are managed and funded across the United States. It primarily seeks to restrict the influence of external, tax-exempt funding on election administration, which could impact various stakeholders differently.
General Public: The bill could ensure that election funding comes from more traditional sources, potentially increasing transparency and trust in the election process for some citizens. However, it may also limit the resources available for election administration, which could impact the efficiency and quality of election operations, especially in underfunded areas.
501(c)(3) Organizations: These organizations would face stricter limitations on their involvement in election-related activities. While they can still provide space for polling places, their inability to offer financial support could limit their capacity to aid in civic engagement efforts related to election accessibility.
Election Authorities: State and local governments that previously relied on donations from these organizations might experience funding shortfalls. This could necessitate finding alternative funding sources or reducing the scope of election-related activities.
Regional Disparities: Areas with fewer financial resources could be disproportionately affected. If external funding is curtailed, regions that relied on these sources might struggle with the practical aspects of conducting elections, potentially affecting voter turnout and engagement.
In conclusion, H.R. 8291 represents a deliberate shift in election administration funding policy, attempting to regulate the role of tax-exempt organizations in elections. However, its implications are multifaceted and could lead to significant debate and legal scrutiny, especially concerning interpretation and implementation. As the public and organizations adjust to these changes, ongoing dialogue will be crucial to address and mitigate potential challenges arising from these legislative reforms.
Issues
The prohibition of 501(c)(3) organizations from providing direct or indirect funding for election administration in Section 2 could significantly impact how elections are funded, potentially leading to challenges or inequalities, especially in regions that rely on external funding for election activities.
The language 'reasonable to expect such funding will be used' in Section 2 is ambiguous and may lead to varied interpretations and potential legal challenges, as it lacks clear criteria or definitions.
The short title 'End Zuckerbucks Act' in Section 1 is seen as potentially biased, targeting specific individuals or entities, which could raise concerns about fairness and neutrality in legislation.
Exempting the donation of space used as polling places in Section 2 lacks specific criteria or conditions, possibly allowing for loopholes, inconsistent application, or exploitation.
The amendments' effective date set for taxable years after December 31, 2024, in Section 2, could create a transition period with different rules, resulting in confusion among affected organizations regarding compliance.
The amendment in Section 2 involving a phrasing change ("striking... and inserting") seems unnecessarily complex, which could lead to misunderstandings or misinterpretation of the law.
Sections
Sections are presented as they are annotated in the original legislative text. Any missing headers, numbers, or non-consecutive order is due to the original text.
1. Short title Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section provides the official short title of the Act, which is “End Zuckerbucks Act.”
2. 501(c)(3) organizations prohibited from providing direct or indirect funding for election administration Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
Section 2 of the bill proposes changes to the Internal Revenue Code, specifically for 501(c)(3) organizations. It restricts these organizations from providing direct or indirect funding to state or local governments for election administration, except when donating space for a polling place, starting from the 2025 tax year.