Reader Andrew Perrin writes: We know political campaigns need money, but the only message we get from political campaigns seems to be to ask for money, especially at the end of the month. I do, but I don’t know why. important. I’d rather receive texts or emails about policy ideas, what candidates will do if they win, or what they’re doing with the money they receive. Am I the only one who gets annoyed by candidates who only seem to care about money when talking to potential voters?
You’re not alone. Many people don’t like being asked for money over and over again, even if they agree with the cause their donation supports. But while it can be frustrating to be bombarded with campaign donation requests via text or email, there’s a reason behind these fundraising tactics.
First, as you pointed out, campaigns desperately need money. It has become incredibly expensive to run a successful campaign, especially when running against an incumbent. That money could help introduce candidates and their positions to voters.
And the other thing is that asking people for money, even in an exaggerated way, works. Research shows that people are much more likely to donate to a charity if asked to do so. Recent history suggests that the same is true for political movements. Vice President Kamala Harris is actively soliciting donations. She brought in $615 million in the first six weeks after President Joe Biden dropped out of the race. Her campaign has not yet announced fundraising totals for September, but it is expected to continue to surpass Trump’s.
That doesn’t mean candidates aren’t trying to engage voters on the issue, sometimes even in communications soliciting donations. A candidate’s approach to messaging ultimately comes down to personal style. But when the election is close and the odds are against the candidate, money is at a premium and candidates may choose to prioritize fundraising pleas over other types of communication.
So how much does it cost to run a campaign? And why did we end up having such an expensive election?
In Texas, where I am based, the Senate race between Democrat Colin Allred and Republican incumbent Ted Cruz has already cost a fortune. Mr. Allred had spent $37 million on air advertising as of mid-September, nearly three times what incumbent Mr. Cruz was spending at the time. This spending is primarily supported by small donors, with an average donation of approximately $35. NDP believes Allred has a chance of winning, but will need to spend more to win in states that are still red despite Cruz’s consistently low approval ratings. There is a high possibility that it will.
The high running costs are due in part to the fact that Texas is a large state with a population of 30 million people, 254 counties, and 20 different media markets. The funds raised by Allred must support not only advertising but also campaign staff and volunteer efforts, including event planning, rallies, data sharing, phone banks, block walks, voter registration, and other campaign activities. Must be. state.
But the high spending is also a result of the Supreme Court’s 2010 decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. The decision allows corporations and outside groups to spend unlimited amounts of money on elections, often through super PACs (a type of fundraising vehicle) that operate independently of campaigns.
Since Citizens United, spending on elections has increased significantly, both up and down the ballot. In 2008, the last presidential election before the decision, spending on congressional elections totaled about $3 billion, adjusted for inflation. 2020 was also a presidential election year, and the total amount reached $10 billion.
Research suggests that challengers benefit more from campaign funds than incumbents, and that early spending is more effective than late spending for any candidate. This may be partially motivating the sense of urgency with which campaigns solicit donations from voters.
Incumbents benefit less from campaign contributions because voters often already know who the incumbent is and what he or she stands for. There usually isn’t much room to change voters’ minds about that.
Of course, committed partisans who frequently receive requests for donations may value efforts such as policy engagement, but generally the focus of voter outreach during elections is to keep the money flowing. , to attract more persuasive voters.
Does bombarding people with fundraising appeals actually work?
If digital advertising companies don’t succeed in soliciting donations over and over again, they probably won’t. That said, there is a growing divide within Democratic circles over the best way to proceed.
Urgency-based fundraising appeals are a tried-and-true approach, but some Democrats are starting to wonder if, as you suggested, they might want to bring a little more policy talk to the table.
Recently, some companies have been criticized for overly aggressive fundraising tactics. The Democratic firm Mothership Strategies, for example, has a strong presence in the 2022 midterm elections, with Republicans forcing Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg to resign and voter donations “Trump’s extremist Supreme Court It was notorious for sensational fundraising campaigns that falsely claimed it could help “destroy”
While these tactics generated significant profits, they also faced backlash. Democratic candidates had largely severed ties with the company by April 2023. The company’s founder, Jake Lipsett, defended the company’s strategy to Politico later that year, saying the company could generate a lot of money and would be “profitable.” Because the Democratic Party and the progressive movement have a huge impact on the entire race. ”
“If you’re going to bombard people with spam emails and text messages and lie about having a fake 8x donor match and send emails and say the sky is falling, , it works.” He worked on Beto O’Rourke’s 2018 Texas Senate campaign. “That way you can scare people into donating money. But it will do long-term damage to the credibility of the Democratic Party.”
Is there a better way to donate?
Hector Sigala, co-founder of digital advertising firm Middle Sheet, also a Democrat, said there are better ways to communicate with donors and ask for financial and other support.
That includes explaining candidates’ positions and being honest with voters about the role donations play. Some, but not all, candidates are already doing this.
Mr. Cigala’s office sent an email from Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) explicitly acknowledging the “intimidation tactics” used by some politicians to encourage donations from voters. , said that was not the purpose of her campaign. For those of you who haven’t donated enough, we would like to provide you with value via email. We strive to put out informative and educational content. ”
The company also ran an email campaign to Sen. John Fetterman (D-Pennsylvania) in which he explained the importance of his tattoos and linked the artwork to Fetterman’s policy positions. tied. It includes dates when people were killed, some due to gun violence. in the city of Braddock while he served as mayor. He outlined how he helped address the violence problem as mayor and said he would fight for “all Pennsylvanians” as well, with the help of grassroots donors.
Sigala said this kind of communication helped the company achieve record fundraising amounts.
“We treat our supporters as smart people who don’t really care what we’re talking about,” he said. “It’s much more effective than a ‘midnight deadline,’ a fake match, or a ‘sky is falling.’”
That said, if my inbox and text messages are any indication, Sigala’s company remains an exception.
I read 1 article last month
At Vox, we believe everyone can help make sense of and shape our complex world. Our mission is to create clear, accessible journalism that inspires understanding and action.
If you share our vision, please consider supporting our work by becoming a Vox Member. Your support allows Vox to provide a stable, independent source of funding for our journalism. If you’re not ready to become a member, making even a small donation means a lot to support our sustainable model of journalism.
Thank you for joining our community.
Swati Sharma
vox editor in chief
