The Right Wing is winning the information wars. Trump, Fox News, and the rest are setting the terms of the political debate and drowning out the Democratic message. Message Box exists to help progressives fight back—with clear messaging, sharp analysis, and the tools to take on Trump, Fox News, and the rest. If you value this work, please consider becoming a paid subscriber for just $7 a month. Sign up for a 30-day trial right now. The High Cost of Spam: How the Flood of Dem Fundraising Texts Hurt the PartyDems are abusing our most loyal supporters with long term consequences
Earlier this month, Donald Trump muscled through one of the worst pieces of legislation in recent memory—a bill that could kick people off their health care and take food out of their mouths, all to pay for tax cuts for the ultra-wealthy and corporations. Every Democrat hoped and prayed it would fail. And once it passed, every Democrat across the country wondered how the party would respond to this moral abomination. The Democratic Party’s initial response to the passage of the Republican budget bill was to send a flurry of texts and emails to its most loyal supporters, asking for donations. This has become standard practice. Whenever Trump does something terrible, the party, its PACs, and its candidates try to turn that anger into dollars. In recent months, I’ve received fundraising texts after Trump gutted the Department of Education, defunded PBS and NPR, bombed Iran, and even when CBS canceled The Late Show with Stephen Colbert.
This strategy has some upsides. Democratic campaigns have routinely outraised Republicans. For example, in 2020, Democratic campaigns raised nearly $50 million in the 24 hours after Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg died. But there are real downsides. It’s not clear the party fully grasps the damage done by treating every news event as an opportunity to wring money out of its most loyal and passionate supporters. Political activists have grumbled about the frequency of fundraising appeals since conservative Richard Viguerie popularized direct mail fundraising in the 1960s and 1970s. When I worked for Barack Obama, friends and family would often complain about the constant stream of appeals from his campaign, the DNC, and others. In recent years, the problem has gotten worse. The pleas have become more frequent, more hysterical, and now they come via text—a much more intrusive form of communication. Spam filters and Gmail’s "Promotions" tab offer some buffer, but not much. However, I believe the downsides of the Democratic Party’s relentless pursuit of grassroots funding go far beyond mere annoyance. 1. Hurting Our BrandThe Democratic Party has an attention problem. Traditional media, once our primary means of communicating with voters, has lost both reach and credibility. Social media—the dominant source of news for many Americans—is largely controlled by right-wing politicians and MAGA messaging. Unless you live in a battleground state during election season, you rarely see a Democratic ad. Unless you’re a full-blown news junkie (and if you’re reading this, you probably are), you can go weeks without hearing any Democratic messaging. Unless, of course, they have your phone number. Then you’re bombarded with increasingly desperate fundraising texts more than a year out from the election. These texts don’t persuade or inform—they just ask for money. The party acts like a telemarketing business. Many Democrats first heard about Cory Booker’s record filibuster or Hakeem Jeffries’ hours-long floor speech via a fundraising appeal: The Democratic Party brand is in the toilet. In the latest Wall Street Journal poll, the party’s favorability is at its lowest level in more than three decades. The drop is due in part to Democrats' growing frustration with their own party. I’m not saying our addiction to incessant fundraising texts is the sole reason for our dismal public image—but it’s certainly not helping. How would you feel about a friend who only called to ask for money? 2. A Missed OpportunitySix years ago, in a different media landscape, these texts wouldn’t have been as damaging. But today, direct communication—texts and emails—is one of the most effective ways to reach people. That’s why so many are turning to platforms like Substack. While no platform is perfect, there’s real value in not relying on the whims of Elon Musk, Mark Zuckerberg, or the Chinese Communist Party to deliver your message. Democrats should be nurturing these direct relationships—using text and email to inform voters, gather input, and turn supporters into super-volunteers and messengers. Instead, digital fundraising consultants—some of whom take commissions on the money raised—are incentivized to burn the list to the ground in search of short-term returns. If a pitch doesn’t work, they crank up the desperation. If it does work, they hammer it until it stops. There’s no consideration of message quality—just how much cash can be extracted. The party spends millions on polling and message testing. We know what messages work and on which issues. But that knowledge is almost never applied to fundraising appeals. So Democrats are texting millions of people every day with no meaningful message at all. 3. The Money’s Not Going to the Right PlaceThe Democratic grassroots fundraising machine is huge—but inefficient. The money doesn’t always go where it’s needed most. There are two major issues: scam PACs and poor allocation. First, “scam PACs” aggressively fundraise online, raise huge sums, but spend little on actual candidates. Most of the money goes to consultants and overhead. I consider myself plugged into Democratic infrastructure, but I often get texts from groups I’ve never heard of. When I look them up, there’s almost nothing about them or their staff. Donors, unaware of the risks, give to these shady groups—money that should be going to real campaigns. The scam PAC problem was rampant in 2020. As The Bulwark reported, several “scam PACs” exploited the surge of support for Kamala Harris after she became the VP nominee. These groups had generic names and sent misleading texts offering 400–700% “matching donations”—which almost certainly never occurred. Some also used names like Bernie Sanders, AOC, and Barack Obama without permission. The message might say “Barack Obama asked for your help” with a donation link, misleading recipients into thinking he endorsed the PAC. These appeals are technically accurate—but deeply dishonest. Second, even legitimate campaigns often funnel grassroots money into the wrong places. Liam Kerr of Welcome PAC found that:
Meanwhile, Republicans raised money for competitive seats. This is a long-standing problem: grassroots money tends to flow to viral candidates or those running against right-wing villains like Marjorie Taylor Greene or Mitch McConnell—regardless of whether the race is winnable. I follow race ratings from the Cook Political Report and track DCCC/NRCC targets, but the flood of texts from compelling candidates in unwinnable districts can be overwhelming. Donors often don’t know better—and then feel duped when their candidate loses by 20 points. What to Do About ItThere are no easy answers. There’s no Democratic fundraising czar who can fix this. Each candidate and PAC has its own incentives. If you’re running for office, your job is to raise money—annoying your donors is just collateral damage. Still, there are a few steps we can take: ActBlue Reforms: Name and Shame: Educated Giving: If you want to do your own research, I would recommend going to the Cook Political Report to look at their House and Senate race ratings. Spamming our most loyal supporters isn’t the Democratic Party’s biggest problem—but it’s a bigger problem than most insiders admit. There are long-term consequences to treating your voters like ATM machines. Invite your friends and earn rewardsIf you enjoy The Message Box, share it with your friends and earn rewards when they subscribe.
|
Wednesday, July 30, 2025
The High Cost of Spam: How the Flood of Dem Fundraising Texts Hurt the Party
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Where Would We Be Without Them?
There would be no Plato without Socrates. There would be no Aristotle without Plato. There would be no Alexander witho...
-
A cautionary note on a very funny meme ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ...
-
Women's health has been ignored for most of history. This venture capitalist says that's changing. View this email in your browse...
-
17 Personal Finance Concepts – #5 Home Ownershippwsadmin, 31 Oct 02:36 AM If you find value in these articles, please share them with your ...
No comments:
Post a Comment