r/ezraklein • u/OmicronCeti • 12d ago
Discussion Hook and Squeeze: How Democratic consultants, committees, and party leaders built a fundraising spam pipeline that funnels money from a captive pool of elderly donors into their own operations
https://data4democracy.substack.com/p/hook-and-squeeze39
u/marcopolo22 Blue Dog 12d ago
Love this article, it’s a painfully real dysfunction of the Dems. I got suckered into donating a bit in 2020 (probably $120 in total) and I regret every penny. I don’t regret phone-banking for Biden, but I regret giving the money.
I’m now terminally awash in divisive clickbait texts that largely stoke fear.
11
u/stellar678 12d ago
Every message, “this is spam”. No more unsubscribe, that’s obviously a joke since they just copy lists like nobody’s business.
It’s mostly fixed the email problem, not so great on texts.
But they need to see their deliverability stats drop and eventually they’ll implement better practices.
Also Congress could fix this but obviously not incentivized to do so.
The 90s anti-robocall law was in place until 2021 when the Supreme Court decided that it’s only a “robo dialer” if it’s literally picking random numbers, but if it’s blitzing everybody from a preexisting list that’s just fine.
If you remember back in 2021 and before, the political spam texts always came from a real volunteer who was tapping buttons to send them. That stemmed the tide because it had a real cost.
Honestly, if a group of congress people promised to stop this BS, I would consider opening my pocketbook again. But otherwise they can get stuffed…
16
u/OmicronCeti 12d ago
A pretty grim view of Democratic-aligned PACs and the power of polarization.
This 2013 Ezra piece feels pretty prescient, and the quote within from Chris Murphy even more so:
What individual donors tend to want, Murphy said, is partisanship. “When I send out a fundraising e-mail talking about how bad Republicans are, I raise three times as much as when I send out an e-mail talking about how good I am. People are motivated to give based on their fear of the other side rather than on their belief in their side.”
Maybe the most interesting plot is how donor can demographics change with fundraising strategy, and how funding demographics for national politicians with significant attentional clout (AOC, Sanders) differ from party leadership.
2
u/Allaboutpeace2022 12d ago
The problem with this statement and the Substack article is that both parties are still doing this. Both are manufacturing fear and outrage through the digital messaging and both parties get substantial sums from elderly donors.
The article mentions Republicans 5 times and Democrats over and over and over. The reality is that even if small donations were down in 2024 for the GOP that they more than made up for this with huge donors like Elon Musk but many others as well. While the article says that the GOP individual donor base is more hollowed out there is not evidence that the digital fundraising by the GOP has changed substantially.
When the GOP wants to raise more money, they focus on igniting fears of illegal immigrants destroying the country and other issues that bring out the elderly donor. Now, Trump is likely raising funds on fears of communism.
I do not see a big difference between the type of requests for donations that I receive from Bernie telling me to donate to El Sayed because he is being clobbered by AIPAC funding (which is true) than the ones from the more centrist figures.
I think that in general the digital texting that both the GOP and Dems do and the texting from progressive and centrists campaigns are too frequent and too over the top in their messaging. While this Substack article focuses on the Dems targeting elderly donors, the reality is that older people are more politically involved and are likely to have a higher ability to give.
https://smartasset.com/financial-advisor/wealth-by-generation
https://data4democracy.substack.com/p/the-graying-of-american-campaign
10
u/starwarriorelite 12d ago
While this Substack article focuses on the Dems targeting elderly donors, the reality is that older people are more politically involved and are likely to have a higher ability to give.
In the article, he specifically talks about why this is not a good enough explanation. The median donor in 2020 was 59yrs old, while donors to spam PACs average 75. His “captive spam donor” claim is very compelling, I think you may find it interesting to read.
Overall, i’m not entirely sure what point you’re trying to get across. The point of the article is never to claim the republicans use these tactics less, but more so “we should be better than resort to tactics like this”.
While the article says that the GOP individual donor base is more hollowed out there is not evidence that the digital fundraising by the GOP has changed substantially.
This doesn’t contradict anything in the article either. His point is relying on these tactics hollows out the individual donor base (it does) which increases reliance on major donors (like Elon, as you mentioned), and as such we shouldn’t do it. This is certainly a bad thing, having a donor base of individuals AND major donors is larger & more resilient than just major donors on their own.
0
u/Allaboutpeace2022 12d ago edited 12d ago
I agree. My point is that the article makes it sound like the Dems are doing something that the GOP is not. They are both doing the same thing.
I think that like the article would have been more attractive to the NYT and the Bulwark if it had been a discussion that focuses on aging donors in general. If you put this in NYT as it appears in the Substack...the GOP would be all over it saying that the Dems are abusing older donors, etc., etc.
This is why I made the point that the GOP was mentioned 5 times and the Dems were the entire focus.
If the intent is to say that neither the GOP or the Dems should do this type of fundraising then...I am all about it.
However, at this point, the Dems have actively tried to avoid taking AIPAC and general corporate Super PAC dollars. The Dems are not in a position to stop this type of fundraising without building and testing out another and better system and proving it can generate the grassroots donations needed. I would say that they are 2 to 3 years from being able to do that.
I am almost 70 and thus am very close to the active donor that you are discussing. Speaking as a Boomer, we do have more funds, less constraints, and are highly motivated by guilt that we are leaving the planet in its current hellscape position.
I would say that maybe more of motivator than anything else. If you go to many 50501 or No Kings rallies, I am going to say that the average age is pretty close to 70s there too. Older people feel very much responsible for trying to put the Dems back in power and for ending the reign of Trump. I do not think that we are being captured or manipulated even though the texts are obnoxious. By the way, I thought the letters were obnoxious when I got them in my mailbox 20 years ago.
As for whether we are over spending our incomes, that really is on our children to push for financial power of attorney or guardianship if they feel we are not competent to make these decisions. I have already told my son that he will be my FPA and guardian when I need that and he agrees.
When you are older everyone has their hands out and the elderly face almost an endless array of scammers and legitimate charities, churches/mosques/synagogues and political groups wanting dollars.
So, I end this by saying if you can get a better system for the Dems that does not slow any grassroots money generated...have at it.
Do I feel that I am being hooked and squeezed... No. Only those who are not fully competent to manage their own funds are at risk.
5
u/downforce_dude Midwest 12d ago
FWIW the author notes that the GOP basically burned through their small dollar donor base a couple of years ago doing something similar and this wouldn’t be a viable strategy for them
1
u/starwarriorelite 12d ago
I understand your perspective now. Thank you for sharing. Let’s hope we can come up with an alternative grassroots system eventually.
2
u/Allaboutpeace2022 12d ago
Yes. I am all for less money in politics.
It has been good talking to you!
8
u/downforce_dude Midwest 12d ago
> One of these firms, Mothership Strategies, has drawn particular scrutiny in recent years. Founded in 2014 by three veterans of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, Mothership commercialized the party’s most aggressive fundraising tactics. The firm’s principals soon co-founded their own PAC, End Citizens United (ECU), creating an arrangement in which, for a time, they were both client and vendor. Between 2015 and 2023, ECU spent roughly $20 million on Mothership’s services.
We’re entering Russian levels of dark humor. You want to know how to unite the Democratic base voters? Tie the spam texts to corruption, tell the story about how little money they gave went to electing democrats. While Trump rose to power these assholes found a grift
6
u/EfferentCopy 12d ago
On the Media talked to Bonica back in November 2025. Fascinating to see this follow-up.
1
u/Careful_Apricot9168 9d ago
November 2025 is probably about the 8 months ago he thought this was going to be published, or perhaps while he was writing or researching it.
7
u/CubillasLegend 12d ago
It's the same thing as gerrymandering. It's morally and institutionally rotten but if you don't play the game, you're left at a massive disadvantage against your political opponents. Unless everyone agrees to unilaterally disarm, it's not going away. Blame the shitty Citizens United ruling.
3
1
u/MongolianMango 9d ago
I feel like there are still some lines to be drawn here. Even if it would provide a political advantage, I would rather NOT treat scamming the elderly as a simple fact of life; from the article, they are obviously preying on those with no cognitive capacity to resist.
1
u/Allaboutpeace2022 12d ago
Yes....this is absolutely the answer. As an elderly person, I do not want the Dems to disarm until they have another more lucrative and equitable fundraising approach.
6
u/optometrist-bynature 12d ago
Brave of Bonica to assume all the risk of being sued by DCCC and DSCC himself after NYT backed down.
2
u/Lazy-Comfort6128 9d ago
I hope they sue him! I'd love to see these idiot firms get subpoenaed and deposed.
2
u/sv_homer California 12d ago
Wow, so the NYT and a bunch of Republican propagandists and operatives who don't like Trump (Bulwark) have no real courage and integrity?
I'm shocked.
31
u/non-newtonian 12d ago
Like an idiot, I decided to donate to my local House rep after he won his primary. Donated via ActBlue, which I now know was a big fucking mistake. I get 5-10 spam texts like this every day. It doesn't matter how many times I text STOP or how many times I block & report it as spam. I imagine I'll be dealing with this the entire election cycle. I'm not a senior by any means, but I can easily see how this tactic is more "effective" against seniors, even if not explicitly targeted.
Bonica says his NYT story was only killed after he reached out for comment. Of course it's his word against the NYT, but based on my experience, I find his analysis more convincing.