In the Immortal words of Pink Floyd...

Money, Money, Money, Money... Monnneeeyyy

Not going to lie. This one hurts b/c its about bad Dem behavior (and apologies for the long post – but this is… important).

This is from a recent column by Adam Bonica, Associate Professor of Political Science at Stanford University (his research focuses on the intersection of data science and politics).

 

The digital deluge is a familiar annoyance for anyone on a Democratic fundraising list. It's a relentless cacophony of bizarre texts and emails, each one more urgent than the last, promising that your immediate $15 donation is the only thing standing between democracy and the abyss.

The main rationale offered for this fundraising frenzy is that it's a necessary evil—that the tactics, while unpleasant, are brutally effective at raising the money needed to win. But an analysis of the official FEC filings tells a very different story. The fundraising model is not a brutally effective tool for the party; it is a financial vortex that consumes the vast majority of every dollar it raises.

We all have that one obscure skill we’ve inadvertently maxed out. Mine happens to be navigating the labyrinth of campaign finance data. So, after documenting the spam tactics in a previous article, I told myself I’d just take a quick look to see who was behind them and where the money was going

To understand Mothership's central role, one must understand its origins. The firm was founded in 2014 by senior alumni of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC): its former digital director, Greg Berlin, and deputy digital director, Charles Starnes. During their tenure at the DCCC, they helped pioneer the fundraising model that now dominates Democratic inboxes—a high-volume strategy that relies on emotionally charged, often hyperbolic appeals to compel immediate donations. This model, sometimes called "churn and burn," prioritizes short-term revenue over long-term donor relationships…

They became the operational heart of a sprawling nexus of interconnected political action committees, many of which they helped create and which now serve as their primary clients. These are not a diverse collection of grassroots groups; they are a tightly integrated network that functions primarily to funnel funds to Mothership. Their names are likely familiar from the very texts and emails that flood inboxes: Progressive Turnout Project, Stop Republicans, and End Citizens United to name a few…

The core defense of these aggressive fundraising tactics rests on a single claim: they are brutally effective. The FEC data proves this is a fallacy. An examination of the money flowing through the Mothership network reveals a system designed not for political impact, but for enriching the consultants who operate it…

To understand the scale of this operation, consider the total amount raised. Since 2018, this core network of Mothership-linked PACs has raised approximately $678 million from individual donors. (This number excludes money raised by the firm's other clients, like candidate campaigns, focusing specifically on the interconnected PACs at the heart of this system.) Of that total fundraising haul, $159 million was paid directly to Mothership Strategies for consulting fees, accounting for the majority of the $282 million Mothership has been paid by all its clients combined.

But the firm's direct cut is only part of the story. The "churn and burn" fundraising model is immensely expensive to operate. Sending millions of texts and emails requires massive spending on digital infrastructure. For instance, FEC filings show this network paid $22.5 million to a single vendor, Message Digital LLC, a firm that specializes in text message delivery…

After subtracting these massive operational costs—the payments to Mothership, the fees for texting services, the cost of digital ads and list rentals—the final sum delivered to candidates and committees is vanishingly small. My analysis of the network's FEC disbursements reveals that, at most, $11 million of the $678 million raised from individuals has made its way to candidates, campaigns, or the national party committees.

But here's the number that should end all debate:

This represents a fundraising efficiency rate of just 1.6 percent.

A quick personal story. During one of my campaigns, I was shepherded around DC raising money by former Congressman (and Senator) Mark Udall of Colorado. We had some downtime at DCCC headquarters and I wanted to call my wife. Udall hesitated, then pointed to a door down that hall and said, “you can make the call in there.” Behind the door I found a call center with cubicles and Members of Congress dialing for dollars doing “assigned call time”. It was… gross. After chatting with my wife, I told Udall my view on what was taking place in that room. His response was, “I was hoping you wouldn’t see that room because it might change your mind about running.” And it struck me – Members hate the system but it worked for them – they won. And they are too afraid to change it.

So, yes – we need to focus on winning elections. But then, we need to do everything possible to minimize the amount of money flowing into the pockets to elected officials and the consultant ecosystem that has grown up around them (specific ideas on how to accomplish this are for another column). Money corrupts, and big money corrupts “bigly”. If we fail at that, our 250-year-old system of governance will ultimately fail as well (that is, if it isn’t failing as we speak).

Reply

or to participate.