• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
Center for Campaign Innovation

Center for Campaign Innovation

Learn. Test. Optimize

  • About
  • Reports
  • Articles
  • Newsletter
    • Archive

The Ethics of Dishonest Fundraising Gimmicks

Earlier this month on OpenSecrets.org, the Center for Responsive Politics took a look at the email fundraising gimmick of telling supporters there are matching funds available if they give within a certain period. It’s a technique borrowed from philanthropic fundraising, but as the article points out, under campaign finance laws, major donors face a legal maximum.

I suppose a campaign could make the argument that “matching funds” would come from other donors via traditional channels, but that’s not really telling the truth. There are lots of other fundraising gimmicks that campaigns employ that aren’t true either, like

  • Promising to show candidates a list of names before they go on the debate stage,
  • Made up fundraising deadlines,
  • A certain number of donors needed in a ZIP code,
  • Fake fundraising progress numbers, and
  • Pretending emails are sent from a candidate’s iPhone.

But the fact is they work – at least in the near term – and I’m guilty of using them myself. But if you’re really trying to build a grassroots fundraising program for the long-term with a community of supporters, it’s not how you’ll earn their trust. 

But should these gimmicks be completely off-limits for campaigns? Certainly saying “yes” is at least a consistent, defensible position, but I don’t think that reflects the reality of the business.

As I’ve written here, when campaigns don’t ask supporters aggressively enough for donations, scam PACs swoop in to take advantage, an entirely undesirable outcome. These kind of gimmicks may just be what motivates some donors and so it could make sense to include them as part of your efforts to a non-donor segment.

But it’s no way to treat supporters who want a real relationship with your campaign, which is an asset more important than money. It’s up to you to decide which supporters won’t respond to gimmicks and they may tolerate them from time to time.

Think of dishonest gimmicks as a sugary treat. You shouldn’t use them every day and it’s not how you build a well-balanced online fundraising program. 

August 14, 2019 By Eric Wilson

Filed Under: Opinions Tagged With: content, fundraising

Primary Sidebar

Never Miss a Trend

Subscribe to our weekly newsletter for must-reads about politics, marketing & technology.

Latest Ideas

New Report: Innovations In Voter Contact

As campaigners reach for every tool at their disposal to persuade and turnout voters, relational organizing, vote tripling, and deep canvassing must be key components of their strategy.

Understanding Political Donors: Who They Are And Why They Give

The survey data also confirms what campaigns and the media saw which is the flood of small dollar donors to Democratic campaigns in both 2018 and 2020. While among all voters in 2020, partisanship was split (46% GOP – 45% Dem), donors were overwhelmingly Democratic (34% GOP – 60% Dem).

Explore more

Never miss news, research, or insights from us:

Footer

Center for Campaign Innovation

Copyright © 2022 Center for Campaign Innovation.

Elsewhere

  • Facebook
  • LinkedIn
  • Twitter
  • Contact