+1 to this. I'm a big fan of your work, Adam. 38% seems low to me though. Would you be willing to open source the detection algorithm mentioned or share with verified fundraising practitioners for comment?
Thanks for this, I finally understand the snowstorm of hysterical emails I'm getting from democratic orgs I've never heard of. But I'm wondering about the ones--many--that asked me to sign a petition. Is this a useful or serious petition or is it just a way to get me to the donate page? After all, the ACLU also asks me to sign petitions, and then the petition leads me to the donate page. And I do take the ACLU more seriously - or is that a mistake?
Can you clarify what you mean by "campaigns" and what the average is? It is unclear if this is just campaign cycle spending, primary/general spending, spending across candidate and associated-PACs. I'm just trying to get a sense if the general shift of Advertising spending (what previously was the largest) to SuperPACs contributes to this. Also, I assume this aggregates by year weighting each organization by its overall spending, not the average across each campaign org.
Maybe I'm oversimplifying things, but I would think it would be relatively straightforward to create one master list (one list to rule them all) for Democratic fundraising.
We know who the top fundraising candidates are. They could all donate their lists into one big pool. And then give it out for free (or relatively low cost) to any Dem candidate who meets certain basic criteria.
Couldn't someone create "Free List PAC", then go to the top fundraisers over the past 15 years, ask for their lists, consolidate them, and... voila.
Maybe I'm missing something. Maybe the problem is that candidates/campaigns aren't willing to give away their secret sauce for free. Maybe it's a problem of sellers more than buyers...
How do donors consent to their contact info being shared to *all* Democratic candidates in this scenario given the current unprecedented fundraising volume?
I would think that the easy way to do this would be to turn the Democratic Party into a membership organization. Then you just raise funds from your dues-paying members, and no need to rent spam lists. After all, in that case, the party would own their own data.
Thank you for sharing!
Any chance you can share the code behind this analysis, like you did with your original Mothership article?
+1 to this. I'm a big fan of your work, Adam. 38% seems low to me though. Would you be willing to open source the detection algorithm mentioned or share with verified fundraising practitioners for comment?
Thanks for this, I finally understand the snowstorm of hysterical emails I'm getting from democratic orgs I've never heard of. But I'm wondering about the ones--many--that asked me to sign a petition. Is this a useful or serious petition or is it just a way to get me to the donate page? After all, the ACLU also asks me to sign petitions, and then the petition leads me to the donate page. And I do take the ACLU more seriously - or is that a mistake?
Can you clarify what you mean by "campaigns" and what the average is? It is unclear if this is just campaign cycle spending, primary/general spending, spending across candidate and associated-PACs. I'm just trying to get a sense if the general shift of Advertising spending (what previously was the largest) to SuperPACs contributes to this. Also, I assume this aggregates by year weighting each organization by its overall spending, not the average across each campaign org.
Maybe I'm oversimplifying things, but I would think it would be relatively straightforward to create one master list (one list to rule them all) for Democratic fundraising.
We know who the top fundraising candidates are. They could all donate their lists into one big pool. And then give it out for free (or relatively low cost) to any Dem candidate who meets certain basic criteria.
Couldn't someone create "Free List PAC", then go to the top fundraisers over the past 15 years, ask for their lists, consolidate them, and... voila.
Maybe I'm missing something. Maybe the problem is that candidates/campaigns aren't willing to give away their secret sauce for free. Maybe it's a problem of sellers more than buyers...
How do donors consent to their contact info being shared to *all* Democratic candidates in this scenario given the current unprecedented fundraising volume?
I would think that the easy way to do this would be to turn the Democratic Party into a membership organization. Then you just raise funds from your dues-paying members, and no need to rent spam lists. After all, in that case, the party would own their own data.
That would work too. The party gives you the master list. In exchange, you are required to hand over your list to the party. Win win.