Welcome to Nuts & Bolts, a guide to Democratic campaigns. I’ve helped write this series for years using information from campaign managers, finance directors, field directors, trainers, and staff, responding to questions from Daily Kos Community and staff members, and addressing issues that are sent to me via kosmail through Daily Kos.
Recently, I’ve been hit with a lot of questions about bad investments into candidates, especially candidates who are extreme long shots to win. In general, I strongly believe that we have to show some support everywhere we can, to give Democratic voters a place to go, and to help bring out voters to the polls. Solid candidates who will lose by 30 points are better than no candidates at all, and any operation that could increase turnout in its district (and lose by, say, 20 points, in this example) is also going to help up-ballot Democrats. That sounds ridiculous, but I’ve seen this play out repeatedly. Candidates who can boost turnout in their own districts—even by small amounts—can help pay those votes forward to Democratic campaigns that need it. This week, let’s talk about the strategic use of funds for campaigns.
Have you read a campaign finance report?
Campaign finance reports are available via the state government if it is a race for state house or state office, or via the FEC if running for federal office. These can give you solid information about the way campaigns are investing their funds. If a campaign is spending a lot of its funds on fundraising, there just isn’t enough going back into the district to help turn out the necessary votes to provide help up and down the ticket. If a campaign is successfully raising funds and applying those funds to investments in voter turnout initiatives, you can spot that as well. It is very difficult to say to Democratic candidates in low-odds districts that they should receive no support. Of course they should receive support. If they are running against someone you truly despise and they are running a campaign that will turn out voters for a candidate who could win, then donations can be in order. Your investment is up to you and you alone. If we look longterm, just advancing the conversation can be extremely worthwhile.
What are all these consultants doing?
Now I get to ruffle a few feathers. Many campaigns need consultants. I’ve consulted multiple times for multiple campaigns. It can actually help them save money to outsource tasks that would otherwise require them to hire on several posts. Consultants can offer information, design plans, and leverage resources to their best use. This is the ideal use for campaign consultants.
Still, campaign consultants can also have a darker outcome as well. Campaign consultants can take amazing levels of fees or percentages of funds raised. It is up to the campaign itself to determine the value they receive from a consultant and to make their own choices, but donors also deserve to be aware of whether they are investing into the campaign or the pockets of a consultancy.
Look for proof of life from the campaign. This means that, as you invest into a campaign, you are seeing them put boots on the ground to turn out any votes possible in tough districts, and that they are investing into statewide coordinated campaigns if that is something that is possible as well. When you see campaigns make legitimate efforts at voter turnout, you can appreciate the work.
When is there enough?
Laura Clawson raised a particular problem this year in the race against Marjorie Taylor Greene. In the case of that race, such a high amount of money poured in that the question really needed to be asked as to whether or not the funds were used in a way to help the Democratic ticket up and down through the entire state. The campaign could have had that ability, investing funds back into the state party’s federal side or organizing their own in-district voter outreach through paid canvass. Before you give to any campaign, especially those in districts we are unlikely to win, check and see how they are spending the funds received. By tracking how they are using their resources, you know what is worthwhile.
If you don’t live in that state, or district, and you still want to support the candidate, do so in reasonable measures. Sending someone $3 or $5 is fine. Save your donations for campaigns near you that need it. You’ll regret sending a $100 donation to a campaign a state away when that same amount could have paid for one canvasser for a day to hit doors and turn out votes nearby.
This isn’t saying don’t give money to campaigns that take on the worst Republicans. I do believe that we deserve to put on a good, solid race and point out the flaws in Republican candidates everywhere as it can make the case for candidates in other states by keeping bad Republicans in the news fighting off campaigns. Still, a campaign can do that without raising so much money that they are starting to pick away out-of-state resources that need to go to potential wins.
The fifty-state strategy is to compete everywhere; it is something I believe in wholeheartedly. I can see it in red states that have put pressure on everywhere that they can, and forced Republicans to play defense.
Make your investments smart. Be willing to risk some on a campaign that is doing good work in a tough district. Don’t pour funds into a guaranteed-to-win district. Think about how much you can invest into longshots and how much we need truly swingable districts and races.
Make informed decisions, and you’ll be happy with the results.
Tell us about how you invest in campaigns!
Recently, I’ve been hit with a lot of questions about bad investments into candidates, especially candidates who are extreme long shots to win. In general, I strongly believe that we have to show some support everywhere we can, to give Democratic voters a place to go, and to help bring out voters to the polls. Solid candidates who will lose by 30 points are better than no candidates at all, and any operation that could increase turnout in its district (and lose by, say, 20 points, in this example) is also going to help up-ballot Democrats. That sounds ridiculous, but I’ve seen this play out repeatedly. Candidates who can boost turnout in their own districts—even by small amounts—can help pay those votes forward to Democratic campaigns that need it. This week, let’s talk about the strategic use of funds for campaigns.
Have you read a campaign finance report?
Campaign finance reports are available via the state government if it is a race for state house or state office, or via the FEC if running for federal office. These can give you solid information about the way campaigns are investing their funds. If a campaign is spending a lot of its funds on fundraising, there just isn’t enough going back into the district to help turn out the necessary votes to provide help up and down the ticket. If a campaign is successfully raising funds and applying those funds to investments in voter turnout initiatives, you can spot that as well. It is very difficult to say to Democratic candidates in low-odds districts that they should receive no support. Of course they should receive support. If they are running against someone you truly despise and they are running a campaign that will turn out voters for a candidate who could win, then donations can be in order. Your investment is up to you and you alone. If we look longterm, just advancing the conversation can be extremely worthwhile.
What are all these consultants doing?
Now I get to ruffle a few feathers. Many campaigns need consultants. I’ve consulted multiple times for multiple campaigns. It can actually help them save money to outsource tasks that would otherwise require them to hire on several posts. Consultants can offer information, design plans, and leverage resources to their best use. This is the ideal use for campaign consultants.
Still, campaign consultants can also have a darker outcome as well. Campaign consultants can take amazing levels of fees or percentages of funds raised. It is up to the campaign itself to determine the value they receive from a consultant and to make their own choices, but donors also deserve to be aware of whether they are investing into the campaign or the pockets of a consultancy.
Look for proof of life from the campaign. This means that, as you invest into a campaign, you are seeing them put boots on the ground to turn out any votes possible in tough districts, and that they are investing into statewide coordinated campaigns if that is something that is possible as well. When you see campaigns make legitimate efforts at voter turnout, you can appreciate the work.
When is there enough?
Laura Clawson raised a particular problem this year in the race against Marjorie Taylor Greene. In the case of that race, such a high amount of money poured in that the question really needed to be asked as to whether or not the funds were used in a way to help the Democratic ticket up and down through the entire state. The campaign could have had that ability, investing funds back into the state party’s federal side or organizing their own in-district voter outreach through paid canvass. Before you give to any campaign, especially those in districts we are unlikely to win, check and see how they are spending the funds received. By tracking how they are using their resources, you know what is worthwhile.
If you don’t live in that state, or district, and you still want to support the candidate, do so in reasonable measures. Sending someone $3 or $5 is fine. Save your donations for campaigns near you that need it. You’ll regret sending a $100 donation to a campaign a state away when that same amount could have paid for one canvasser for a day to hit doors and turn out votes nearby.
This isn’t saying don’t give money to campaigns that take on the worst Republicans. I do believe that we deserve to put on a good, solid race and point out the flaws in Republican candidates everywhere as it can make the case for candidates in other states by keeping bad Republicans in the news fighting off campaigns. Still, a campaign can do that without raising so much money that they are starting to pick away out-of-state resources that need to go to potential wins.
The fifty-state strategy is to compete everywhere; it is something I believe in wholeheartedly. I can see it in red states that have put pressure on everywhere that they can, and forced Republicans to play defense.
Make your investments smart. Be willing to risk some on a campaign that is doing good work in a tough district. Don’t pour funds into a guaranteed-to-win district. Think about how much you can invest into longshots and how much we need truly swingable districts and races.
Make informed decisions, and you’ll be happy with the results.
Tell us about how you invest in campaigns!