Where are all the Democratic donations?
Ever since November 2024, when Donald Trump took over all three branches of the federal government, there has been no shortage of navel-gazing pieces posing as political analysis of why Democrats are unable to get their voters to the polls.
One theme has been that the party is been chasing dollars, and to be successful, it has to look more like the successful GOP fund-raising machine. Given how unpopular Trump and his immigration and trade policies are—according to Nate Silver, his numbers are all under water—fund-raising for Democrats should be a snap. And yet so far, it’s been weak. Why?
“The illusion of a sprawling grassroots movement, with its dozens of different PAC names, quickly gave way to a much simpler and more alarming reality. It only required pulling on a single thread—tracing who a few of the most aggressive PACs were paying—to watch their entire manufactured world unravel. What emerged was not a diverse network of activists, but a concentrated ecosystem built to serve the firm at its center: Mothership Strategies.
“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.”
So how’s that paying off? In the words of Mark Felt (“Deep Throat”), follow the money:
“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.
“Here’s what that number means: for every dollar a grandmother in Iowa donates believing she’s saving democracy, 98 cents goes to consultants and operational costs. Just pennies reach actual campaigns.”
Deplorable.
In the words of Vladimir Lenin, what is to be done?
“The prescription is simple. Cut ties with firms and any vendors that they do business with that treat donors as marks. Establish and enforce efficiency standards. Demand that fundraising operations deliver actual value to campaigns, not just commissions to consultants.
Most crucially: Recognize that Democratic donors deserve the same honesty the party demands from everyone else.”
Click the link for the rest of the story. The dollars are rolling in, but most of them are ending up in the pockets of the fundraising company, not the campaigns for which they were intended.
Democratic donors and candidates are being ripped off
One theme has been that the party is been chasing dollars, and to be successful, it has to look more like the successful GOP fund-raising machine. Given how unpopular Trump and his immigration and trade policies are—according to Nate Silver, his numbers are all under water—fund-raising for Democrats should be a snap. And yet so far, it’s been weak. Why?
“The illusion of a sprawling grassroots movement, with its dozens of different PAC names, quickly gave way to a much simpler and more alarming reality. It only required pulling on a single thread—tracing who a few of the most aggressive PACs were paying—to watch their entire manufactured world unravel. What emerged was not a diverse network of activists, but a concentrated ecosystem built to serve the firm at its center: Mothership Strategies.
“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.”
So how’s that paying off? In the words of Mark Felt (“Deep Throat”), follow the money:
“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.
“Here’s what that number means: for every dollar a grandmother in Iowa donates believing she’s saving democracy, 98 cents goes to consultants and operational costs. Just pennies reach actual campaigns.”
Deplorable.
In the words of Vladimir Lenin, what is to be done?
“The prescription is simple. Cut ties with firms and any vendors that they do business with that treat donors as marks. Establish and enforce efficiency standards. Demand that fundraising operations deliver actual value to campaigns, not just commissions to consultants.
Most crucially: Recognize that Democratic donors deserve the same honesty the party demands from everyone else.”
Click the link for the rest of the story. The dollars are rolling in, but most of them are ending up in the pockets of the fundraising company, not the campaigns for which they were intended.
Democratic donors and candidates are being ripped off
How the Democrats Spent $1 Billion and Still Lost
Of course, some chunk of that money goes to the selection and feeding of corporate-friendly CongressCritters…who somehow can’t manage to figure out how to effectively oppose a loathsome President…or even find an opposition leader!
JohnH, I think you are far too harsh on Democratic legislators. I recall way back when other people were livid with John Boehner, but were not consistently capable of articulating other ideas to oppose Obama. Boehner used his limited authority very skillfully if opposing Obama was a positive from your perspective. Democratic authority is even more restricted. At the end of the day these people vote on legislation and – in the Senate – nominations. The only vote really that was up for debate was cloture on the spring CR. My view is Schumer was in a bad spot as Democrats were going to cave not long after a shutdown started. Others can think otherwise, of course. As for leaders, Booker, Newsom, Pritzker (maybe others) have done pretty much everything other than Super Bowl ads to tell folks they could lead. It will happen whenever it happens and if that’s tomorrow, okay and if it’s April 2028, don’t panic.
I consider myself an independent although I almost always vote for the Democrat and have only given money to Democrats. I have absolutely no use for the 50 or so emails I get soliciting donations every day. Indeed, the emails only reinforce the relative fecklessness of the Democrats. Unless there is a candidate who really impresses me, I do not contribute to primary candidates and when push comes to shove, I contribute directly to the candidates I prefer, not to the committees or PACs. Of course, I am just a little guy and expect my views to have no effect on the Democrats–which is one of the reasons that I consider myself an independent.
@Terry,
I consider myself a Democrat, since I’ve nearly always voted for the Democrat and have only given money to Democrats. The only exception is when I pissed away my vote for John Anderson in 1980. Never wasting my vote on 3rd party again.
Of course, I lived in a red state for 40 years, so my views had no effect on elections. Now I live in a blue state, so my views have no effect on elections. But I still consider myself a Democrat because it’s the least worst choice. The Democratic Party is America’s Conservative Party. The GOP is a Trump cult. There is no significant liberal party in America.
I made this post to call attention to the shame and disgrace of the national Democratic Party leadership. Like you, I’ll support the candidates. In addition, I support independent media.
If people continue to vote for the “least worse” party, it will only use voters’ “approval” to become worse and worse and worse, as we have witnessed for the past 45 years. And as it adopts more Republican positions, as we have witnessed for the past 45 years, Republicans eagerly become even worse…and worse.
I have yet to see anyone here propose anything that will reverse the slide, other than to vote third party and make it undeniably obvious that the two evils have no legitimacy.
@John,
Nothing will change until people start voting for the next generation of Democrats. While Bernie Sanders (who is not a Democrat) and Elizabeth Warren (who is) have been out there getting elected and talking about the direction the party needs to move, they are geriatric and don’t play to the donors. We need younger Sanders’ and Warrens, more AOCs and Zohran Mamdanis. Sadly, the MSM brands them as “socialists,” “Marxists” and “radicals,” and the Democratic leadership cowers, even though their policy ideas are pretty ordinary and quite popular.
I will proudly continue to vote for the least worse party, because the alternative is letting the worst win, and I refuse to be a party to that. YMMV.
I have yet to see you propose anything to reverse the slide, other than concede elections to the GOP by voting third party or staying home (but I repeat myself).
I am with you Joel–the Dems are clearly the only choice these days, but I am keeping the independent label. I would have voted for Carter in 1980 despite his failure as president if I was a Democrat instead of Anderson. Not that it would have made any difference.
@Terry,
I was living in NC in 1980 and the polls said Carter would win NC, so I felt free to make a protest vote with Anderson. In the event, Reagan won NC. I know my one vote wouldn’t have changed that (or any other election I’ve voted in), but I certainly will never waste my vote on a 3rd party candidate again.