Follow Epolitics on Substack, Bluesky, Threads, or Twitter/X. Top image by Kredite via Pixabay. This post was also published on Substack.
Launched in 2006, Epolitics is written and edited by Colin Delany, who has worked with nonprofits and political campaigns to help them use digital tools in effective and creative ways since the early days of the political internet. He is also a frequent speaker and trainer and the author of How to Use the Internet to Change the World – and Win Elections. Contact him at cpd@epolitics.com.
Will Grassroots Democrats Save Us from the DNC?
Democrats have a chance to win big enough in November to break the Republican grip on Congress. But will they have the money to do it?
This year, big-dollar Democratic donors have shunned the DNC, leaving it with more debt than cash (and apparently, vulnerable to email scams). Party committees supporting Democratic House and Senate candidates have less in the bank than their Republican counterparts, even as the Supreme Court changes the rules to make committee contributions more valuable. Meanwhile, the RNC was already sitting on $128 million at the beginning of July. Democrats are doomed!
Or not. In fact, high-profile Democratic candidates are generally rolling in dough this year, with some raising many times what their Republican opponents have brought in. The difference? The grassroots isn’t giving much to the committees. They’re giving to candidates, and that’s okay.
Unlike large donors, who still face at least some restrictions on political spending, small donors aren’t going to run into contribution limits. Nor will a single donor’s waning enthusiasm cripple a campaign — I worked on projects in 2022 that had to scale their plans back when Sam Bankman-Fried bailed on his big promises, which was not cool. By contrast, grassroots donors tend to send relatively small amounts repeatedly, making a small-donor list the gift that keeps on giving, quite literally.
Not everyone likes this dynamic. Idrees Kahloon wrote recently in The Atlantic about the downsides of grassroots funding, such as inefficiency. Activists love to pour money into long-shots with a national profile and a compelling story, for example, when a dollar spent on a local campaign would make much more of a difference. He also highlights the tendency of the grassroots to give to candidates farther out on the ideological spectrum, potentially amplifying political polarization.
On the latter front, I’ll note that his argument seems to me to embody the assumption that “moderate” is inherently good, and I’ll leave it as an exercise for the reader to decide whether he’s right. Considering that conservative talk radio has been around for decades, I’m not going to lay too much blame for our deep political divisions on a tendency for activists to push the envelope when they’re parting with ten bucks. And if you look at the numbers, grassroots donations functionally elected both Barack Obama and Joe Biden, the last two Democratic presidents.
The inefficiency Kahloon identifies is definitely real, though, and I would be happier if more donors spent their money locally rather than giving it to someone across the country who’s on MSNOW. But grassroots fundraising isn’t necessarily zero-sum: If I’m inspired in the moment to give $10 to a campaign, it doesn’t follow that some other campaign WON’T get $10, too. Campaigns are actually competing with everything else potential donors could do with their money, not just which candidates they could give it to. And for most of us, that equation changes constantly.
In practice, grassroots donors turn out to be somewhat wealthier than average, and many of them will be able to spare relatively small amounts over and over if they are properly inspired. As someone who’s worked on digital fundraising projects for a couple of decades, it’s our job to motivate people to give money when they weren’t planning to.
Finally, a losing campaign is not necessarily a loss. These days, state parties and local activists have woken up to the idea that even long-shot campaigns can leave behind structures — like supporter lists and local volunteer circles — that can fertilize the ground for the next person in the area willing to run. Likewise, the act of campaigning can crack open information bubbles, which is one reason state Democrats have worked so hard this year to contest every race they can.
In any case, the DNC is still in a tight spot, and I suspect Ken Martin may not have his job at the top for long after the midterms — assuming makes it that far. But one reason the party is so short on money is that it’s been funneling it directly to the states:
The DNC each month is distributing $1 million among party organizations in every state and key U.S. territories, besides allocating $5,000 more per month to nearly two dozen Republican-controlled states, to help build party infrastructure.
That’s what the Democratic National Committee should be doing! For all the flaws in Ken Martin’s chairmanship, he understands that the most important mission for the national party this year is to help state parties help candidates. The millions the party is sending down the line will pay for field, digital and data staff as well as technology and other resources local campaigns need but often have trouble accessing.
Similarly, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee just announced a plan to spend $40 million across ten states with competitive Senate races, specifically to support field organizing. The list includes Texas and Florida, big states that have left the national party feeling burned in recent years. Since we’re talking about the Senate, whole states are in play, and these field programs could reach into areas where Democratic organizers aren’t often seen. And the fact that the DS is investing this much in field organizing rather than paid media indicates a leadership mindset more to my liking. Which is cool.
Can the grassroots save us from the DNC and the dreaded Establishment? Do they need to? The top of the Democratic party may not be raising enough money, but it is paying for state-level work that national Democrats too often ignore and that will help candidates up and down the ballot. Likewise the party committees, who’ll be able to coordinate with cash-flush campaigns to a wider degree this year.
So once again, it’s all part of a balanced breakfast. I’m happy for Democratic activists to give to prominent individual campaigns, but I hope they also give to the national organizations, state parties and people running for state lege, governor, mayor or city council. Your money will go farther the more locally you spend it, but in the aggregate, donations to the DSCC or directly to a Talarico, a Peltola or a Turek may help Democrats take the Senate. Which would also be cool.
In related news, the new Democratic nominee for Maine Senate just raised $2 million from 30,000 donors in twenty-four hours. By November, they’ll be joined by many thousands more citizens eager to give candidates they support a chance to compete against billionaires. Sounds pretty democratic to me.
– cpd