Skip to main content

I am increasingly confused by the Democratic need to fundraise right after an election.  I do understand that some people finished having spent more than they had (e.g., Elizabeth Warren who I supported a lot this year) but why is the Obama campaign, the DCCC, and other such groups sending me pleading emails for more dough?  I gave them a lot of money to win this election and for the most part, they did well.  

I understand them using the fundraising infrastructure to make policy pitches, but what can they use campaign funds for right now?  If they are already expecting me to pony up for 2014, that is utterly ridiculous.  As it stands I am getting kind of annoyed at their unceasing needs for my cash and their emotionally manipulative e-mails about it.  

I am of relatively modest means, with a good local government job, definitely not wealthy, and during the 2012 campaign season I really gave till it hurt - I am done now.  I try to "tithe" mostly to charities, not political groups, and I also need some money of my own to do regular things like pay my bills and send my son to college.  Can't they every lay off? And why is the fundraising continuing at this high of a pitch?  

Comments are welcome as I am not being rhetorical here - I am assuming there is something I don't understand, being fairly new at the election organization and participation game.  And using this "diary" format is probably a stupid way to ask this question but I am not that familiar with this site - I mostly used it to get the election daily update emails and to help me send dollars to candidates.

2:14 PM PT: Update: Wow, thanks for all these thoughts! I need to start hanging out here more often.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  fund raising (4+ / 0-)

    The plutocrats on the other side do not stop when an election is over. We all detest the present system of legalized bribery that erodes our democracy, but until that is changed we must continue putting together what resorces to continue the fight beyon election day. Sad but true.

    •  Except the plutocrats are on both sides (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Shahryar, Chi

      This is just trolling for the fearful low hanging fruit, the same as the republicans do -- the people who are so scared of "them" they'll throw out all reason and throw money at whomever can be their solutions-provider of the latest scare. (and the beauty of it is, beyond inspiring a fearful donation, they don't have to deliver anything)

      Obama: self-described moderate Republican

      by The Dead Man on Fri Dec 28, 2012 at 12:45:13 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Huh... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        This is what pisses me off (apart from why they need money right now when their session has not even started yet and they have no record on which to run or anything) is the appeals to fear that are so commonly a part of the fundraiser e-mail.  I get these from the environmental groups which I would like to have some respect for... it is manipulative and I resent it.  I would help you because your issue is important, you do not need to use hyperbole and make everything sound outrageous in order for me to support a worthy cause.

    •  "Legalized bribery": Amen, brother (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      You are quite correct that "legalized bribery" is eroding our democracy.  I would go farther and say the system of buying law-makers and even laws has already largely replaced democracy.

      Sadly, it is not just that republicans do it, so democrats have to do it as well.  This system of direct financial gifts to law-makers who vote a certain way involves both the executive and the legislative branches of government, and all political parties involved in government.

      And just as government goes on today, so too must the financial gifts be given today, and hence, the fund-raising has to go on today, even tho' the next election is 23 months away.

      "The fool doth think he is wise: the wise man knows himself to be a fool" - W. Shakespeare

      by Hugh Jim Bissell on Fri Dec 28, 2012 at 02:02:12 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  the Party exists to make money (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    The Dead Man, Chi, Neuroptimalian

    Theoretically, once elected, the Democrats could pass laws that would help society. These would be common sense laws. Banks gouging customers? HMOs gouging customers while providing no real services? Simply fix it.

    Crazy global wars without end for no real reason? Simply stop them.

    This sort of thing, more than television advertising, would help elect Democrats. So why aren't they doing that?

    I'm convinced now that the Democratic Party, like the Republican Party, is a scam to get as much cash as possible. One way they can do that is to just ask for it. Of course, they know that we won't donate unless we're scared out of our minds, unless we think it's absolutely critical at this moment in time, with the most important election ever just around the corner, when we're threatened by "them".

    So they cook up laughable crises, like the "financial cliff", that sound very doomsday-ish.

    It works pretty well for them, apparently.

  •  It's part of the job. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    I remember hearing a figure once -- I think it was two to four hours -- and that's the number of hours each day, every day, that an elected official has to spend raising money for the next election.  I'm guessing that applies to those facing competitive races, but it's still an obscene amount of valuable time being spent on fundraising.

    Changing it would be a great idea, but it won't be easy to do.

  •  I agree with Anna. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Anna in PDX

    It pisses me off, and creates ill will for when fundraising begins in earnest.

    "I can't do it by myself. No president can. Remember: Change doesn't happen from the top. It happens because of you." B Obama, 2008

    by nzanne on Fri Dec 28, 2012 at 12:28:46 PM PST

  •  Simple answer (0+ / 0-)

    One time donors are great - habitual donors are much, much better.  As you said, you've already given a lot of money - so you're a great prospect for fundraisers.  Those fundraisers want to make sure that you keep giving to their cause.  They are afraid that if you start making donations to, i.e., the Red Cross in the meantime,  then when the next election comes around, you won't be a Democratic donor anymore.  You'll be a Red Cross donor.  So they keep reaching out.  

    The other thing is that there are SO MANY organizations out there.  Every Democratic organization is going to be trying to get its hands on the list of 2012 donors.  And every single one of those organizations, working on its own, will be reaching out to you, the great prospect.  So you're going to be flooded.

    All you can do is tell them to remove you from their list - unsubscribe from e-mails, and firmly tell anyone on the phone to remove you from all solicitation and contact.  

    •  Well but elections are not every day (0+ / 0-)

      They are every two/four/six years.  Their idea that I will be too busy doing something else when the next election rolls around if I don't donate to them all the time sounds goofy to me.  

      And I think that donors like me tend to give even more in election years because we are naturally generous people who want to do good things with our money.  I can give to both the Red Cross AND the Obama campaign.  Seems to me the fundraiser would wnat to balance the risk of alienating their most loyal donors through outrage fatigue or whatever with the possible reward of me becoming ever more generous to them as they increase the number of outrageous emails they send.

      How is my campaign donation for 2016 or 2018 going to help because of the fiscal cliff stuff happening right now, for instance (real content of actual email I received from someone who won't be running for 4 years)?  The pleas for money don't even have to make any sense.

      •  I would agree with you (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Anna in PDX, Chi

        That it is goofy, if I hadn't worked in fundraising myself.  Habitual donors are by FAR the best donors.  It is much easier to get a gift from someone who gave last year than someone that last gave two years ago, which is again much easier than someone that last gave four years ago.  

        They are conditioning you to habitually give to political campaigns.  Of course, they can't pitch it that way, so you see e-mails about the fiscal cliff - they have to design a message of IMMEDIATE EMERGENCY ALL HANDS ON DECK!  It's very silly, and one more reason I don't give to political campaigns.  

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site