Lemonsoup14/Shutterstock
It’s hardly news that big changes are needed in how Democrats and progressives donate money — and how candidates and electoral groups do their fundraising. Too many donors, harassed by an endless onslaught of emails and texts, make bad decisions about where to give. They donate for races that aren’t competitive, campaigns that don’t need more money and PACs or party committees with a spotty record of success.
A bunch of organizations are working to solve this problem. They include Mind the Gap and Focus for Democracy, which are presenting donors with evidence-backed giving options; Movement Voter Project and Way to Win, which get donor dollars to grassroots groups; and Swing Left and Sister District, both of which offer curated candidate recommendations.
All this good work, though, has barely made a dent in the patterns of Democratic political giving — or ended egregious cases of wasted money. For example, Marcus Flowers raised $15 million this cycle for a race against Majorie Taylor Greene that he (predictably) lost by nearly 40 points — even as House candidates in tight but winnable races found themselves underfunded.
Changing donor behavior isn’t easy, especially when so many candidates, PACs and consultants are cashing in on careless, fear-driven giving by millions of Democrats.
One thing that might help is more insight into how political donors make decisions. To date, survey research in this area has been limited. We don’t know much about how donors on the left set priorities, what sources of information they trust, and what might prompt them to give more and in different ways.
That’s why Blue Tent collaborated with Donor Organizer Hub and seven other progressive fundraising networks to conduct a national survey of political donors. The survey was distributed between November 15 and December 6, generating 1,215 responses. Those who took the survey are not representative of left-of-center donors overall, in that all have some connection to a fundraising network. Respondents were also more likely to be female and to give at higher levels than average donors. Still, the findings of the survey are revealing and lay out a roadmap for future work to improve how donors give. Let’s take a closer look.
Sources of information
During election season, many of us have received — or sent — panicked emails that plead for help in figuring out where to make donations. Often, donors feel like they’re groping in the dark for reliable advice. So where do donors end up getting their information? And how much confidence do they have in it?
Asked to choose from a list of sources, survey respondents cited “reading the news” as their top source (73%), followed by candidates (70%) and their “own research or the internet” (58%). Only a third cited funding intermediaries as informing their giving.
These findings aren’t encouraging. News coverage of elections tends to be superficial, mostly focused on high-profile federal races, and even readers who drill into more specialized sources, like 538, are unlikely to learn much about down-ballot state races or the funding needs of candidates (i.e., who really needs more money). Such coverage also typically pays little attention to grassroots groups doing GOTV work, or how giving to these groups can be a great investment for smaller donors.
Meanwhile, it should go without saying that donors can’t trust candidates — or at least the consultants who write their fundraising appeals, which routinely feature misleading information about polls and the financial needs of campaigns.
Independent funding intermediaries, along with advisory resources like Blue Tent, offer donors high-quality advice grounded in research and transparent methodologies. But these sources remain off the radar of most political donors on the left. The only funding intermediaries that have broken through to a significant share of donors are Democratic Party committees, such as the DNC, DCCC and DSCC. Nearly 70% of respondents say they made donations to these entities. In contrast, only a small share of respondents had used Swing Left (20%), Movement Voter Project (15%) and Sister District (12%) — three entities that Blue Tent strongly recommends to donors. A third of respondents said they had given through Emily’s List, which has been around since the 1980s and is well known.
Blue Tent does not recommend any of the Democratic Party committees to donors as a vehicle for giving to federal races and also doesn’t recommend Emily’s List. (See analyses of these entities here.)
Despite the findings above, a majority of survey respondents (79%) said they “often” or “always” had enough reliable information to guide their giving and 65% said they had confidence their money is used effectively.
Timing giving and setting priorities
Leaders in Democratic politics and progressive organizing have long been pleading for donors to give as early as possible in election cycles. Early money allows campaigns and organizations to better plan and make key investments, as Blue Tent has explained here.
That message seems to be getting through. More than a quarter said they started giving at least a year before elections, while another 12% said they donate in an ongoing way. Only 15% said they gave two months before an election or later.
On the other hand, most donors still haven’t yet bought into arguments that their money will have more impact in less-expensive — but increasingly important — down-ballot state races. Respondents were twice as likely to say they prioritized federal races in their giving.
Likewise, the case for prioritizing organizations over candidates has gotten limited traction. Blue Tent has strongly argued that giving for organizing offers donors more bang for the buck — by both helping to swing elections and to build power over the long term. Movement Voter Project was founded in 2015 to offer a new conduit for supporting grassroots electoral groups and Way to Win embraces a similar strategy. While both these groups have succeeded at raising large sums, their approach still exists on the fringes of Democratic political fundraising. A majority of survey respondents said they mainly give to candidates; only 15% said they prioritize organizations.
Making choices
Lots of arguments can be made to spur donors to give to a specific candidate or group. But which are most persuasive to donors? We asked donors to tell us, offering a menu of possible factors that shape their decisions and asking respondents to rank them in order of importance.
The top factor cited for choosing candidates was whether they were in a race that would “affect control of a federal or state legislative chamber,” (44%), followed by whether they were in a competitive race (23%) and who the candidate’s opponent was (16%). Very few respondents cited how well-funded the candidate was, a key criterion that Blue Tent uses in making recommendations — since donors can get more value from supporting underfunded candidates in competitive, high-stakes races.
As for what influences giving to organizations, respondents cited firsthand knowledge of the group or “other reasons” as the top factor, and “quantitative evidence that my donation will have an impact” as the second most important factor. They also ranked a preference for “state or local grassroots groups with strong ties to communities” over “well-known national groups.”
Funding intermediaries had little influence over the choice of either candidates or organizations, the survey found — again underscoring the limited reach of these entities.
What would make donors give more?
Despite the growing river of money flowing into Democratic politics and progressive organizations since 2016, left-of-center Americans still donate way less money than they can and should given what’s at stake. Only about 1.5% of all Americans gave $200 or more in the 2020 cycle to federal candidates and PACs and just 0.5% did in 2022, according to OpenSecrets.
More Democratic giving could help offset the structural political advantages the GOP enjoys thanks to the electoral college and the Senate. Blue America has a major financial advantage in the competition for power, with the counties that voted for Joe Biden in 2020 accounting for 71% of U.S. gross domestic product. The major inflow of new money since 2016 to groups and candidates on the left has already greatly bolstered Democratic fortunes, helping fuel gains in the past three election cycles. A marked increase in giving could magnify and extend that impact — assuming this money is well-targeted.
What might catalyze such greater giving? To get at that multibillion-dollar question, we asked survey takers who had increased their giving to say what factors — other than the political climate — had spurred them to give more. The two most cited factors were outreach from a political campaign and outreach from a grassroots organization. This finding tracks with decades of research on charitable fundraising that has found people are more likely to give if they are asked to do so. Meanwhile, nearly 30% of respondents said they had been “persuaded by metric-based research” that their donations would make a difference. Just under 20% cited getting involved with a funding intermediary.
We also asked respondents what changes they would like to see in political fundraising. Predictably, a very large majority (75%) said they wanted fewer emails and text solicitations. They also said they wanted these fundraising appeals to feature “less panic and urgency,” and “more analysis and logic.” Along similar lines, nearly two-thirds said they wanted more “evidence-based research that shows what kinds of giving, or what organizations, are most effective,” and “better communication/transparency from candidates and organizations about how my money will be, or was, spent.”
Political donors, it seems, clearly want to be manipulated less and respected more.
The work ahead
The findings of this survey carry a few lessons for those working to catalyze more giving and smarter giving by Democrats and progressives.
The biggest takeaway here is that conventional fundraising by Democratic candidates, party committees and well-known PACs is still the main pathway by which donors are engaged and give money. In contrast, the newer funding intermediaries have a long way to go before they influence a major share of donors. Even though these groups have greatly expanded their reach since 2016, relatively few donors know about them or follow their guidance.
That reality has two implications. First, intermediaries still have enormous room to grow and expand their market share, if they can mobilize resources to do so. That in turn requires stepping up efforts to educate donors — especially those who can underwrite capacity-building — about why it’s better to invest in ways that center approaches like long-term organizing, evidence-based research, and rigorously curated candidate recommendations. Clearly, these ideas have barely penetrated the progressive world, and until that happens, the work to scale the new intermediaries will move slowly.
In the meantime, efforts to change how candidates, PACs and party committees operate will be hugely important, given their dominant role. These players need to be pushed to engage donors with more respect and transparency and to meet people’s growing appetite for more rigor and evidence-based analysis. That means curbing the nonstop harassment of donors by email and text, while better substantiating fundraising appeals by explaining what the money will be used for and what impact donations will have.
Donors aren’t dumb and they want to stop being treated like they are. The more donors have confidence in the process and that their giving makes a difference, the more they are likely to give.
Overall, what’s needed is a two-track strategy of promoting the new universe of intermediaries, and reforming the existing world of Democratic fundraising. Both these pathways are important. And if both can function better, it should be possible to unlock a larger share of the wealth of Blue America for political change and target that money with greater impact.
More money that’s better spent won’t change American politics on its own. But it can definitely make a difference.