The grassroots dilemma
ANDREW MORIN: Ongoing shifts have revolutionized the world of campaign finance. While much focus has been, rightly, on Super PACs and large donors in the wake of the Citizens United decision, a similarly significant trend has been the massive growth in online and grassroots fundraising. This fundraising has tapped into an ever-increasing pool of small donations, often going directly to campaigns. At the same time, however, this change has opened up new risks.
This is because of the tradeoff that has accompanied the rise of grassroots support. ActBlue, the Democratic online fundraising platform, has raised over $8 billion since its launch in 2004. It is a vital resource for Democrats. While such support allows campaigns to tap into new streams of resources and democratizes the fundraising battle, it also leads to allocating resources that are increasingly detached from coherent national strategies. In 2016, ActBlue raised just $207 million in 2016 across all of its campaigns. In 2020, they raised $1.5 billion in the third quarter alone. Although this might be seen as a positive thing for Democratic campaigns, it does not seem correlated with electoral success. Of the ten most expensive House races in 2020—totaling $245 million in spending, none ended with a margin of victory under 5% while half had a margin of over 20%, signaling an improper allocation of resources to the close races where they might have made a difference.
2020 saw perhaps more examples of this phenomenon than ever before. In Kentucky, Amy McGrath raised $94 million to defeat Republican Senate Leader Mitch McConnell. She lost by nearly 20%, giving McConnell his largest margin of victory in eighteen years. In South Carolina, Jaime Harrison shattered fundraising efforts, raising $109 million in his challenge to Republican Senator Lindsay Graham. He still lost by 10%, barely outperforming Joe Biden in the state.
This phenomenon is by no means limited to the left. A clear example is Kim Klacik, a 2020 Republican challenger for an open Baltimore Congressional seat. After winning just 25% of the vote in the April special election, she released a viral ad and received more than $8 million from Republican donors. She managed to increase her vote share to 28% in the November election—more than $2 million for every percentage point she gained. Republicans also targeted progressive Democrats like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Ilhan Omar, spending tens of millions of dollars in New York City and Minneapolis. Perhaps the most notable example comes from Omar Navarro, a three-time challenger to California Democrat Maxine Waters. Navarro notably raised over $1 million while competing for a Los Angeles seat and took the “highly irregular” step of paying himself a salary from campaign donations. In 2020, he still raised tens of thousands despite running from prison, where he was serving a sentence for stalking.
The cycle has already begun anew. Four people already claim to be the Democrat who will challenge controversial Colorado Republican Lauren Boebert. According to Politico, one of them, State Senator Kerry Donovan, has already raised more than $600,000—more than a year before even the primaries start. While Democrats should compete in Colorado's 3rd district, investing so much money in a candidate who hasn’t yet been nominated is premature and likely an inefficient allocation of resources.
There are a few problems with this trend. The first is misallocation; when star Senate and House candidates raise tens of millions of others, other priorities pass by. State legislative raises are vital to both party’s chances, yet without strong party support they often go unnoticed. In 2020, despite record-breaking fundraising numbers, only around 3% of ActBlue fundraising went to the thousands of Democratic state legislative candidates. This may have contributed to the party’s failure to win any new statehouses last fall.
Beyond the opportunity cost of spending enormous sums on nearly-unwinnable races, there is also some evidence that the money does not help the races where it is employed. Diminishing returns have long been accepted in the campaign finance world. The multitude of costly races in 2020 further proves this. From Mike Bloomberg and Tom Steyer in the Democratic primaries to hundreds of candidates in the general election, the billions of new fundraising has had limited effects. While certainly successful at raising the profiles of candidates like McGrath and Harrison, it is decidedly less successful at actually winning elections.
Finally, the rise in small donors comes with a greater reliance on less-wealthy contributors for financial support. With polarization on the rise and fundraising emails aggressively underlining the need for more, millions of Americans feel compelled to donate to political candidates. Through more sophisticated fundraising operations and the simplicity of making online donations, it is easier than ever to give money to political candidates— even those who have slim chances of winning.
It is important to field candidates in every race. Unexpected victories can happen and candidates up and down the ballot can have mutually beneficial effects. These candidates do need money to operate effectively. There’s a difference, however, between affording campaign staff and finishing a campaign with millions of dollars still in the bank after months of expensive advertising. The unprecedented levels of communication and online engagement we have today warrant caution. While democratized fundraising has significant upsides, it is better paired with informed decisions and strategic thought than emotional reactions.
Andrew Morin is a freshman in the SFS from New York with an interest in Congressional politics and foreign policy.