I’ve already complained about Senator Ed Markey’s breathless emails ominously predicting that an influx of outside money backing Republican Senate candidate Brian Herr (who?) is going to start any minute now. But the latest, which arrived today, really irked me, so I’m complaining again. Here it is.
Dear Blue,
Outside spending — in New Hampshire and around the country — is at historic levels, and it could easily come our way next.
Bay Staters are feeling the effects of the unprecedented outside spending just to our north. And since Boston-based TV stations serve southern New Hampshire, many of us are seeing the ads, too.
With so much outside money sloshing around, we have to make sure our grassroots campaign is prepared for some of it to land here. Can you help us get $5 closer to our $36,000 goal before this month’s FEC filing deadline?
…
The Koch brothers, Karl Rove, and special interest groups who are trying to influence our elections can change a race in a heartbeat. They have hundreds of millions of dollars to spend, and they’re not shy about throwing their weight around.
Their goal is to knock people like me out of the Senate so they can force through their anti-middle class agenda. But I’ve got something they don’t — a team of grassroots supporters who can stand up to anything.
We’re halfway through the month, and we need a strong finish to the FEC fundraising quarter. Please give $5 or whatever you can to help us keep fighting.
Thanks for your help.
Ed
Markey is, of course, correct that there’s a lot of third-party spending going on in New Hampshire. But that’s because, as he very well knows, New Hampshire Senator Jeanne Shaheen may have a hard-fought battle on her hands this year. Scott Brown is running, as are former Senator Bob Smith and another Republican; any of them could give her a tough race.
What any of this has to do with donating to Ed Markey remains a mystery. The notion that the anti-Shaheen spending is somehow going to transform the Markey-Herr race into anything but “Safe D” (which is how everyone in the country sees it right now) strikes me as utterly fanciful. Markey draws exactly the wrong lesson from the outside spending taking place in NH. The response shouldn’t be to send more money to candidates like him, who don’t need it (on 3/31/14, the end of the last FEC reporting period, Ed Markey had over $1.6 million cash on hand; Brian Herr had a little over $10,000). It should be to send money to candidates like Shaheen, who do.
There is a science to sending out email solicitations. While I am not familiar with the details of the Markey campaign, here is how it is generally done:
A media firm that specializes in email solicitations is generally used. Before an email is sent to the entire email list, “test” emails are sent to measure the response. The purpose of the “test” emails is to test the subject line, the content, and the amount of the ask. During testing, various options are tried. Depending on the results, the final email is sent out.
So, the emails that you received, David, might be tests, or they might be the real deal. If they are being blasted to Markey’s entire email list, then they’ve passed the test, and they are effective. These email messages might not work for you, but they apparently work for other people.
Here’s my advice, David. If you don’t like Markey’s email messages, just Unsubscribe.
My point is that Markey doesn’t need the money, and campaign donations are zero-sum for a lot of people (i.e., if I send $1,000 to Markey, that’s $1,000 out of my political donation budget that isn’t going to someone else). Markey could do a lot more good for the causes that are important to him by raising money for people who actually have a serious race this fall, instead of padding his own campaign account that he’s probably barely going to have to dip into to keep his seat.
Supposed to be an uprate. I agree entirely.
First, I disagree that Ed Markey doesn’t need the money. Have we forgotten how Martha Coakley lost to Scott Brown? Have we forgotten about Eric Cantor’s loss? Kudos to Ed Markey for not taking anything for granted.
Second, I disagree with your connection of these emails to a gift of $1,000. These email messages are not asking anybody to give $1,000. Usually they are asking for around $5.
Campaigning for Grimes, Weiland, and Merkley to name a few off my head and Tierney more locally. To be fair, she isn’t running this year, but to be fair, Brian Herr is no Gabby Gomez let alone Scott Brown. The ads are also misleading-implying Koch dollars are being spent here and his race is as tough as Sheehan’s. It’s be one thing if he was sending these to raise money for key races and didn’t have a record-shared with Meehan-of hoarding campaign cash instead of sharing the wealth with vulnerable incumbents or plucky insurgents in close races. Sorry Ed-my money will go to Berwick.
Yes, your comments sound just like a recent office-holder who was far ahead in the polls. His opponent was a nobody. As you suggested, that guy spent time raising money for others, even though he was up for re-election. After, he was completely safe. His name is Eric Cantor.
Kudos to Ed Markey for not taking anything for granted.
I’ll be as worried about Ed’s reelection as you are.
The voters of Massachusetts look the same as the voters in Virginia’s 7th district in one important way. They can change their minds rapidly. Consider the recent events in Iraq, for example. President Obama’s favorability rating sank considerably in the past few days. A similar event, closer to election day, can cause a wave that changes peoples votes. Candidates need to have resources to respond to changing conditions and to respond to unexpected attacks from the Koch brothers.
Yes, I’ve donated to Ed Markey’s campaign, and I encourage others to join me.
Tell me, bluewatch, how we make campaigns understand how brutally alienating their relentless online campaigns are.
It used to be every quarter, but now it’s every month, that we get dozens of messages about the upcoming fundraising “deadline.” Meanwhile, no piece of legislation is ever a rush.
My classic example is still from last year, when Scott Brown dropped a mere hint of running in New Hampshire, and within 12 hours I got four messages: Shaheen, Shaheen’s people forwarding the same message, NHDP, and DSCC.
How do we tell them that, as activists, we are used to paying attention, and that this drumbeat alienates us from the process?
Sure these campaigns “work” — they’re measured financially. But they are disheartening, often craven … contrary to what we fight for.
How do we tell them?
“I just wanted to make sure you saw this email.” then begin forwarded message. Of course I saw it! You sent it to the same account yesterday and I’m in no better financial position to give today than I was yesterday!
I understand that it seems like campaigns are relentlessly sending out email solicitations. But, please look at how it is viewed from the side of the campaign: The campaigns need the money, and these relentless messages are working. Many people respond.
So, if you want to tell them not to send you the messages, there is a simple solution: UNSUBSCRIBE. You don’t have to receive these email messages. You also don’t have to read them.
My message is not “I don’t want these messages, please don’t send them.”
My message is “This type of relentless professional fundraising is killing our party.”
And need is a relative term. Did Elizabeth Warren and Scott Brown need every dime they spent on their race? I highly doubt it.
I understand how they view the messages, and how they work tactically. So do bombs, and they’re not right either.
To me, the fundamental problem is not the emails. The fundamental problem is the corrosive role that money is currently playing in our politics. Incidentally, the emails are only one aspect. The candidates also hate the relentless phone calls to donors and continous fundraisers. The entire process is frustrating and never-ending.
I didn’t write our current campaign finance laws, and I don’t like them either. I just think that we need to use the current rules in order to elect people who can change the rules.
It’s also time that activists and fundraisers work together. We have a common goal, which is to elect progressives who share our values.
Disclosure: I am a volunteer. I am not a professional fundraiser.
… don’t exonerate the campaigns.
Another example: when I signed up as a volunteer for Obama, I was given a personal page. A permanent link on this page shows how much I’ve donated. I did make a small donation, but it was before I signed up officially and through Act Blue, so it didn’t show up.
In order to engage with the campaign (and I needed the site to do so), I had to see this big bold 0 every time.
Other organizations have picked up this tactic, by the way, even ones I’ve never officially signed up for or donated to (they put it in their e-mails). You’re right, the focus on money is corrosive, but it’s not the rules. (Not all the rules anyway.) It’s the players. We’ve already in a position to change it. It seems like ancient history now, but in 2009 and 2010 we had both houses of Congress and the White House.
“already been in” a position to change the rules.
It’s a classic dilemma really. Are concussions a problem in the NFL? Not for the owners. They don’t have to worry about the players once they’re off the field.