Category Archives: campaigns

“The Real Problem With the Democrats’ Ground Game”

campaigns, political parties

Russell Berman in The Atlantic:

They called it the “Big Send.” Democrats gathered in living rooms, libraries, and coffee shops across the country to write letters to millions of potential voters in swing states and competitive congressional districts, urging them to vote in November. During the 2020 pandemic election, the novel but decidedly 20th-century tactic had cut through the glut of digital messages that inundated Americans’ cellphones and inboxes, and organizers hoped it would similarly boost turnout for Democrats in 2024.

It did not.

In a study set to be released later today, the group behind the letter-writing effort, the nonpartisan Vote Forward, found that personal messages sent to more than 5 million occasional voters deemed at risk of staying home last fall had no effect on turnout. (The group’s campaign produced a modest increase in turnout among a second, slightly smaller set of low-propensity voters, but it still fell short of previous Vote Forward programs.) What’s unusual is not Vote Forward’s lackluster findings, but that the group is ready to tell the world about them. Every election, a constellation of progressive organizations sells donors and volunteers on the promise that their data-driven turnout programs will deliver victory at the polls. These mobilization efforts have taken on ever-greater importance in an era of tight elections, where the presidency and majorities in Congress can hinge on just a few thousand votes.

Progressive groups are only too happy to brag about their wins; they’re much less likely to divulge details about their campaigns that flopped. Driving this reticence is a fear that donations will dry up—or go to other organizations in a highly competitive campaign industry—if funders find out their money made little difference on the ground. In several instances, researchers told me, Democratic firms have either pushed them to suppress the results of studies that didn’t produce desired findings or cherry-picked data to make the numbers look better. “We have a people-pleasing problem in our party,” Max Wood, a progressive data scientist, told me.

Yasmin Radjy, the executive director of Vote Forward and its progressive campaign arm, Swing Left, is trying to change that culture. Just as Democrats are now debating, sometimes fiercely, why their party’s message failed last year, Radjy believes that to emerge from “the political wilderness,” they need to have candid conversations about their organizing and turnout efforts. Radjy has been frustrated by what she describes as Democrats’ lack of introspection and transparency. For months, she’s been asking party organizers and consultants what they learned in 2024, and what they’re going to do differently going forward. “We’ve got to actually be honest about both what works and what doesn’t work,” she told me. In the next election, “if we are serving volunteers, donors, and voters reheated leftovers from 2024, we are doing it wrong.”…

Share this:

“A Super PAC Is Encroaching on the DCCC’s Territory”

campaign finance, campaigns

NOTUS:

A super PAC with close ties to House Democratic leadership is taking a more active role with House candidates ahead of next year’s elections, expanding its political operation into the realm traditionally occupied by the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.

While many Democratic strategists and elected officials welcome the new hands-on approach from House Majority PAC, some question whether it excessively overlaps with the DCCC, reducing the committee’s role and ceding some responsibility for candidate management to the outside group.

Share this:

“Judge tosses Democratic Party challenge to Trump order’s impact on FEC”

campaign finance, campaigns, federal election commission

Politico:

A federal judge has dismissed a Democratic Party lawsuit claiming an executive order issued by President Donald Trump was intruding on the independence of the Federal Election Commission.

In a ruling Tuesday night, U.S. District Judge Amir Ali said the Democratic Party groups’ case was simply too speculative to justify emergency intervention from the court. The FEC had pledged to remain independent, had received no directive from the White House to change its practices and vowed to abide by the law. Without evidence undermining those promises, Ali said he was compelled to dismiss the suit.

The Democratic National Committee, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee filed the suit in February after Trump issued an executive order that sought to assert greater control over executive branch agencies that have traditionally operated with considerable independence from the White House.

From the court’s opinion, which finds the executive order to be more bark than bite (so far):

The possibility that the President and Attorney General would take the extraordinary step of issuing a directive to the FEC or its Commissioners purporting to bind their interpretation of FECA is not sufficiently concrete and imminent to create Article III injury. . . .

Here, the committees do not allege that the President or Attorney General has applied section seven of the executive order to the FEC or its Commissioners by purporting to issue an “authoritative” or “controlling” interpretation of FECA despite the FEC and its Commissioners’ statutorily protected independence. Exec. Order No. 14215 § 7. Nor do the committees plausibly allege the President or Attorney General plans to do so. And the Court cannot conclude from the text of section seven alone, which refers to executive employees generally and does not mention the FEC, that this type of extraordinary step by the President or Attorney General is certainly impending or a “substantial risk.”

Share this:

“Mike Lindell’s defamation trial begins Monday”

campaigns

Denver Gazette:

Former MyPillow CEO Mike Lindell will not be sleeping through his defamation trial. Lindell has decided to take the stand in his own defense in what the staunch MAGA supporter has coined “the trial of the century.” It starts Monday morning with jury selection at Denver’s Alfred A. Araj United States Courthouse. Opening statements are expected to be thirty minutes long and will likely be over by the end of the day.

The upcoming two-week trial, overseen by United States District Judge Nina Wang, stems from a defamation lawsuit filed in 2022 by Eric Coomer, a former Dominion Voting Systems employee, who alleges that Lindell accused him of rigging the 2020 election against President Trump during an “Antifa conference call.”

Share this:

“Judicial Candidates Try TikTok and Tinder in Mexico’s Sprawling Elections”

campaign finance, campaigns, cheap speech, judicial elections

I mentioned Mexico’s historic upcoming judicial elections a few days ago, but hadn’t then focused on the campaign finance regime.  Now the NYT digs a little deeper:

They weren’t allowed to buy ads on television, radio, billboards or online. Mexico barred them from public funding or receiving campaign contributions. National debates were difficult, if not impossible, to mount.

So people running to be judges across Mexico were largely left with social media.

In one widely seen video, one Supreme Court candidate argued that he was as well seasoned as the fried pork sold on the streets. Another Supreme Court candidate styled herself Dora the Transformer, a spin on the cartoon character Dora the Explorer. Another Supreme Court candidate used dating apps so that, in his words, prospective voters could match with justice and then chat about the issues.

The strict campaign limits, in contrast to traditional rules for presidential or congressional elections, are part of Mexico’s sprawling, first-ever elections on Sunday. Voters will choose nearly 2,700 federal and state judicial positions at every level of the courts, with federal seats, like those on the Supreme Court, chosen at the national level and a host of officials elected locally.

Share this:

“Elon Musk’s pro-Trump PAC failed to pay swing state petition signers, new suit alleges”

campaigns, chicanery

CNBC:

Elon Musk’s America PAC didn’t keep its promise to pay swing state voters who signed a pro-Trump petition ahead of the 2024 election, and who enlisted others to do the same, a new lawsuit alleges.

The case, a proposed national class action suit, was filed within the last week in a federal court in the Eastern district of Pennsylvania, a state that was viewed as critical to Donald Trump’s effort to return to the White House.

A related case was filed in April that only applied to residents of Pennsylvania.

Lead plaintiffs are three people who participated in the America PAC initiative while they were living in Pennsylvania, Nevada and Georgia. One formally worked as a canvasser for America PAC in Michigan and in Georgia, the complaint says.

In his efforts to propel Trump to victory, Musk spent around $300 million while also stumping at rallies and online for his preferred candidate. Musk, the world’s wealthiest person, had offered payments — initially $47 and later $100 — to those who signed a petition supporting his pro-Trump PAC. Additional payments were offered for each eligible person they referred who signed the petition.

Musk said the petitions showed support for the First Amendment and Second Amendment. The PAC viewed the awards as a way to drive voter registration and turnout in swing states.

The complaint says the plaintiffs are “in communication with numerous others who referred voters to sign the America PAC petition, who are likewise frustrated that they did not receive full payments for their referrals.” The group, represented by the law firm Lichten & Liss-Riordan, expects there to be “more than 100 Class Members,” with payments owed them “expected to exceed $5,000,000,” the filing says….

Share this:

“Trump, Raking In Cash, Expands His Power in the G.O.P. Money World”

campaign finance, campaigns

NYT:

President Trump is harnessing the Republican Party’s all-encompassing deference to him to exert even greater control over the G.O.P. big-money world, which had long been one of the party’s final remaining redoubts of Trump skepticism.

For years, the super PACs allied with House and Senate Republicans have been some of the most powerful and independent fiefs in American politics, raising and spending hundreds of millions of dollars in each election.

But even though Mr. Trump is in his second term and cannot run again, he is quickly bringing them inside his sphere of influence — a sign that his dominance over the party could endure well into the future.

Both super PACs, the Congressional Leadership Fund and the Senate Leadership Fund, have new leaders this year, and they are working closer than ever with the White House, overhauling their boards of directors and installing veteran Trump strategists in senior positions.

At the same time, Mr. Trump’s super PAC, MAGA Inc., and its allied nonprofit group have already amassed roughly $400 million since the 2024 election, according to two people briefed on the fund-raising who insisted on anonymity to discuss the organization’s finances. That sum is without precedent so early in an election cycle, especially for a termed-out president. The Trump super PAC is expected to play a major role in the midterm elections, scrambling the usual flow of cash and encroaching on the traditional dominion of the congressional super PACs.

The changes — both in personnel and financial firepower — amount to a fundamental reordering of Republican finance, and an extraordinary expansion of Mr. Trump’s already overwhelming sway. Interviews with senior Republicans allied with leaders on Capitol Hill reveal private fears about a power imbalance if the G.O.P.’s top super PACs are weakened and overly submissive to Mr. Trump.

The concerns are especially acute in the House, where Speaker Mike Johnson owes his post largely to Mr. Trump. His allies fear not only for their independence but also for how this will play out when the president’s personal resentments and agenda are at odds with the political priorities of the Republican leaders of the chambers, dividing the G.O.P. and potentially delivering an edge to Democrats….

Share this:

“D.N.C. Will Send More Cash to Red States, Aiming to Strengthen Party’s Reach”

campaigns, political parties

NYT:

The Democratic National Committee is pledging to give tens of thousands of dollars monthly to every state party across the country, emphasizing red states over blue ones, in an expansive — and expensive — push to make Democrats competitive from Alaska to Florida.

The D.N.C. will spend more than $1 million a month on the 50-state program, which is increasing the organization’s monthly cash donations to state parties in red states by 50 percent and in blue states by 30 percent.

The extra money to red states, the D.N.C. argues, is to build long-term infrastructure in places where it is currently lacking to create possibilities in elections beyond just the upcoming midterms. The monthly price tag: $17,500 to each state party in a blue state, and $22,500 in a red state. (The party has a formula that looks at governor, Senate, House and state legislative seats to determine whether a state is red or blue.)

Share this:

ELB Podcast 6:7: Combatting False Election Information: Lessons from 2024 and a Look to the Future (Marwick, Starbird, Tucker)

campaigns, cheap speech, ELB Podcast

Season 6, Episode 7 of the ELB Podcast:

How did campaigning and false information in campaigns change in the 2024 elections?

What role did platform content moderation play in 2024?

Is generative AI going to change campaigns in 2028 and beyond?

On Season 6, Episode 7 of the ELB podcast, a roundtable with Alice Marwick, Kate Starbird, and Joshua Tucker.

You can subscribe on Soundcloud, Apple Podcasts, and Spotify.

Share this:

“Musk Political Group Takes on Local Races and New Targets”

campaign finance, campaigns

Wall Street Journal:

As Elon Musk’s government-shrinking operation slashed its way through federal agencies across Washington this month, one of his top lieutenants turned his attention to a smaller political arena, more than 2,000 miles away.

Chris Young, the top political strategist to Elon Musk who is also a senior adviser at Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency, joined a video call last week with a Nevada political consultant to discuss how Musk’s America PAC could help turn Nevada’s seven-seat Clark County Commission Republican and shape the political landscape in Nevada, people familiar with the call said.  

After spending hundreds of millions of dollars backing Donald Trump’s presidential campaign, America PAC is now exploring local races. Republican candidates across the country are wooing the group for support for the 2026 midterm elections and other political efforts. In Georgia, gubernatorial candidates have asked the group to play a role in that race, according to people familiar with the outreach. In other 2026 battleground states, including Arizona, Senate candidates have also reached out to the group. 

Share this:

“Meta vows to curtail false content, deepfakes ahead of Australia election”

campaigns

Reuters:

Facebook and Instagram-owner Meta Platforms said on Tuesday its independent fact-checking program in Australia would help detect and remove false content and deepfakes, as it aims to curb misinformation ahead of a national election due by May.

In a blog post, the social media company said any content that could lead to imminent violence and physical harm, and interfere with voting would be removed, while the distribution of misleading content through its platforms would be curtailed.

“When content is debunked by fact-checkers, we attach warning labels to the content and reduce its distribution in Feed and Explore so it is less likely to be seen,” said Cheryl Seeto, Meta’s Head of Policy in Australia.

News agencies Agence France-Presse and the Australian Associated Press will review the content for Meta, Seeto said.

Meta scrapped its U.S. fact-checking programs in January and reduced curbs on discussions around contentious topics such as immigration and gender identity, bowing to pressure from conservatives to implement the biggest overhaul of its approach to managing political content on its services.

Share this:

“Some Wisconsin voters received inaccurate information in the mail. The response may be a sign of the times.”

campaigns

Wisconsin Public Radio on a cautionary tale of relying too heavily on out-of-state help:

Last week, some Wisconsin voters began receiving postcards reminding them to vote in an upcoming election.

The notes were backing Susan Crawford, the liberal candidate in the high-stakes Wisconsin Supreme Court race. They briefly described her background and encouraged voters to head to the polls.

The problem? The postcards gave the wrong date. The actual election takes place on Tuesday, April 1. The postcards said it was 10 days later — on a Friday.

The wrong information most likely stemmed from a misunderstanding, when out-of-state volunteers, following a script from an advocacy group, misread an exclamation point as the number one. That would change “April 1!” to “April 11.”

Share this:

“Despite Musk, progressives are winning the ad war in Wisconsin”

campaign finance, campaigns, judicial elections

The Downballot:

Despite Elon Musk’s multi-million dollar spending spree, progressives retain an advantage on the airwaves in Wisconsin’s Supreme Court race—and now they’re making an issue of Musk’s involvement, too. At the same time, a rare poll shows liberal Judge Susan Crawford leading her opponent, former Republican Attorney General Brad Schimel, ahead of their April 1 showdown.

On the advertising front, new data from AdImpact shows that Crawford and her allies have spent $17 million to date versus $12 million for Schimel’s side. Conservatives hold a small edge in future reservations, $6.3 million to $5.8 million, but that gap is a fraction of the $7 million advantage Schimel and his supporters enjoyed just two weeks ago…

Share this: