The U.S. Supreme Court recently struck down limits on election spending. The cap on the total amount any individual can contribute to federal candidates is no longer restricted. This decision has energized many of my colleagues. I have noticed a renewed focus on courting whales (i.e., the 1%). And when everyone rows in the same direction – it’s time to jump ship and learn to swim again.

Crowdfunding is new. It is sexy. It has captured the imagination of many and it has recharged the entrepreneurial spirit in those of us with grit. Crowfunding is the practice of raising money from a large number of people to transform an idea into an enterprise. It is the key that starts the engine so the rubber finally meets the road.

The most intriguing fact about crowdfunding is that strangers do not fund campaigns. Only friends reach deep down into their wallet to financially support someone. This is how campaign finance should be done. It should build friendships with a multitude of donors. It should be authentic.

Millennials are not receptive to advertising through mainstream media outlets. The constant “push” of any political message supported by large campaign contributions will be embraced with smug disdain. The current Republican leadership must understand that…to sway a crowd you need to crowdfund.

Thanks for reading my eighth blog post.
The Republican Millennial


One Comment Add yours

  1. Crowd sourcing is a great answer, because a few million votes will make all the difference in the world, and poli-sci has long showed that on the ground campaigns are much more productive than advertising. In fact, I’m writing a paper on SuperPacs and the evidence so far suggests that they don’t actually affect election outcomes (pre-post test 2008 and 2012 with advent of Citizens United in 2010).

    practically from Political Pipeline: In every election, someone wins. In order to determine why Candidate A won, political scientists may look to campaigns. The campaign is a multi-faceted phenomena that: (1), disperses information which does structure vote decisions (Alverez 1997; Gelman and King 1993; Holbrook 1996; Joslyn 1990; Popkin 1991); (2), reinforces the retrospective model–voters look back at the economy or their job history, etc. and vote (Key 1966; Fiorina 1981); (3), may be observable upon the spectrum of ideology or issue–progressive liberals vote for the welfare state and conservatives are against redistribution (Downs 1957; Rabinowitz and MacDonald 1989); (4), exposes the party identification model–people just “Identify” as a Republican or Democrat and vote accordingly so campaigns play to the “base” to get out the vote (Campbell et al. 1960); (5) expresses the legislators commitment to or independence from national party programs–the people don’t even listen to the candidate because they know the Party will protect them from the crazies anyway to protect the Party reputation so campaigns can engage in risk-taking (i.e., surety model; Grynaviski 2010).

Start a conversation

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s