Running For Office? A Fresh Fund Raising Proposal
While participating in a recent Congressional campaign the strategy session turned towards fund raising as it so often does. The campaign like most campaigns was strapped for cash and the discussion turned towards holding a money bomb. What is a money bomb? A money bomb is a previously specified time period, usually a day (24 hours), when a candidate's supporters pool their donations in an attempt to raise a shed load of campaign funds in a short period of time. In addition to raising money, it is also an attempt to gain media attention. Ron Paul's grassroots supporters originated and perfected the money bomb concept. Over $4 million was raised during the November 5th money bomb and over $6 million for the Tea Party event on December 16th last year. Since then the economy has only worsened and the money bomb totals have dwindled.
An idea struck me during the fund raising discussion. I immediately shot the idea down in my head, but then reconsidered mentioning it after further thought. I proposed a money bomb guarantee. The campaign would refund all donations made on the money bomb day following the primary if the candidate lost the primary.
I believed it would create a local media stir and help the candidate with name recognition. It would also immediately pry open the closed minds of some anti-politics-as-usual voters. From the contributor's perspective it would be economically attractive in trying economic times. Most of all it would send the message that the candidate was serious about trying to win and serious about being fiscally responsible.
The candidate himself shot the idea down and then those on the paid staff shot it down as well. The candidate was brutally honest with his reason. His exact words were, "But the campaign needs money." The others had concerns about the legality of promising refunds. I realize this is a hard thing to swallow for a candidate without the necessary resources to run an effective campaign. To me that is an argument for trying the idea, not against it. After all it could win some free media attention for a campaign starved for it.
A variation of this concept would allow a contributor to choose whether or not they wish to participate in the money back guarantee. Some will decide against it merely because they appreciate the candidate making the option available. It is a demonstration of integrity. Voters appreciate when a candidate finds a way to put his money where his rhetoric is.
To this day I still don't know if it is legal, but I think it is still a viable strategy to transform a standard money bomb into something fresh. I feel the benefits far outweigh the negatives. I for one would certainly be encouraged by a candidate agreeing to this. Some may view it as a salesman type gimmick and label it 'politics-as-usual'. Most would see it as a novel approach to an old problem. How would you see it?
- Marc Gallagher's blog
- Login or register to post comments
- 50 reads
print
Recommended Reading
Blogs
- Ron Shimshock
- Thomas L. Knapp
- Thomas L. Knapp
- Ron Shimshock
- atmliberty
- Thomas L. Knapp
Comments
The moneybomb is always a good thing to consider... but there's a point where you have to ask yourself whether or not you should try a different method of raising money. If the goal is to get attention on the internet from communities (such as the Ron Paul Forums), you cannot expect to do amazingly well. This is because the communities are sometimes flooded with moneybombs. Perhaps the event should be focused on a local level, and built up from there...
This money-back-guarantee has not been tried, as far as I know. Jim Forsythe gave back donations after he dropped out, but there was no guarantee during the donation events: he was just being nice. You said this would happen if they lost their primary... but what if they have already won their primary and are raising money for the general? I'm also wondering what would happen if the candidate cannot afford to give any money back. After all, money towards a campaign is usually spent by the campaign up to the primary or election.
Jeremy,
Yes... the idea of having it on a single day and maybe giving people an option to accept the money back guarantee is the way to go. All campaigns seem to have problems raising enough money no matter what their totals are.
I look at this as a "gimmick" to raise name recognition rather than an actual fund raising activity. It just so happens that the activity involves campaign fund raising. The question is... will the novelty of the guarantee garner enough media attention so that the money (if it has to be returned) pays for that media attention indirectly?
That largely depends on the amount raised and how well the "bomb" has been promoted. I would expect, if the local media jumps on the story ahead of time, the donations may increase.
So viewing it as singularly a fund raising activity isn't the idea. It is the novelty of it that I would hope would help gain free media and get the candidate's message out there to more people.