Will Political Fundraising Harm Your Bottom Line?

April 11, 2016      Roger Craver

As Bernie Sanders’ Presidential campaign nears the $150 million mark in small gift (average $27) fundraising, and as record amounts pour into the rest of the Presidential primary campaigns, there’s no doubt that nonprofit CEOs and Boards will be wondering: How will all that political giving impact support for our organization this year?

The answer: It’s not likely to hurt other nonprofits. In fact, some nonprofits — especially advocacy organizations — will benefit.

That’s the conclusion of Giving In An Election Year: How Political Giving Impacts Nonprofit Support, a Blackbaud study prepared by Chuck Longfield, Chris Dann and Jim O’Shaughnessy. You can download the study free of charge here.

PartiesFor the 40+ years I worked in both nonprofit and political fundraising, a quadrennial question from boards and CEOs was “How will the Presidential campaigns affect our fundraising?” No doubt many Agitator readers are getting the same question from leaders in their organizations.

So, here’s a a summary of the Blackbaud findings based on the 2012 campaigns and a study of giving to 143 501( c ) (3) organizations across the major sectors.

  • Donors who gave to federal political campaigns in 2012, gave 0.9% more to charitable organizations that same year as they had in 2011;
  • Donors who did not give to political campaigns reduced their giving by 2.1%;
  • Giving to advocacy groups (classified in the Public, Society Benefit and Environmental sectors by Blackbaud) saw their giving increase the most;
  • The study’s findings suggest that the 400,000 political donors who gave in 2012 are also extraordinary charitable givers. They gave $800 million in political gifts in 2012, while also giving more to charity in the same year.

Lessons learned?

  • The study’s authors note that the alignment of campaign issues with a nonprofit’s mission and programs might make 2016 a good year to place some acquisition bets.
  • Major donors whose engagement in politics is known (The Federal Elections Commission reports) are good prospects for nonprofits whose missions match the donors’ political passions. Make inquiry into this part of your major donor prospect research.
  • Watch the online and offline fundraising tactics of the Presidential campaigns for two reasons — they often produce new techniques/approaches, and, for some nonprofits, they rally new advocates and donors around complementary missions.

For more on this important subject read Tom’s post Leverage the Political Noise.

In an earlier post Making the Most of a Charged Political Climate I recounted some of the decades-long fundraising experience of advocacy organizations in a Presidential election year:

“Bottom line: Take advantage of the climate. Seize the opportunity to drive up the volumes to bring in a maximum number of donors. AND … plan to make a substantial investment in retaining those donors.”

How has the Presidential campaign season affected your fundraising plans for this year and next?

Roger

2 responses to “Will Political Fundraising Harm Your Bottom Line?”

  1. Judy Levine says:

    It’s actually 2008 that is the right comparison year – no incumbent, huge passion that the world could be changed by the result. My memory is that it was very hard to get donors’ attention by the early Fall. Do you know if anyone is doing a study using that election as a base?

    2012 was pretty tame (in terms of the factors that affect giving) – I don’t think that’s going to tell us as much…

  2. Harry Lynch says:

    Roger, I appreciate the hard data from Blackbaud but have been very sorry to see the attention that it’s getting. In my 30+ years in fundraising (I definitely stopped counting at 30!) I’ve been through many Presidential election cycles as well, and I caution anyone who will listen that 2012 was *far* from representative or typical of the impact. I have little more than *a lot* of anecdotal evidence from over the decades, but in my experience each Presidential cycle has out played very differently for nonprofits – i.e. had very different impact, required different adjustments to tactics and scheduling, and also offered different opportunities.

    The questions to be considered every four years are unique, and the answers (as best we can divine them) should have an impact on the timing of our fall appeals, and expectations for any election-related collateral damage.

    Questions such as … how passionate is the electorate? Are Americans pouring money into campaigns because they feel strongly? Is it a close race — or a yawn because one candidate has such a whopping lead? Is it a nail biter right up until the end – thus both pulling money from and distracting our donors all the way into early November? Or does the outcome become much clearer as the voting approaches? And last but far from least which side – progressive or conservative or both – is fired up and how does that line up with each nonprofit’s donor constituency?

    I certainly agree with your point that there is much to be learned. The cross-channel tactics being employed right now are amazing. But Bill Clinton vs. George H.W. Bush in 1992 was one thing … John Kerry vs. George W. Bush in the post 9/11 world of 2004 was another … and Donald Trump or Ted Cruz or even Paul Ryan … vs. Hilary or the Bern …well I think we may be in for quite a ride in 2016.

    Sorry for the rant! Please don’t dock my Agitator salary!