Put Her In Stocks!
No, not the financial kind!
The Washington Post, in an article fittingly titled In Fundraising's Murky Corners, details the shameful shennanigans of Linda Chavez, who managed to raise about $24.5 million through a series of PACs, but disbursed only 1% for their stated purposes — “fight to save unborn lives,” fighting “big labor bosses,” and attacking “liberal politics in the country.”
Abetted by her husband, Chavez (a one-time Bush nominee for Labor Secretary) raised these funds over a four year period via direct mail and telemarketing. In other words, from trusting small donors who believe passionately in these causes.
Now The Agitator has no sympathy for these causes, but we do have deep respect for the right of individual citizens to pursue their political beliefs by contributing to PACs, candidates and advocacy groups.
These are the average citizens Chavez screwed, undermining the political process in a fundamental way.
For that, she should be put in stocks … the wooden kind! Maybe at the base of the Washington Monument. The $262,500 in Federal Election Commission fines she is quietly paying is not commensurate with the offense, and permits her to dismiss the sordid business as a mere reporting matter.
The point of stocks, physical discomfort aside, was public humiliation. That seems a fitting punishment for a political player who basically conned her fellow citizens. And not just any citizens at that, but folks with whom she claimed profound moral common cause. In other words, a friend stabbing a friend in the back.
Are we clear about where we stand?!
Roger & Tom
Behavioral Science Q & A
Integrating an individual giving appeal with other communications from a charity can have both positive and negative effects, and the outcome largely depends on how it’s executed. Advantages of Integration Brand Consistency: Maintaining a consistent appearance and messaging across all communications can reinforce the org’s brand identity and strengthen brand recognition and trust among your […]
Read Full Answer
I’m not aware of any in-market tests specifically comparing recurring vs. gift frequency language. I suspect the answer might not be the same with all gift frequencies, nor with all people. It sounds like a great opportunity for you to test and find out what works for your audience. Based on the literature, here’s a couple […]
Read Full Answer
Based on what we know from existing data, those renewal notices can actually be pretty effective in getting people to donate. They tap into our psychology – creating a sense of urgency, reminding us of past support, and using personalization to make the message hit home. They’re playing on our natural tendencies to feel obligated […]
Read Full Answer
Interesting question. I had a quick look at the testing done on this topic. On the positive side, in all cases, over half of donors decide to cover the fee. In some cases, it goes as high as 65%. Not a negligible percentage at all. Here’s another test from iRaiser showing consistent results (see point […]
Read Full Answer
There’s just one thing to consider when designing a supporter journey: the supporter. More specifically, you need to take into account: Who the supporter is i.e. their identity, which is the reason they support this cause, and their personality, which describes the way they “see” and process the world. These will determine the kind of […]
Read Full Answer
I’m not an expert in this but a quick search surfaced this article on the effect of tax reforms on 2019’s charitable giving. The researchers didn’t find a reduction. Actually, they observed an “increase in charitable contributions in 2019, even with the lower tax rates and the dramatically smaller number of taxpayers who itemize their […]
Read Full Answer