North Carolina Local News Lab Fund’s Post

How did we get here? The 2024 election cycle has shown just how destabilizing big money influence can be to our political system—and it’s only going to get worse if left unaddressed. Read our CEO Jeff Clements' recent op-ed in Newsweek on how the current campaign finance system has successfully allowed a small minority of major donors to wield disproportionate power, silencing the voices of everyday Americans—and how the For Our Freedom Amendment is our durable solution. Check out the full article below: https://lnkd.in/gf9tAci9

I wrote a four-part newsletter series on campaign finance in local L.A. elections and...kind of had fun doing it?!? This was part of our pop-up election newsletter Make It Make Sense, which we launched for the first time for the March primary. Voters are always asking us for help following the money in local races, so for September we gave a mini-crash course on how to get started. Who paid for that campaign ad in your mailbox? What do the campaign finance numbers actually tell you about a race? How can you tell when a ballot measure is part of a bigger proxy war? We got into it all and you can read them in original form here: Intro issue: What we talk about when we talk about campaign finance: https://lnkd.in/geXD6SYC Issue 1: Who sent you that campaign mailer? https://lnkd.in/gv3JWVms Issue 2: Two LA district attorney candidates, millions of dollars: https://lnkd.in/gbn_HKhW Issue 3: What's going on behind that ballot measure? https://lnkd.in/gU4cP_F9 Issue 4: Kevin De León and an unexpected pool of money: https://lnkd.in/gqeCXchQ I'm actually really proud of these issues and hope readers learned something! Lots of thanks to Ariel Zirulnick, who came up with this whole idea and vision and got us the grant that funded this project, our on-call data journalist Maloy Moore, who taught me basically everything for this series and corrected a lot of my numbers, my editor Mary Plummer for going through it every week with me, and the American Press Institute for funding this series. I'll be back writing Make It Make Sense in November as our post-election newsletter, breaking down all the election results as they get finalized! If you're a SoCal voter and you hate refreshing your browser for those results every day, sign up here: https://lnkd.in/gZBcadkp

I've read a lot about how incumbency is particularly strong in Massachusetts elections, especially since incumbent candidates are listed first on the ballot. I couldn't help but wonder how strong incumbency is relative to fundraising. So I decided to dust off the Data Analysis package in Excel and commit some crimes against statistics. Unsurprisingly, both variables matter a lot. I went back and analyzed all Massachusetts legislative elections with multiple candidates from 2010 through 2022. Incumbency and raising the most money have strong positive coefficients (0.58 and 0.34, respectively) relative to winning the election (dummy=1), and both were statistically significant. But what about races where there is no incumbent? Raising the most money in those elections has a coefficient of 0.67, a t-Stat of 20, and R^2 of 0.45. So if there's no incumbent, winning the fundraising race is a strong leading indicator. This analysis is particularly relevant when looking at Suffolk county elections this year, where candidates are facing incumbents with substantial campaign funding war chests. Check out the Stump website to see our new Suffolk County ballot guides. P.S. Someday, I would love to see native odds calculations and goal-setting for campaigns in Stump. For example, given your current campaign footprint, raise $X or reach an incremental Y voters in order to achieve 3:1 odds of winning your race with 95% confidence. The dataset is so robust.

When Campaign Cash Backfires: Why Votes Aren’t for Sale In politics, there’s a common misconception that money alone can win elections. While a well-funded campaign helps, it doesn’t guarantee victory. In fact, excessive spending can often do more harm than good. Here’s why: • Voters Aren’t Easily Bought Voters often see through attempts to buy their loyalty. They might accept handouts or attend events, but they understand the real choice is made at the ballot box. Money can buy visibility, but it can’t buy genuine support. • The “Our Time to Eat” Mindset Campaign handouts may spark what some call the “our time to eat” mindset. Voters might accept gifts as overdue compensation rather than a reason to vote. They know their vote holds long-term power that outlasts any short-term benefits. • Suspicion Over Big Spending Heavy spending often raises red flags. Voters may ask: Why is there suddenly so much money? Where was this before? Who’s funding all of this? Rather than building trust, lavish spending can breed distrust and make voters question the candidate’s true motivations. Ultimately, flashy campaign spending may look impressive, but it can create unintended consequences. Money can’t buy the authentic connections that win elections. In the end, genuine engagement often goes further than glitz. #CampaignStrategy #PoliticalCampaigns #VoterEngagement #AuthenticityMatters #TrustTheProcess #WinningWithoutSpending #VotesNotForSale

BREAKING - WHY IS BIDEN RAISING MORE MONEY THAN TRUMP? WILL MONEY BUY NEXT ELECTIONS? HAS THE DEEP STATE PICKED ITS CANDIDATE? Last month, February, President Biden's reelection campaign significantly outpaced former President Trump in fundraising. NOTE: Biden's campaign reported raising $21 million, ending the month with $71 million cash. NOTE: Combined with the Democratic National Committee, they had $97.5 million in cash. NOTE: In contrast, Trump's campaign and the Republican National Committee only had $44.8 million. NOTE: The left says the financial advantage is crucial, especially as Biden trails Trump in early general election polls. NOTE: Trump's fundraising has been slower this cycle, and he's redirected funds to cover legal expenses through a leadership PAC, while Biden's campaign has spent significantly less on legal services. My questions: Will money buy the next election? Is it even important? Do people vote based on propaganda and ads on television? Is social media not more impactful than networks that fewer people watch? Is this post not more important than an expensive ad on CNN or FOX NEWS that nobody watches? Should the money be spent on social media where everybody is rather than the networks that nobody watches or trusts?

The 2024 election cycle continues to keep the nation on its toes. As we enter the final stretch toward Election Day, fundraising remain a critical component for candidates. Causal’s proprietary algorithms consistently achieve over 80% success in the political campaigns we execute, most notably in districts with margin swings of 2-5% among all voters. Read our September political brief to gain deeper insights into the upcoming election and how we can elevate your campaign to new heights. https://lnkd.in/g5WiHFWd

NEW BLOG!! Let’s Vote, Alaska! "As a nonpartisan, 501(c)3 organization, the Alaska Food Policy Council doesn’t endorse or support any candidates. But we are deeply dedicated to connecting Alaskans, and sharing information across the state. Policy and budget decisions made by elected officials at all levels of government can have massive impacts on Alaska’s food systems. Voting is one of our core responsibilities as citizens; Alaska’s elections have seen races won or lost over the smallest handful of votes. At AFPC, we will be encouraging you to learn more about the candidates on your ballot, and to get out and vote at every opportunity! During the election season, we’re also focusing on making connections with all of the candidates who have stepped up to run for office. Entering the election season, we’re going to hit some highlights of what to know and how to participate as a voter!” READ THE FULL BLOG HERE>> https://lnkd.in/eQ2eqFck

As Canadians prepare for the next federal election understanding and participating in the "behind the scenes" policy and platform development process is key. Hope this brief overview helps.