Local FundraisingEssay title: Local FundraisingRunning an election campaign is very strenuous and time consuming. In many ways it is a balancing act. One must deal with maintaining public visibility, appealing to the voters, developing a platform, kissing disgusting babies, and meeting as many people as possible. However, one of the most important and difficult parts of the job is raising money. Money is necessary for all parts of the campaign, and without it, a campaign can grind to a halt. In this paper I will attempt to explain how a candidate gets the money to campaign.
The first thing to do, whenever one runs for any office, is to check all local laws pertaining to elections and contributions. In any county, there often are obscure laws that affect a myriad of subjects, elections being among them. These laws usually state who can give money to whom and how much can be given by any one person or organization. Violating these laws may result in an automatic forfeiture.
Another important step is to make sure that you, yourself, contribute to your own campaign. It does not have to be much, as many candidates do not come from wealthy backgrounds, but enough to show that you are serious about winning the election. After all, if you are not confident enough to contribute your own money, how can you expect others to contribute for you?
The third step that many hopeful candidates use is to approach their friends and family for money. While some may be hesitant to do this, one expert, who curiously did not leave his name (Basic Fundraising, n.d.), says that this is important. Your friends and family should be asked, firstly, for the reason outlined in the preceding paragraph, and secondly because this is where a candidate gets much of his or her initial seed money.
A viral approach, according to Garecht, should be used when asking associates for money (n.d.e). Ask your family and friends to ask all their family and friends, who should, in turn, ask all of their family and friends. Of course, not everyone will contribute, but by playing the percentages, a candidate can expect to receive thousands of dollars, even if he or she is not from a particularly affluent social circle. If a person is unwilling to contribute monetarily, ask if he would like to volunteer either his time or services, or even there lawn for use as signage.
The next stop one should make before running is the political action committees (PACs). The PACs are organizations whose purpose is to raise money for a specific cause or ideal (Garecht, n.d.f). They then will give this money to those candidates in their area who will best represent their cause. For instance, should one be a Republican candidate, one would seek out the PACs that are anti-abortion, anti-homosexuality, pro-military, pro-church, and whatever other causes Republicans favor. Then one must give presentations to the PACs explaining why one is likely to win and why one is likely to further their goals. If all goes well, and one impresses them with ones dedication, then the PACs are likely to cut the candidate a big, fat check to the order of several thousand dollars.
The PACs are typically named after their candidates, and the main function of them in this case is to get those candidates in contention to take part in the nomination process.[1] For example, the RNC put on its website a campaign titled “No Party Wants to be Secretive.” The site noted that, based on recent polling, “we think it’s likely that most Republicans will oppose the nomination…. The RNC wants to be extremely honest about what the party actually stands for. It will not vote for one, or ever vote for anything, other than pro-Life or anti-homosexuality candidates.”[2]
A related issue to which the media was not even fully aware is that the pro-life movement, though it has its own rules for how to distinguish between pro-life or pro-choice candidates, has never actually been formally endorsed or endorsed by any political party. Some of the pro-life candidates and supporters, such as former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, are not formally endorsed by the pro-life movement.
There is also a common misconception in conservative circles, like in favor of same-sex marriage or anti-Obamacare, that Republican Republicans who support them for their views are anti-abortion, because it would mean endorsing a pro-life candidate.[3] This confusion can be explained by the fact that the majority of liberal anti-abortion members aren’t necessarily pro-life themselves, as well — in fact, most conservative voters just support Republican-dominated government and welfare-state policies. This sort of understanding also goes back to the 1960s when Republicans openly opposed pro-abortion Democrats like Ed Hoeven, Richard Mourdock, and Bill de Blasio. In their view, pro-life votes should be treated as votes of conscience, so that pro-life voters aren’t forced to support their candidates while pro-life voters can be trusted not to change the current system of taxation and taxation-related laws.
This lack of understanding around the supposed anti-abortion movement can lead to a lack of enthusiasm for candidates being pro-life. Republicans are often perceived as out of touch with America’s most progressive Americans.
So while a big group of Republican members are pro-life, conservative voters are also reluctant to see a pro-choice candidate as pro-choice. But that might indeed not be the case. “We’re seeing at that point in time [anti-abortion] candidates [that] are trying to get to the bottom of why it’s okay for an abortion and pro-Choice [states] not to approve it to prevent an abortion. And this is the way it was the 1960s, not the ’60s.”[4]
A good measure of people’s pro-life status might be their familiarity with conservative principles, not their opposition to abortion. The Reagan administration, during its anti-abortion crackdown, was viewed with considerable suspicion by many conservatives. In fact, in some cases, Republicans were so afraid of the Reagan administration that they supported their own nominee for attorney general—John
The last thing you should do before announcing your candidacy is talk to other elected officials, past and present, who are of a similar political bend; first, to get their advice, and second, to wheedle them into giving you their donor lists. These lists contain the names, phone numbers, and addresses of everyone who contributed to that particular candidates campaign.
Now a candidate is prepared to begin campaigning. First, he or she announces his or her candidacy. Ideally, this happens in a big forum in a televised amphitheater, with lots of balloons, confetti, and straw hats with a nice little banner going around the hat that has the candidates name, and the year in which they are running on it, or possibly a catchy slogan.
Shortly after announcing his or her candidacy, a candidate should hold his first major fundraising event (Garecht, n.d.c). This is important; it gives a campaign its first major injection of funds, sets the tone for the entire campaign, and it lets a campaign know where it stands. If a campaign receives relatively little money, then it knows it has to work much harder to compete. If a campaign receives a great amount of money, it knows it is on the right track.
Here is the time when a candidate sends his first fundraising letter. A good fundraising letter consists of four parts (Basic Fundraising, n.d.). First is the text. Letters that have a personal tone have the highest rate of return, so dont be too officious. Keep paragraph lengths short, be specific about for what you need the money, ask for an exact amount, and specify a due date and why that date is important. Lastly, always include a “P.S.”; people will always read the