Adam Bonica

We can’t treat our supporters like shit. No amount of money is worth the hit to the relationship.

Disbursement purpose codes are self-reported are murky. But a ton of those “media buys” went to Mothership and other consulting firms that specialize in fundraising.

Sorry. I spent so much time on that infographic. If you go to the end of the article there is a full resolution version.

I document that in the article. And have a full FEC data analysis.

The bottom line: very little appears to be spent on actual outside spending for campaigns. That vast majority is consumed by fundraising and consulting fees.

The real scandal here is how deeply embedded Mothership is with the Democratic establishment. It was founded by DCCC alumni and continues to work closely with party leaders. It’s way worse than I thought. And it’s infuriating they continue to allow preying on people to enrich consultants.

The main rationale offered for this fundraising frenzy is that it's a necessary evil—that the tactics, while unpleasant, are brutally effective at raising the money needed to win. But that’s a lie. A fundraising model with a 1.6% efficiency rate is not a pragmatic fundraising strategy.

The Mothership Vortex: An Investigation Into the Firm at the Heart of the Democratic Spam Machine How a single consulting firm extracted $282 million from a network of spam PACs while delivering just $11 million to actual campaigns.

The annoying spam texts destroying the Democratic brand:

$678M raised through those spam tactics

$282M to one consulting firm: Mothership Strategies.

$11M to actual campaigns (1.6%)

The party isn’t just treating donors like marks—it’s being fleeced itself yet continues to back Mothership.

If you work in/adjacent to Democratic politics, or even if you are an occasional Democratic donor, this new @adambonica.bsky.social piece is the most important thing you can read today.

The Democratic Party cannot build power if it allows scam pacs to thrive

open.substack.com/pub/data4dem...

Old money: Campaign finance and gerontocracy in the United States Politicians in the United States rank among the oldest globally. This study examines how money in politics contributes to age inequality in political …

@adambonica.bsky.social and I are economists now (economist salary coming soon, I imagine)

Ungated until the end of September: www.sciencedirect.com/science/arti...

Here's a new one I got today: asking me to "vote" to block Trump from winning the Nobel Peace Prize.

Who sits around and comes up with this brainrot? Im genuinely curious.

It's easy to laugh this stuff off as absurd. But consider who is likely to be taken in by these tactics. It’s predatory.

170. DOJ's (Ridiculous) Misconduct Complaint Against Chief Judge Boasberg DOJ's complaint that Chief Judge Boasberg engaged in "misconduct" would be laughably stupid if it didn't reflect such a transparently obvious and dangerous attempt to delegitimize the federal courts.

For a masterful breakdown of why these latest attacks on judges are so baseless and dangerous, I highly recommend this piece from @stevevladeck.bsky.social.

www.stevevladeck.com/p/170-dojs-r...

Federal Court Rulings on the Trump Administration

For journalists, researchers, & others tracking the judiciary: This was a slog to get running, but I've built a data pipeline to track these rulings from court dockets. I'm making the dataset public today. It will be updated regularly. Hope you find it useful.

Explore the data here: bit.ly/45dh8ZG

Infographic titled “Majority of Trump’s Own Appointees Rule Against Him.” It shows that 35 rulings (50.7%) by Trump-appointed judges went against his administration, while 34 rulings (49.3%) were in favor. A note below states that while Trump’s own appointees ruled against him about half the time, the rate was significantly higher among appointees of other recent presidents. A bar chart compares rulings by other presidents’ appointees: • Joe Biden appointees: 134 against, 27 for. • Barack Obama appointees: 189 against, 43 for. • George W. Bush appointees: 24 against, 10 for. • Bill Clinton appointees: 50 against, 9 for. • Ronald Reagan appointees: 40 against, 8 for. Source: Federal Court Dockets from Courtlistener.com. Calculations by Adam Bonica. Data covers non-neutral rulings in lower federal courts (excluding Supreme Court) from Jan. 21, 2025, to July 29, 2025.

As the DOJ takes the extraordinary step of suing and filing misconduct complaints against federal judges over alleged "bias," their narrative runs into an inconvenient fact: A majority (50.7%) of rulings by Trump's own judicial appointees have gone against his administration in lower court cases.

It looks like Harvard is not up to the task of leading the defense of academic freedom and democracy in the United States. It was a big ask, to be sure, and sadly, it appears Harvard is not big enough. History will not look kindly on us.

That’s the bait and switch. Does nothing but reinforce that they don’t care what you think on the issues. But they’ll pretend they do if it dupes you into donating.

This one is doubly bad because it pretends the Supreme Court is holding Trump accountable rather than enabling him.

A series of political fundraising texts using emotionally charged language. One message praises Cory Booker’s filibusters and urges supporters to “STAND WITH BOOKER” via a link. Another claims Hakeem Jeffries “STONEWALLED Trump” and also seeks “OVERWHELMING” support. Both include links and end with “HTL” and “Stop2End.”

Exhibit 4: Cashing in on Courage

Every act of political courage immediately monetized. Nothing exists for its own sake—every principled stand becomes a donation prompt within hours.

A political text message listing alarming claims about Trump’s actions and funding. It warns that unless Democrats respond immediately, they will lose their chance to stop Trump. The message announces a “HIGHEST-EVER 400% Match” for donations available for the next 90 minutes, and urges the reader to donate through a link to make “Barack Obama proud.” Ends with “Stop2End.”

Exhibit 3: The Phantom match "400% MATCH UNLOCKED!"

These matches don't exist. It's an extremely deceptive strategy and everyone in the fundraising industry knows it.

A sequence of political fundraising texts with increasing emotional appeals. The first urges the recipient to stop Trump’s plan to defund NPR, saying “your name is missing.” Another expresses disappointment before a House vote. A final message claims “We’re close to tears” over lack of donations, emphasizing that a win in Georgia could flip the Senate. Each message includes a donation or petition link and ends with “End2End.”

Exhibit 2: Emotional Extortion (i.e. predatory tactics)

These texts are designed to prey on vulnerable populations, particularly elderly people suffering from cognitive decline. If you wonder about these inexplicable texts, you're not the target, unless you happen to be very drunk (I'm serious).

A political fundraising text warning about the elimination of public broadcasting. It claims Ken Burns issued an “EARTH-SHATTERING” statement, encouraging the reader to click a link to “READ NOW.” The message uses all caps for emphasis and ends with “SR.”

Exhibit 1: "The ALL-CAPS FOR CASH"

These are your garden variety unhinged texts. Most of mine seem to come from super PACs and the DCCC.

I've been documenting the manipulative fundraising texts flooding our phones. After receiving dozens personally, I've identified several categories of Democratic fundraising spam—but I know I'm only seeing a fraction. Help me crowdsource a public record: reply with your worst examples! 🧵

The arson is coming from inside the Democratic Party.
Really hope @kenmartin.bsky.social understands how damaging this all is.

Text spam is killing the Democratic Party. Control your consultants, folks.

"A party that claims to champion consumer protection in public policy employs deceptive, bait-and-switch tactics in its own communications. A party that purports to protect the vulnerable builds fundraising models that prey upon them."

Really highlights how there is no “party” that can impose top-down discipline and there won’t be any semblance of that until the end of the 2028 primary (if that)

The problem is that the worst offenders are the National party committees—the DCCC and DSCC. They encourage candidates to follow their lead. I don’t think the typical candidate would be willing to scam someone’s grandma to raise a few bucks without being pushed.

A Party's Brand Is Built on Trust. So Why Are Democrats Treating Their Supporters Like Marks? The Fundraising Frenzy Invades Text Messages

The line between online political fundraising and an outright scam feels like it's disappeared. I wrote about the deceptive tactics—the fake "400% matches," the guilt trips targeting the vulnerable, the absurd narratives—and why the Democrats’ embrace of these tactics is harming the party brand.

A Party's Brand Is Built on Trust. So Why Are Democrats Treating Their Supporters Like Marks? The Fundraising Frenzy Invades Text Messages

The line between online political fundraising and an outright scam feels like it's disappeared. I wrote about the deceptive tactics—the fake "400% matches," the guilt trips targeting the vulnerable, the absurd narratives—and why the Democrats’ embrace of these tactics is harming the party brand.

two women are talking in a store and one of them is saying big mistake big huge Alt: two women are talking in a store and one of them is saying big mistake big huge—scene from Pretty Woman.

What if Democratic candidates used their enormous text messaging machine to mobilize, organize, inspire, explain, and build community instead of just asking for money all the time? Huge missed opportunity.