Artful Dishonesty: Political Fundraising 1

ARTFUL DISHONESTY: POLITICAL FUNDRAISING, 2000

James R. Rosenfield

October 2000

By the time you read this article, you'll be looking forward (perhaps) to either Boy George or Big Al slithering into the Oval Office come January. At the time of this writing (late September) the two are running neck-to-neck in the polls, not that anyone seems to care a whole lot. I've now been a voter in nine presidential elections, and I can't recall one so lacking in passion. It's partly the buoyant economy, partly the sheer boring ordinariness of the candidates.

Elections bring out the best – which often means the worst – in direct marketers. Political fundraising direct mail uses every trick in the book, and invents some new ones.

It's ironic that sweepstakes and political mail are antic stablemates, using lots of the same techniques. As far as I'm concerned, the sweeps mailers have received their deserved comeuppance. But wouldn't it be great to see the same booms lowered on the politicos? Fat chance – I have difficulty envisioning the Wisconsin Attorney General or the Senator from Maine, sweepstakes Savanarolas both, lighting a bonfire of political direct mail.

REPUBLICAN INNUENDOS, DISTORTION, AND SLEAZE

Oracular use of postal regulation language is of course a familiar sweepstakes ploy: “Penalty for Illegal Use...MAIL DELIVERY MONITORED. DELIVER ONLY TO ADDRESEE.” But this is the envelope enclosing “YEAR 2000 PRESIDENTIAL POLL,” addressed to a fictive personage called “Mrs. Frederica Rosemfeld” (sic). This odd name is a result of an error made several years ago, when my wife gave Al D'Amato a modest contribution to aid his efforts ferreting out Nazi-related activities on the part of Swiss banks. This innocent little contribution has gotten my wife an avalanche of Republican junk mail, all of it traceable because of the mistaken name.

The letter is filled with propaganda and what I would call “automatic pilot hot-button” language, e.g., “You see, it's the extremist left-wing groups, combined with the super-rich trial lawyers and Hollywood elite, who've proudly defended Bill Clinton's behavior... This army of deep-pocketed left-wing activists scorn our conservative pro-taxpayer agenda and ridicule our deeply-held values and beliefs.”

The interesting thing is the tonality, which is literally epic in its nature: The compound adjectives are right out of Homer (remember “the rosy-fingered dawn?”) and this is on purpose: “left-wing...super-rich...deep-pocketed...left-wing...pro-taxpayer...deeply- held.” (Use of highly charged, epic/Biblical language is also characteristic of sweepstakes. Note also the repetition of “left-wing,” still a pejorative in mainstream America.)

No one is going consciously to relate the tone of voice to classical, epic diction—but this kind of stuff is embedded in our consciousnesses, somewhere deep and meaningful. The Star Wars movies are silly as can be, but get their punch because they tap into something primordial and lasting.

“Proudly defended Bill Clinton's behavior?” C'mon now, no one on earth would do that. But the adverb “proudly” adds a certain psychological panache, and psychologic trumps logic every time out.

An interesting thing (I guess) is the letter's relationship between its accusations against Clinton and the letter's own techniques. It goes like this:

· We have “...a President who lied to us...”

· “…the Clinton/Gore media machine of lies and distortions is already

in full swing.”

· “P.S. You were carefully selected to represent your area in the enclosed MAJORITY LEADER'S PRESIDENTIAL POLL.”

Follow the logic? We have a lying President (gee whiz!); Gore probably lies also; and, by the way, “you were carefully selected to represent your area,” which is a total, bare-faced lie. Freddie was not “carefully > selected”—her name was borrowed or purchased from Al D'Amato.

The Poll itself is a tried-and-true technique that has a sort of eternal psychological power:

1) A Poll suggests that you're important. Does anyone really believe this? Well, not really, but some of the flattery comes through anyway. Besides, we're dealing with the realities of direct mail, which means that maybe only 2.6% of recipients might send a contribution, but that's all you need.

2) A well-structured poll – which this one is – poses questions that can only be answered one way, which gets the prospective donor into a head-nodding, yea-saying state of mind that softens her up for the kill, so to speak.

The questions are all no-brainers, to say the least. The real guts come with question IV; “Extreme liberal factions who've proudly defended Bill Clinton's behavior now dictate Clinton/Gore policies. White House vetoes of Republican policies are certain, as Al Gore must keep these extremists happy so they will continue to bankroll his presidential campaign.

“A. Do you agree we cannot let vicious anti-Republican propaganda from the White House go unanswered while we're in the process of selecting our GOP nominee for 2000? ( ) YES ( ) NO ( ) NOT SURE.

“B. Will you help...Trent Lott launch efforts NOW to counter the > unprecedented barrage of multi-media attacks on our candidates that we expect from radical liberal groups?” >

Then, the kill: “YES!...Enclosed is my urgent contribution of...” (A contribution, by the way, cannot be urgent, but let's not get logic into the mix. For that matter “extreme liberal” seems a tad illogical also.)

And a really clever touch next: “No, I cannot support this project financially, but I want my Presidential Poll Ballot counted to represent my area. To cover tabulation costs, I'm enclosing a check for $8.”

In fundraising direct mail, offering a Yes/No option can increase the response rate, because it gives people a nudge to reconsider, and also confronts them with the idea of saying “No,” a word lots of people have difficulty with. This formulation is very well thought-out here, because the “$8” to “cover tabulation costs” is so close to the $15 above, that you can bet lots of folks will just go back to the “YES!” section.

Note the slippery slope here—it's classic and brilliant: The head nods, the hand reaches into the pocket, and the deed is done.

Oh, one more little detail: The Business Reply Envelope. This is Fundraising 101, of course: If you give donors the opportunity to supply their own stamp, you get psychological bang for the buck (“I'm doing even more to help”), plus you also save a lot on postage. There's even a predictive aspect to it: People who supply their own stamps rather than simply use the free return postage are likely to be better donors in the future than the others. Reason? More commitment, more involvement, all made manifest by the simple act of affixing a postage stamp.

More >