Election fundraising e-mail

Election year always  brings me an incredible flood of e-mail from people or organizations trying to raise money for campaigning.

In a way, it’s strange that I’ve been getting all this e-mail. I am not politically active, past voting. I think what happened is that I signed some on-line petition for some issue or other, and my name was harvested and put up for sale on the list of suckers people who might contribute.

No matter. What matters—to me, at least, as I face my e-mail in box every day—is that they have my address. And they don’t hesitate to use it in hopes of prying loose a few dollars.

All this e-mail gets a bit tiresome. But...at the same time, I have been too lazy to unsubscribe. I also have to admit I’ve been interested (and even entertained at times) by some of the messages and tactics

There seems to be absolutely no limit whom I hear from. None. I am not surprised to get messages from my state governor’s election campaign. But I keep wondering why the campaigns of Cheri Bustos, Julia Brownley, and Raul Ruiz—just to name three—keep e-mailing for money since none of these candidates represent me. And it’s pretty clear in at least some cases that they have the available information to know they don’t represent me. Cheri Bustos' campaign e-mailed last week saying she needed one more donation from my ZIP code. Guess what? My ZIP code—which they correctly quoted—is only about 2,000 miles away from one she represents.

At least, Cheri Bustos can be quite considerate. I got an e-mail saying “I know it’s late...” Not a problem, Ms. Bustos. One advantage of e-mail is that it can be sent when it’s convenient for the sender, and read when it’s convenient for the recipient. So go ahead an e-mail me whenever. I don’t care. I will note, however, that e-mail can be responded to at my convenience. And my convenient moment for responding to a request for money for your campaign will be “never.”

I am also getting e-mail from Hillary Clinton’s campaign. The tone here is often to send money to show support. Often, they have the incentive of offering me a free sticker. (Wasn’t a free sticker incentive worn out back around third grade for most of us?) Sorry, no contribution. But on the brighter side, they will save money since they won’t have to send me a sticker!

Then there the surveys. We need your opinion!!! the senders scream. These surveys seem to have two things in common. First, they seem to me eyes to be biased. I don't think they are not fully neutral, as one would expect if they were actually trying to collect usable data. (For that matter, I’ve wondered if the data is even recorded.) Second thing is that every survey leads to an opportunity to donate. Many have a final question along the lines of “Will you donate $3?” The answers usually are “Yes” and “Yes—but I’ll donate more!” For some reason, “No. I won’t donate” is not usually included, unless it’s tied in with some shaming statement basically suggesting “No—I’m an evil person who wants the bad guys to win!!!”

Another fun tactic is the opportunity to sign a card wishing someone a happy birthday, or thanks for something they did. I note that after signing there is always an opportunity to contribute $25 “or whatever you can afford.” I contribute what I can afford: $0.

I also have noted another theme: my $5 is the only thing standing between victory and defeat in a campaign.

At least the election is nearly here, and soon there will be peace in my In Box.

Or at least there will be more peace. If history from past years repeats, I’ll have a few messages tricking in by late November saying that: “We need to start getting ready for the next election!!!!!”

Next election. Just the thought of the next election makes me wish someone would give a free cyanide capsule instead of a sticker if I donate $1 or more.