From Fire Drills to Strategy: How Campaigns Can Rebuild Voter Trust

If you’ve found yourself on the mailing list of a political group or candidate in the past decade, you know the drill. Your inbox fills up with subject lines that sound like alarms, your phone buzzes with texts you never signed up for and every message insists that democracy itself hangs on your $15 donation. Right. Now.

For ages, we were told this was a necessary evil. The story went like this: yes, it’s annoying, but it works. Without that flood of (urgent) asks, campaigns couldn’t survive.

The Data Tells a Different Story.

Back in 2004, campaigns spent about nine cents of every dollar raised on fundraising. By 2024, that number had ballooned to 38 cents. That’s more than $3 billion in the last cycle alone burned just on raising money. And in one shocking analysis, it was reported that less than two cents of every dollar actually reached candidates or committees.

The model may raise money, but at the cost of trust and deeper connection. Ironically, the very methods that bring in money today make it harder to build lasting support tomorrow.

‍The Cost Beyond the Money

Sure, the money is staggering. But the bigger problem is trust.

Every time a supporter opens an email screaming in all caps about a fake deadline, or a text implying that democracy will collapse without their immediate donation, something erodes. Not just their patience–their faith.

Don’t get me wrong; Many voters want to give. They want to support causes and candidates they believe in. But they don’t want to feel manipulated. And they don’t want to feel like their values are being ignored in favor of whatever message performed best in a consultant’s A/B test.

That’s the deeper issue: disconnection. Too often, strategies are built far from the communities campaigns depend on. Messaging gets crafted in a bubble, without anchoring in the moral foundations that actually drive people to act.

Toward a Smarter Way

It should be no surprise that the current model isn’t sustainable. We can’t keep treating donors like ATMs and expect them to stick around.

Instead of treating every headline like a five-alarm fire, the smarter path is fewer, but sharper asks that reflect what supporters really care about. Consider the following:

• Saliency: Not every headline deserves an appeal. Which issues actually break through with urgency and emotion right now?
• Moral Foundations: Why do those issues resonate? Different communities respond to different values: fairness, loyalty, sanctity, liberty. Fundraising that reflects those values builds connection instead of resentment.
• Audience Segmentation: Who is ready to act? Casting the widest possible net isn’t efficient—it’s wasteful.
• Geography: In which regions, cities, neighborhoods does this matter most? Knowing resonance down to the block group means resources aren’t scattered, they’re focused.
• Channel Fit: What’s the best way to reach them? The same message may fall flat over email but resonate powerfully in a social feed, a text or even a phone call.

When you start from these building blocks, the approach changes. The job is no longer blasting out as many appeals as possible. It’s about matching the right issue and frame with the right audience, through the right channel — and then making the kind of ask they’re ready to say yes to. Sometimes that’s a donation. Other times it’s showing up at a rally, putting up a yard sign or taking a smaller step toward deeper involvement. Each “yes” builds trust and moves the relationship forward.

‍Less Noise, More Trust

The numbers don’t lie: the churn-and-burn approach is collapsing under its own weight. Donors are exhausted. Dollars are wasted. Trust is eroding.

PharosGraph was founded on a different conviction: that fundraising and voter engagement can be both effective and respectful. We’re working to prove that data-driven intelligence can cut through the noise, rebuild trust and give campaigns a sharper edge.

This isn’t just a fix — it’s a new chapter. And we’d like you to be part of writing it.

‍

‍