General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region Forums"My $10 political contribution won't make any difference" is cut from the same cloth as
"My one vote won't make any difference".
Both statements are false and both are promoted---directly and indirectly---by the Republican party and the "dog's breakfast" of white supremacists, religious extremists and billionaires who fund it and attack any who dare oppose it.
I understand that there are some who literally have no dollars to spare, but most of us---even if we can't contribute $50 or $100 or more in one chunk---CAN afford $5 or $10 each month. That would amount to $50 or $100 by next November and if hundreds or thousands or more of us do that, well, folks, that can make a BIG difference.
The people who may ridicule you for bothering to send your candidate "only" $10 are simply saying that you are not important; you don't matter.
Make them regret saying that.
"MATTER!"
Send whatever you can spare.
keithbvadu2
(36,369 posts)($12 once is more efficient than $1 twelve times)
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2019/11/25/small-dollar-online-donors-politics-credit-card-processing-072949
Low-dollar, repeat contributions are a great talking point for campaigns. Theyve also resulted in a massive financial windfall for credit card processors.
----------------------
Donors have responded in droves donating tens, hundreds or even thousands of times, in amounts as small as $1. But what these grassroots supporters may not realize is that, in making small, repeated contributions, they have, in aggregate, delivered a huge payday for the middlemen, often large banks and financial institutions that process those payments.
-------------------------------------
A Newsy analysis of Federal Election Commission data found that since the start of the 2008 election cycle, federal political campaigns have paid more than $220 million to credit card-processing companies including American Express, Bank of America and PayPal, among dozens of others.
Between the 2008 and 2016 election cycles, the amount nearly doubled, from $28.2 million to $51.5 million. The 2020 cycle is on pace to shatter that record: Through October, the 2020 campaigns spent more than $23.8 million in processing feesmore than a year before the election.
-----------------------------
The smaller the transaction amount, Zucker said, the larger the percentage of that transaction that disappears into fixed fees.
-----------------------------------------
And as contributors make smaller but more frequent contributions, those per-transaction costs have a disproportionate impact.
To illustrate the point, Zucker gave a commercially reasonable ratesimilar to Stripe's or PayPalsof 3 percent plus 30 cents per transaction. Imagine a single donor makes a $1,000 contribution to a candidate under that scenario: The campaign would get $969.70, and the processing middlemen (Visa, Wells Fargo, and so on) would take $30.30. But that balance changes radically if the campaign has a thousand different supporters make tiny online donations of a $1 apiece. In that case, the existence of per-transaction fees means the credit card processors would take $330, while campaign would get only $670 even as it would be able to tout a low average donation size.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (more at the article)
Atticus
(15,124 posts)keithbvadu2
(36,369 posts)But then either one can be used for the recurring donations that one does not realize they signed up for.
I would think a single purchase credit card, such as Visa or MC, would be safer because when it runs out of money, it's no more drain on your money.
What if someone used a dead single purchase credit card for a donation?
How soon might they catch it?