Freyberg:

From the state senate election to the race for president, we’ve heard candidates talk about how important small donations are to their campaigns. It allows them to claim grassroots support but how important are those contributions to donors? And how do the Trump and Clinton campaigns respond to those small donations? Zac Shultz hit the Wisconsin campaign trail to find the answers.

Bernie Sanders:

Anybody here know the average contribution? 27 bucks.

Schultz:

In the presidential primary, Democrat Bernie Sanders shattered fundraising records by raising more than 200 million dollars from small dollar donors. More than one million people giving small amounts to keep his campaign running.

Sanders:

Where you get your money is extremely important because it means who you are beholden to. I am proud to be beholden to people who send me a check for 27 dollars.

Schultz:

Even with Sanders out of the race, that message continues to resonate.

Roxanne Caloni:

I’m the Bernie Sanders 27 dollar, I’m the small donation person.

Jeff Duris:

The country is discovering that the small amounts matter and are adding up. The Sanders campaign is a good example of that.

Eleanor Powell:

There has been a sort of increased discussion about the value of small dollar donors.

Schultz:

Eleanor Powell is an assistant professor at the University of Wisconsin Madison and studies the influence of money in politics. She says that there is a technical definition of a small dollar donor.

Powell:

Donations less than 200 dollars count as small dollar donors and that’s in part because of the FEC reporting rules. There’s a 200 dollar cut point and under 200 dollars, they often don’t have to disclose the identity of the individual donors.

Schultz:

In most elections, politicians brag about the number of small dollar donors because it shows grassroots support. But in the past, small donations didn’t net campaigns that much money because it costs so much to solicit them by mail. But with online fundraising, that cost is basically zero.

Jeanne Crone:

I contributed online. It’s very easy.

Lisa Hallenbeck:

Yeah, I got on his email list and I didn’t donate a lot, but two small amounts.

Donald Trump:

But we’re being helped by the small donors. And yesterday, because of the tremendous success of the debate, we raised almost 18 million dollars which is a record for our campaign.

Schultz:

Besides the money, small dollar donations bring legitimacy to third party candidates like Libertarian Gary Johnson.

Gary Johnson:

It’s really the heart of the campaign and right now, that’s the heart of our fundraising.

Jennifer Streit:

In giving to him, it wasn’t response to hoping that the media would notice the numbers. I don’t really think that the amount I give is gonna change anything beyond that there would be some uptick in recognition from the broader media.

Schultz:

There are a lot of reasons why people donate to campaigns but it’s usually emotional.

Caloni:

It’s participating in America. It’s the process and we own it, we’re part of it. And I want to do more than just vote.

Crone:

I feel like I’m helping him to win to put his ads on TV. And I feel like I’m helping my children. That’s why I do it.

Schultz:

Powell says there’s a big reason why campaigns love small dollar donors. They almost never reach the federal individual contribution limit of 2, 700 dollars, so they can keep giving.

Powell:

We see candidates rely on email blasts, repeatedly every day, every couple of days. Sort of going back and trying to encourage the same donors to give again.

Schultz:

We wanted to see just how often the Clinton and Trump campaigns were emailing their small dollar donors. So we found the type of voter that both campaigns are targeting. She’s white, married, college-educated, professional, a mother, she lives in the swing state of Wisconsin, she votes, and she’s never donated to a candidate before. She’s also my sister, Brea. She agreed to donate two dollars to each of the campaigns through their websites. She did this around 9:00 on September 29. And what she received in response since then shows two very different candidates running very different campaigns. Both the Trump and Clinton campaigns emailed to thank Brea within a few minutes but that’s where the similarities end. Over the next three weeks, Clinton’s campaign emails 90 times, only missing the day after Brea’s donation. At first, it was just once or twice a day, but within a week, it was five or more emails daily. A few emails asked her to volunteer or to like the campaign on Facebook. But 87% of emails asked for a second donation. The tone of the emails shifted over time. At first, they were upbeat with subject lines like “glad you’re here” and “thanks for powering this campaign” but after a few days, they became urgent with subject lines like “We’re not gonna panic” or “Falling short”. Then they were pleading: “Are you with me right now?” and finally, they took a shaming approach by writing “will you wish you’d done more?” and “you’ll regret skipping this, Brea.” Eleanor Powell says this was all by design.

Powell:

In some sense, they’re emotional appeals that sort of try to motivate donors to give again if they’ve already given the first time. The campaigns, particularly at the presidential level, do incredible research testing the effectiveness of various appeals. So they test which appeals draw in new donors, which appeals cause people to give again.

Schultz:

By contrast, the Trump campaign sent just 15 emails in three weeks. Two emails thanked Brea for making a recurring 2 dollar donation. Brea says she didn’t intend for her donation to repeat and after she cancelled the recurring donation, Trumps campaign never again asked her for money. A few other emails asked her to volunteer. Seven advertised Trump’s October 17th rally in Green Bay and the last email came from Trump’s Team Florida and invited Brea to a Trump debate watch party 1300 miles away from where she lives. Eleanor Powell cannot speak to the Trump campaign’s email strategy, but she says most Republicans use the same methods as Clinton’s campaign.

Powell:

They measure all of this. They measure what is in the headline, subject header, what works, what time of day. This is all part of the new campaign science.

Schultz:

Powell says some donors may be turned off by the repeated appeals for money. But most are not.

Bev Braun:

Every day I get more than one.

Schultz:

Most are like Bev Braun, who says donating to Hillary Clinton was an emotional decision.

Braun:

It doesn’t bother me that they’re asking me. It only bothers me that I can’t do it all the time.

Freyberg:

That was Zac Shultz reporting. Next week his reporting takes a look at presidential candidates visits to the state, or lack of, and what that says about the race in Wisconsin. If you’re just joining us, welcome to the Pearl Street Brewery in La Crosse. Owner Tami Plourde and her brew staff are carrying on the long tradition of brewing in the La Crosse area. The craft brewery is housed in a reclaimed portion of another piece of La Crosse history, the La Crosse Rubber Mills factor, established in 1897. By 1930, it was La Crosse’s largest employer and now is home to start ups and new businesses like the Pearl Street Brewery, bustling on this Friday night. Thanks again to Tami and her brew crew. Coming up next, a UW La Crosse political scientist talks about civility or incivility in the presidential race and its impact on voters.

Man:

I think people are afraid to talk about the presidential race because people get so emotional about it.

Woman:

All this middle school mean girl crap is going back and forth between their campaign committees. And they’re not talking the issues.

Man:

Really sad that it’s degraded to the kind of freak show that it is. I would rather have an election where actual issues are being talked about, that are going to make a difference in people’s lives.