You constantly see posts among Democratic supporters that look something like this:
I’m not donating via ActBlue anymore because they sell my data and I get spam.
This misunderstanding not only damages trust in one of our most important fundraising tools but also obscures where the real issue lies. It is true that your data is being sold. And it is true that you’re getting spam. But ActBlue didn’t sell your data because ActBlue doesn’t own your data. This is written all over their website:
Does ActBlue share my personal information, including email address and phone number?
We never sell or share your personal information with anyone beyond the group you gave to, and ActBlue will never text you.
We never sell or share your personal information with anyone beyond the group you gave to, and ActBlue will never text you. Even if you get a link to donate on ActBlue in a text or email, it comes from a group that uses our tools, not us.
When you donate using our platform, we do not sell your contact information or share it with third parties, except the group you donated to, or in certain circumstances, such as at your direction or when required by law.
And in the Privacy Policy:
ActBlue does not sell your contact information to third parties, and we don’t send solicitations, such as text messages or emails, on behalf of the individuals and organizations that use ActBlue for fundraising, including political committees and campaigns.
As someone who has built campaign tech infrastructure for two Democratic presidential nominees, I can confirm first-hand that the only data that campaigns are getting directly from ActBlue are the records of their own donors. Misunderstanding its role — or the role of any donoation processor — undermines our collective efforts.
Other campaigns are still getting your data. When you donate to the campaign of Candidate X through ActBlue, the campaign of Candidate X owns that data. ActBlue provides the data to them, and they are free to use it as they see fit. The campaign of Candidate X is often (but not always!) selling it to other campaigns and electoral organizations.
You can see it happening in FEC filings. Here’s the first example I plucked: Friends of John Delaney was the committee name of John Delaney’s 2020 presidential campaign. And here’s Schedule B (itemized dispursements) for one of their quarterly filings. Now smack CMD+F and search for List Purchase. You’ll spot voter data purchases from Boulton For Iowa, Heckroth For Congress, Hubbel For Governor, and Pete For Iowa (no, not that Pete).
Campaigns share data for all sorts of reasons. Sometimes their campaign is over and they want to be a team player. Sometimes their campaign is over and they have outstanding debts and they need some cash to balance the books. Sometimes they move from a primary to a general election cycle and they are working closely with the affiliated federal committee or state party through coordinated committees or victory funds.
But again, that’s not ActBlue’s doing.
💡 Quick aside: ActBlue is reporting donations to the Federal Election Commission, as is required in their role as a conduit for campaign funds. There’s been concern about the public availability of this data, but it’s important to note that it’s illegal for campaigns to use FEC data for soliciations:
To protect the privacy of individual contributors, the [Federal Election Campaign Act] prohibits the sale or use of any information about those donors, including their names and addresses, for the purpose of soliciting contributions or for commercial purposes. Commission regulations also prohibit the use of this information to solicit donations, including charitable donations.
One of my favorite “fun facts” about US election data is salting. Committees may sprinkle throughout — or, “salt” — each report with up to ten fictitious contributor names:
The committee itemizes each fictitious contribution on a Schedule A, providing a real address for each fictitious name (such as the address of a committee employee). The committee then adjusts its subtotals for itemized and unitemized contributions accordingly on the Detailed Summary Page. If a solicitation or commercial mailing is sent to one of the fictitious names, the committee will know that someone has used the names of contributors disclosed on its reports and may file a complaint with the FEC.
The FEC even made a #FECsplanation (rhymes with explanation) video about it:
Kinda neat that the federal government advises campaigns to honeypot their data.
Anyway, yeah, your data is being traded around between campaigns. So when you donate to some campaign in New York it’s possible it’ll land in the hands of some campaign in Utah. And I agree it’s a pretty crummy to get spammed with emails and texts from candidates you’ve never heard of from communities you’ve never even visited. But that’s not ActBlue’s fault.
Voters and donors don’t actually care which step in the data chain of custody is to blame for the barrage of irrelevant messages. But those of us who work on Democratic tech infrastructure sure do care.
Campaigns actually don’t want to waste money, resources, and time on poorly-performing lists. With the right infrastructure, smart campaigns are actually quite good at identifying and reaching likely supporters with effective messages. The problem isn’t a lack of intention, but rather the inconsistency and uneven distribution of infrastructure across the Democratic ecosystem. ActBlue is a very robust piece of Democratic infrastructure. That’s not where our focus should be for this problem.
Better infrastructure isn’t just a matter of efficiency. It’s a necessity for maintaining trust and engagement with supporters. When campaigns have access to robust, well-maintained systems, they can target their outreach more precisely, reducing the overreliance on broad, untargeted lists that lead to spam and voter disengagement. And it isn’t just about minimizing annoyance; it’s about maximizing impact and ensuring that every dollar spent and every message sent has the greatest possible chance of reaching and resonating with the right people.
The challenge is keeping that infrastructure viable cycle-over-cycle, and extending its reach across the entire Democratic landscape. As we work towards building smarter campaigns, it’s vital that we advocate for, and invest in, the infrastructure that ensures our outreach is both effective and respectful. We have a lot more work to do on that front.