Skip to content
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(ProPublica)   The big fundraising gains Josh Hawley (R) and Marjorie Taylor Greene (R) proudly reported? Yeah, about that   (propublica.org) divider line
    More: Followup, Political campaign, Fundraising, Sen. Josh Hawley, much money, Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, organization's mailing list, email marketing vendor, big fundraising hauls  
•       •       •

4155 clicks; posted to Politics » on 21 Apr 2021 at 10:31 AM (2 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



56 Comments     (+0 »)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2021-04-21 8:16:17 AM  
But new financial disclosures show that Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., and Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., relied on an email marketing vendor that takes as much as 80 cents on the dollar. That means their headline-grabbing numbers were more the product of expensively soliciting hardcore Republicans than an organic groundswell of far-reaching support.

Geez..."usary" just won't cut it here.  I'd call it rape.

A move by then-President Donald Trump's 2020 campaign to sign up supporters for recurring payments by default led to as much as 3% of all credit card fraud claims filed with major banks, according to The New York Times. In some long-shot congressional races, consultants could walk away with almost half of all the money raised, The Washington Post reported.

The symbiosis of grift and cons.
 
2021-04-21 8:47:53 AM  

Diogenes: But new financial disclosures show that Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., and Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., relied on an email marketing vendor that takes as much as 80 cents on the dollar. That means their headline-grabbing numbers were more the product of expensively soliciting hardcore Republicans than an organic groundswell of far-reaching support.

Geez..."usary" just won't cut it here.  I'd call it rape.

A move by then-President Donald Trump's 2020 campaign to sign up supporters for recurring payments by default led to as much as 3% of all credit card fraud claims filed with major banks, according to The New York Times. In some long-shot congressional races, consultants could walk away with almost half of all the money raised, The Washington Post reported.

The symbiosis of grift and cons.


They are drowning in their own swamp.
 
2021-04-21 8:49:09 AM  

GardenWeasel: They are drowning in their own swamp.


We could donate some anvils to that cause.
 
2021-04-21 9:58:01 AM  
It's all a scam.
 
2021-04-21 10:05:26 AM  
I would have never expected those two to be dishonest.  I'm shocked.  Shocked and appalled.

:/
 
2021-04-21 10:36:30 AM  
They probably juice their numbers as a way of psychologically getting more people to donate. If people think others are doing it they will follow suit. Sort of like putting a tip jar on the counter and then salting it with money so customers will be OK with putting tips into the jar.
 
2021-04-21 10:36:31 AM  
The vendor takes 80% off the top? That has to be a way to siphon campaign funds off for personal use, right?. I'm having trouble believing anyone is accepting that level of overhead without a payout.
 
2021-04-21 10:36:58 AM  
"It's common for campaigns to rent lists from outside groups or other candidates to broaden their reach. But for Hawley and Greene, the cost was unusually high, amounting to almost 20% of all the money they raised in January, February and March."

lol, so was it "you guys are radioactive. If we're going to do business with you we have to charge extra for the associated public relations risk", or was it "These guys have the IQ of room temperature milk. See how high a price we can charge them.  Let's get an office pool going."
 
2021-04-21 10:37:17 AM  
"Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., and Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., relied on an email marketing vendor that takes as much as 80 cents on the dollar."

I understand why they've done this -- what I can't understand is why they think it's OK for them to overlook the fact that they are being exploited. The vast majority of their money is just going towards the profitability of a mailing list operator.
 
2021-04-21 10:37:47 AM  
Pay 600k to rent a list from a company that takes 80% of the cash raised just to juice their numbers?

How very Republican.
 
2021-04-21 10:38:40 AM  

RasIanI: "Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., and Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., relied on an email marketing vendor that takes as much as 80 cents on the dollar."

I understand why they've done this -- what I can't understand is why they think it's OK for them to overlook the fact that they are being exploited. The vast majority of their money is just going towards the profitability of a mailing list operator.


*they -- meaning the contributors are being exploited  -- not those two douchebag GQP seditionists
 
2021-04-21 10:43:28 AM  
Rudnick has his own history of controversy. He was fired by the Pennsylvania Republican Party in 2008 after sending emails to Jewish voters likening a vote for Barack Obama to the leadup to the Holocaust. "Many of our ancestors ignored the warning signs in the 1930s and 1940s and made a tragic mistake," the email said. "Let's not make a similar one this year!"

Fark sake! Why are nazis obsessed with nazis while being actual nazis!?
 
2021-04-21 10:44:10 AM  

RasIanI: "Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., and Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., relied on an email marketing vendor that takes as much as 80 cents on the dollar."

I understand why they've done this -- what I can't understand is why they think it's OK for them to overlook the fact that they are being exploited. The vast majority of their money is just going towards the profitability of a mailing list operator.


Hawley-Greene Consultants LLC?

No, too obvious.  Josh-Marj Consultants LLC.
 
2021-04-21 10:44:50 AM  
These for-profit professional fundraisers are payday loan level slimy.

Equally  sleazy charities use them too. They used call me now and then (i think) - usually something like "Friends of the police" . The guy on the phone (and it was always guys) within the first 30 seconds gave off a very used car salesman vibe. After 30 seconds, I would hang up.

As a reference point, Act Blue (which is non-profit) takes a flat 4% off the top. and that includes what they have to pay in credit card processing fees.
 
2021-04-21 10:46:36 AM  
Up to 50% of campaign funds are going to consultants?  How much of that is paid back in kickbacks?
 
2021-04-21 10:48:12 AM  
Ok, let's do the math. Margarine Tallow Greene raised "$3million" but she paid a List company $300,000 and the list company kept 80% of the haul, so 80% of 3 million is $2.4 million and in edition Margarine Tallow Greene paid them an additional 300k so the list company has made 2.7 million of MTG 3 million leaving her $300,000, which covers her initial $300,000 investment, so she basically got 0 dollars and some bullschit bragging rights about her 3 mil haul.
 
2021-04-21 10:48:27 AM  
I get more emails asking for contributions than I would like. I always assume that if I click a link to donate that I am going to get a virus, and I am actually contributing to a roll coal campaign.
 
2021-04-21 10:50:03 AM  
It's amazing to me that people are willing to be fleeced in this way, day in and day out. I guess PT Barnum was right.
 
2021-04-21 10:51:33 AM  
Liars lied?

Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2021-04-21 10:56:19 AM  
How difficult can it be to generate one of these lists?  Can't you just use public records to see who voted in  Republican primaries and then spam them?
 
2021-04-21 10:58:04 AM  

RasIanI: "Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., and Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., relied on an email marketing vendor that takes as much as 80 cents on the dollar."

I understand why they've done this -- what I can't understand is why they think it's OK for them to overlook the fact that they are being exploited. The vast majority of their money is just going towards the profitability of a mailing list operator.


Or it is a way to funnel and skim money to a known white nationalist who is associated with major white nationalist groups both candidates are linked to.
 
2021-04-21 10:59:27 AM  
Can we stop calling these two morons "Firebrands"!?!?
 
2021-04-21 10:59:52 AM  
They're not "firebrands" they're pot stirring contrarian assholes.
 
2021-04-21 11:03:50 AM  
These two are such firebrands!
 
2021-04-21 11:06:19 AM  
At the same time, the rise of email (INSERT MEDIUM HERE) fundraising has spawned some aggressive or even deceptive marketing tactics and made plenty of room for consultants and vendors to profit

That's the algorhythm.  Been there done that.

Smart people buy two or more lists and compare them for duplicates.  Then they research where the non-duplicates come from.  In the days of paper mailing labels, you could check them by hand.  No one had clean lists, although scholarly journals were better than most if they were in house.  With facebook, even email seems dated by now.

The list creation can be as simple as having a free BBQ meet and greet some candidate, harvesting emails, then selling as the "richest pro-GOP suckers on the planet."

Only the Russian military has the time and resources to find the right names for the campaign.  They cover the costs of research.
 
2021-04-21 11:06:22 AM  

xanadian: I would have never expected those two to be dishonest.  I'm shocked.  Shocked and appalled.

:/


Fark user imageView Full Size


SpectroBoy: Can we stop calling these two morons "Firebrands"!?!?


SpectroBoy: They're not "firebrands" they're pot stirring contrarian assholes.


Stop trying to make "fetch" happen.
 
2021-04-21 11:09:12 AM  
Someone correct me if I'm wrong about this, but regardless of how much the sleazy consultants/list companies take, people on the other end still donated millions of dollars to these two reprehensible politicians. THAT'S what disturbs me most. The fact that they won't actually see this particular pot of money is beside the point, because now all those "donors" are on their private lists and they can just go back to their disgusting base later and beg for more money without the middle man.
 
2021-04-21 11:13:29 AM  
This gives me some comfort.

Because I was really bothered to hear that people that are SO ethically challenged, and by that I mean, raging assholes, were raising ridiculous amounts of money.

That is bothersome because it means that there is a HUGE number of raging assholes in this country that have so much money they are willing to support these unethical scumbags in our government.

So, yeah...  Good to know they inflated their actual donation totals.

Also - we sorely need ethics standards in this government.  And i mean RIGHT farking now.  Before the next election.  And don't tell me it's not possible.  Because ALL of business and society abides by far stricter rules than our government does.  And it's time to change that.
 
2021-04-21 11:14:16 AM  

quatchi: Pay 600k to rent a list from a company that takes 80% of the cash raised just to juice their numbers?

How very Republican.


So, lemme do the math here. Let's assume it's the max, 80% of the funds raised. That means, the campaigns brought in 600K on 3 million. They SPENT 600K just to get the email list. So, they made ZERO DOLLARS.
 
2021-04-21 11:14:19 AM  

engrishmajor: Someone correct me if I'm wrong about this, but regardless of how much the sleazy consultants/list companies take, people on the other end still donated millions of dollars to these two reprehensible politicians. THAT'S what disturbs me most. The fact that they won't actually see this particular pot of money is beside the point, because now all those "donors" are on their private lists and they can just go back to their disgusting base later and beg for more money without the middle man.


It sounds like they rent the list. They still have to use the middle man. I'm guessing the politician provides the content of the email or approves a template and the marketing firm sends the email. The frim also controls the financial transaction. I'm sure a few go directly to the politicians website to contribute, but most contribute through the firms site. That is how the firm collects 80 percent.
 
2021-04-21 11:16:00 AM  

quatchi: Pay 600k to rent a list from a company that takes 80% of the cash raised just to juice their numbers?

How very Republican.


At first, I thought yeah, they are dumb, but then I realized that, as noted upthread, it's gotta be a grift to use campaign donations for personal gain.

The vendor should be audited. With chainsaws and blow torches.
 
2021-04-21 11:19:09 AM  

Devo: engrishmajor: Someone correct me if I'm wrong about this, but regardless of how much the sleazy consultants/list companies take, people on the other end still donated millions of dollars to these two reprehensible politicians. THAT'S what disturbs me most. The fact that they won't actually see this particular pot of money is beside the point, because now all those "donors" are on their private lists and they can just go back to their disgusting base later and beg for more money without the middle man.

It sounds like they rent the list. They still have to use the middle man. I'm guessing the politician provides the content of the email or approves a template and the marketing firm sends the email. The frim also controls the financial transaction. I'm sure a few go directly to the politicians website to contribute, but most contribute through the firms site. That is how the firm collects 80 percent.


Well, right- they rent the list the first time, and then gather all of the data from the donors and then use that the next time. FTFA: Renting lists can pay dividends for campaigns because people who respond by donating then enter the candidates' own databases of supporters, and past contributors are much more likely to give again. Candidates with big donor bases can tap them for more money later or turn around and rent their own list to others.
 
2021-04-21 11:20:09 AM  

RasIanI: "Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., and Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., relied on an email marketing vendor that takes as much as 80 cents on the dollar."

I understand why they've done this -- what I can't understand is why they think it's OK for them to overlook the fact that they are being exploited. The vast majority of their money is just going towards the profitability of a mailing list operator.


These are NOT smart people. They just wanted high numbers no matter how they got them. It's like those artificial Twitter followers or YouTube video counts.
 
2021-04-21 11:21:27 AM  

Diogenes: But new financial disclosures show that Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., and Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., relied on an email marketing vendor that takes as much as 80 cents on the dollar. That means their headline-grabbing numbers were more the product of expensively soliciting hardcore Republicans than an organic groundswell of far-reaching support.

Geez..."usary" just won't cut it here.  I'd call it rape.

A move by then-President Donald Trump's 2020 campaign to sign up supporters for recurring payments by default led to as much as 3% of all credit card fraud claims filed with major banks, according to The New York Times. In some long-shot congressional races, consultants could walk away with almost half of all the money raised, The Washington Post reported.

The symbiosis of grift and cons.


The GQP:  Putting the 'CON'* in CONservative!

* - 'Con' as in 'Confidence Trickster', and (hopefully soon) 'Con' as in 'Convicted'.
 
2021-04-21 11:21:51 AM  

Diogenes: But new financial disclosures show that Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., and Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., relied on an email marketing vendor that takes as much as 80 cents on the dollar. That means their headline-grabbing numbers were more the product of expensively soliciting hardcore Republicans than an organic groundswell of far-reaching support.

Geez..."usary" just won't cut it here.  I'd call it rape.

A move by then-President Donald Trump's 2020 campaign to sign up supporters for recurring payments by default led to as much as 3% of all credit card fraud claims filed with major banks, according to The New York Times. In some long-shot congressional races, consultants could walk away with almost half of all the money raised, The Washington Post reported.

The symbiosis of grift and cons.


Holy shiat. 3 percent of *all* credit card fraud calims in the entire nation was just for Trump's campaign. And people actually think he's a good man, or even farking competent.
 
2021-04-21 11:22:31 AM  

DrD'isInfotainment: Ok, let's do the math. Margarine Tallow Greene raised "$3million" but she paid a List company $300,000 and the list company kept 80% of the haul, so 80% of 3 million is $2.4 million and in edition Margarine Tallow Greene paid them an additional 300k so the list company has made 2.7 million of MTG 3 million leaving her $300,000, which covers her initial $300,000 investment, so she basically got 0 dollars and some bullschit bragging rights about her 3 mil haul.


While your math checks out, your username makes me want to check this out on my own.
 
2021-04-21 11:23:26 AM  

Rapmaster2000: How difficult can it be to generate one of these lists?  Can't you just use public records to see who voted in  Republican primaries and then spam them?


Ideally you'll run for office as a Republican and the RNC will just give you a list to use for fundraising grifting.
 
2021-04-21 11:27:36 AM  
This is such a beautifully run scheme that I can't even tell who are the grifters and who are the marks here.  I mean I *think* the Republican supporters are the marks and everyone else are the grifters but I don't actually know.

Is it, as it seems on the surface, donors getting fleeced so that these fund raisers get rich and politicians at least get some crumbs?

Or do the politicians see some of this money on the back end because the fund raisers use shell companies that just happen to be controlled by the politicians, thus putting these donations directly into their pockets?

Or are the donors getting something for this?  Certainly the big ticket donors would demand a good return on investment.  Do they get access to the real Republican power players because these donations get funneled through companies *they* control?
 
2021-04-21 11:27:47 AM  

SpectroBoy: Can we stop calling these two morons "Firebrands"!?!?


Definition of firebrand
1: a piece of burning wood
2: one that creates unrest or strife (as in aggressively promoting a cause) : AGITATOR

Usage: "I'm not a giant asshole, I'm a firebrand."
 
2021-04-21 11:28:38 AM  

Delc: The vendor takes 80% off the top? That has to be a way to siphon campaign funds off for personal use, right?. I'm having trouble believing anyone is accepting that level of overhead without a payout.


I'm guessing a few switched from 100% to 80% and figured being able to legally say a few more things to make it look legit was worth it.
 
2021-04-21 11:29:38 AM  
i1.sndcdn.comView Full Size

Y'all got anymore of those MTG 'butt cleavage' mashups? Those were amazing!
 
2021-04-21 11:35:14 AM  

wax_on: It's amazing to me that people are willing to be fleeced in this way, day in and day out. I guess PT Barnum was right.


Right??!?  If Barnum could see today's world, he would weep bitter tears - that he had not lived to practice his craft among these heaven-sent marks.
 
2021-04-21 11:37:41 AM  

Rapmaster2000: How difficult can it be to generate one of these lists?  Can't you just use public records to see who voted in  Republican primaries and then spam them?


Difficulty: Republicans have damn few primaries.  They prefer Caucuses, where they can more easily select the candidates.

Can't let the great unwashed masses pick their own candidates for office, after all!  The poor deluded things might make the wrong choices!
 
2021-04-21 11:47:34 AM  

Delc: The vendor takes 80% off the top? That has to be a way to siphon campaign funds off for personal use, right?. I'm having trouble believing anyone is accepting that level of overhead without a payout.


Agreed, investigators need to follow the money.
 
2021-04-21 11:49:23 AM  
You mean "YOUR DONATION WILL BE PERSONAY MATCHED BY ME 800%!" isn't legit?
 
2021-04-21 11:49:49 AM  

SpectroBoy: Can we stop calling these two morons "Firebrands"!?!?


I suggest 'Firebugs'.  Because they love watching shiat burn.
 
2021-04-21 11:51:15 AM  

Rapmaster2000: How difficult can it be to generate one of these lists?  Can't you just use public records to see who voted in  Republican primaries and then spam them?


They're already contributing.  Now, when you sign on for my list, we generate 100% new contacts.  People who WANT to give to your cause but don't know how or where to effectively GIVE!  We use multi tiered, successful marketing access points to target your message with your followers and people who believe in YOU!

[MY List] = [Public Records]-[Middle Initial]
 
2021-04-21 12:04:55 PM  

make me some tea: It's all a scam.


We should just draw names out of hat every two years to choose our leaders.
 
2021-04-21 12:17:21 PM  

quatchi: Pay 600k to rent a list from a company that takes 80% of the cash raised just to juice their numbers? How very Republican.


Jeez, it's like you don't even believe their claims of being "fiscally conservative."

America's Treason Caucus™; If this is how we spend our own money, wait until we start spending yours! ©
 
2021-04-21 12:25:01 PM  
But new financial disclosures show that Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., and Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., relied on an email marketing vendor that takes as much as 80 cents on the dollar. That means their headline-grabbing numbers were more the product of expensively soliciting hardcore Republicans than an organic groundswell of far-reaching support.

The vendor takes as much as 80% depending upon the contract, not necessarily 80%.  So the vendor may not have taken $2.4 million.  I would not be surprised if the amount taken is a sliding scale like 80% of the first $200K and then 75% of the next $200K and so on with the percentage dropping to a final percentage as the amount of money donated increases.  Somewhat like progressive taxation but in reverse.  But I really don't know for sure.  Anyway, it's still a bit scammy.
 
Displayed 50 of 56 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking





On Twitter



  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.