This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Articles for creation This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC This article was accepted from this draft on 16 August 2019 by reviewer AngusWOOF (talk · contribs). Politics: American Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by American politics task force (assessed as Low-importance). United States Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

The Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use require that editors disclose their "employer, client, and affiliation" with respect to any paid contribution; see WP:PAID. For advice about reviewing paid contributions, see WP:COIRESPONSE. Jacobvurpillat (talk · contribs) has been paid by National Democratic Training Committee. Their editing has included contributions to this article. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Jacobvurpillat&diff=prev&oldid=879865734

That's according to Open Secrets.^[1] –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 20:23, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This applies more widely, but footnote 20 cannot be accessed due to the Washington Post's paywall. Non-pay walled sources are preferable, along with more complete and clear statements about the information in the cited source. In the case of footnote 20, the reader is unable to find more detail about the vaguely referenced fundraising criticism. ClathrateRemonte (talk) 01:11, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For future reference, this is footnote 20. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 04:47, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've resolved the issue by adding a link to an archived copy of the article that's free to access. Historical-idealist (talk) 14:29, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

More sources:

https://newrepublic.com/article/143615/democrats-emails-strategy-haywire

But Their Emails

How the Democrats’ online outreach strategy went haywire.

Sarah Jones

The New Repubic

June 29, 2017

Kenneth Pennington, the former digital director of Senator Bernie Sanders’s presidential campaign, calls this a “churn and burn” approach that exploits voters. “A dirty secret in the email fundraising industry is that most of the people giving are senior citizens,” he told the New Republic in an email. “For a less net-savvy generation some of these emails that put you on ‘FINAL NOTICE’ are confusing and scary enough. The prospect that your donation will be quadruple-matched may also be enticing, if you really believe it.”

https://www.influencewatch.org/for-profit/mothership-strategies/

Influence Watch

Mothership Strategies

--Nbauman (talk) 19:01, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I was trying to figure out how much of the NDTC revenue went to programs, and how much of it went to overhead. I couldn't figure it out.

https://www.opensecrets.org/political-action-committees-pacs/national-democratic-training-cmte/C00603084/summary/2018

In 2017-2018, they spent a total of $6,557,222, and $2,708,002 (41.66%) on fundraising. That seems pretty high.

They gave Mothership Strategies $2,398,561. Is that the same as "fundraising"?

Can anybody confirm that? --Nbauman (talk) 21:44, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]