Unveiling CNN's Expose on Misleading Political Contribution Schemes, Leaving Senior Donors Financially Vulnerable
Examine the investigation report, which displays the frequent text messaging and illustrates how recurring donations can total up to hundreds of thousands of dollars being withdrawn from retirement savings.
I contacted some of the CNN reporters involved in the project, including Blake Ellis, Melanie Hicken, Yahya Abou-Ghazala, Audrey Ash, Anna-Maja Rappard, and Kyung Lah, via email to discuss this eye-opening reporting.
How did this reporting come about?
WOLF:What sparked the inspiration for this report? How did you start investigating recurring donations?
ELLIS AND HICKEN: Upon exploring the Federal Election Commission's (FEC) database of contributions to political candidates, we discovered numerous elderly individuals donating small amounts to various political groups repetitively. When we scrutinized this group of donors, we found many of them were over 80 years old.
Considering the vast number of donations and groups involved, we wondered if these elderly donors were fully aware of the extent of their donations and how often. Making contact with these top donors, we found that they were confused about the frequency and extent of their contributions.
Additionally, we identified a common trend: The majority of these donations had been made using the same fundraising platforms: WinRed for Republicans and ActBlue for Democrats. Previous reports by The New York Times had mentioned that WinRed utilized pre-checked donation boxes for recurring donations, sparking our interest in investigating further. With the involvement of our investigative team, we launched the project.
When did you realize you were onto something bigger?
WOLF:What was the turning point in the reporting that made you realize you had a larger story than initially expected?
ELLIS AND HICKEN: Our very first conversation with an elderly donor in his 80s who had contributed over $400,000 to former President Donald Trump and Republican candidates, left us with the feeling that we were on to something substantial. During this encounter, his son confirmed that his father had dementia and was unaware of the significant sums of money he had donated, draining his retirement savings in the process. This individual was recognized as a significant grassroots donor to the Republican Party.
What kind of time investment does this require?
WOLF:From start to finish, how long did the investigation take, and how many elderly donors and their family members did you contact?
ABOU-GHAZALA: The investigation for this report took over three months from the initial concept to completion. Our team spent a considerable amount of time gathering and analyzing data from various sources, such as public records, complaints filed with government agencies, lawsuits, and contacting donors directly. Our data specialist, Casey Tolan, assisted in retrieving and organizing large campaign finance datasets while identifying the most prolific donors through WinRed and ActBlue. In total, our team reached out to over 300 top elderly grassroots donors and their families, with many sharing their stories, highlighting the widespread nature of the issue.
Why do campaigns employ these fundraising tactics?
WOLF:What makes this specific method of fundraising so successful in persuading individuals to part with their donations?
RAPPARD: We spoke to experts who informed us that elderly donors constitute the backbone of grassroots fundraising efforts. This demographic may not be as tech-savvy and is more susceptible to highly personalized and emotive appeals for financial contributions. Interviews with elderly donors and their families revealed that loneliness and feelings of isolation were prevalent, making them open to messages that provide a sense of purpose or belonging to something greater than themselves.
Relentless and persuasive text messages, such as "900x match!" or "Win the Golden Eagles Award," along with emotionally compelling visuals and confusing checkboxes for recurring donations, can easily mislead elderly Americans, particularly those with cognitive challenges. One 81-year-old man we interviewed believed he was in direct communication with Donald Trump and Don Jr., via text messages.
Which story resonates the most?
WOLF:Was there any particular interview or donor's story that had a lasting impact on you during the reporting process?
ABOU-GHAZALA: As we reached out to families and elderly donors, it became clear that we would likely be the first to inform them of the true extent of their loved ones' donations. Our conversations frequently led to shock and disbelief upon learning about the financial strain these donations had inflicted.
LAH: Meeting with a woman named Karen, whose recently deceased mother had contributed substantial amounts to former President Trump and Republican campaigns, was particularly impactful. Prior to our initial contact, she had no idea about the extent of her mother's donations. As time passed and we continued our conversation with her, we spoke about her grief, the challenge of covering her mother's funeral expenses, and the possibility of elder abuse. Her mother had taken great care to build a nest egg for her family but ultimately fell victim to this seemingly legal practice.
WOLF:If relatives of victims didn't wish to utilize their names in our report, it's plausible there are individuals who wouldn't want to expose themselves at all, either due to shame or merely wanting to put something distressing behind them. Do you believe a significant amount of this remains unreported?
ABOU-GHAZALA: We spoke with several elderly benefactors who didn't think they had unknowingly donated such a substantial sum to political groups or felt embarrassed about not being aware of the issue.
In one instance, an elderly benefactor asked us not to inform their family members about the donations for fear they would be upset. In situations where we managed to contact family members, the children of elderly donors with cognitive decline frequently told us that their parents would dismiss the notion that they had unwittingly donated tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars.
It's likely that a significant amount of this goes unreported due to a lack of awareness that it's taking place initially or the difficulty in having awkward conversations with elderly relatives about what transpired.
An expert we spoke with also pointed out that dedicated political supporters would typically be reluctant to criticize their own political party, suggesting that there are likely numerous other victims out there.
Is this exploitative?
WOLF:Is there evidence this is exploitative or is it simply a result of recurring payments, like when individuals realize they're paying for more Netflix than they need?
ASH: There's evidence it's a mix of both – experts told us that recurring donations have a valid place in fundraising because they allow campaigns to plan for the future, giving them a base amount of money they can count on each month.
However, both ActBlue and WinRed offer features beyond just recurring donations – including prechecked boxes that sign donors up for these regular donations and "upsells" that collect additional donations from users. WinRed hosts a blog for campaigns that outlines features such as doubling or even tripling a donation with just the click of a box and pop-ups that urge a user to donate before leaving the site. There are also mechanisms for campaigns to create individual-specific donation pages based on certain donor characteristics.
The way these donation pages are written also indicates that campaigns are relying on an emotional response from the donor. For example, campaigns sometimes create fake polls meant to create a sense of urgency from the donor. The claims of “9,000 times matching” or informing a donor that their "membership" is about to expire are all designed to encourage donations from unsuspecting users. Much of the donation pages hosted on WinRed are confusing for even the average user.
It's obvious that campaigns and fundraising platforms are aware that donors can get caught up in the system – both WinRed and ActBlue are currently being investigated by several state attorneys general, and WinRed even has a disclaimer on its website that if a campaign is suspected of misusing a certain kind of "upsell," like a recurring donation, the campaign will be banned from using it in the future.
Is there a solution?
WOLF:Does it seem like there's any effort to address this issue?
LAH: Legislative initiatives have been proposed to limit the use of prechecked boxes in campaign finance. Democratic Sens. Amy Klobuchar and Dick Durbin introduced a bill in 2021 following a recommendation from the Federal Election Commission to ban the use of prechecked recurring donations, but the bill was never voted on in committee.
Other organizations that use similar deceptive tactics have been investigated by the federal government, but political speech falls into more of a gray area, so it's up to Congress to take the next steps to regulate it. Critics argue that the only ones who can take action are the same individuals who are currently using the platform to raise money for their campaigns – even state attorneys general, who investigate consumer complaints, will utilize the platforms during their campaigns.
Why are there more complaints against Republicans?
WOLF:Both Democratic and Republican campaigns still precheck boxes for recurring donations online. What accounts for the fact that there are more complaints against Republicans?
ABOU-GHAZALA: Upon reviewing political advertisements and solicitations from campaigns on both sides of the aisle, we found that the messaging from Republicans tends to be more aggressive and misleading. Although some Democratic groups and campaigns also employ similar tactics.
Oftentimes, the language in the text message or email will feel quite personal to the donor, as though the campaign or politician is engaging directly with them.
For example, one of the Trump campaign's ads appeared like a friend request with bold, red text at the top of the WinRed page, telling donors they had "1 NEW FRIEND REQUEST FROM PRESIDENT TRUMP."
Other ads seemed to appeal to a sense of guilt or shame for the donor. An email from the Marjorie Taylor Greene campaign landed in inboxes with a subject line that asked the donor: "Have you abandoned me?"
The experts we spoke to explained how these types of tactics can draw elderly donors in, providing a sense of belonging. Throughout our reporting process, it became clear to us the impact these tactics were having on elderly donors.
Many families we spoke to emphasized the same point: Their elderly loved ones often had the false impression that they were communicating with these campaigns or politicians on an individual level.
In their investigation into recurring donations, CNN reporters noticed a trend of elderly individuals donating frequently to political groups using platforms like WinRed and ActBlue, sometimes totaling up to hundreds of thousands of dollars. Upon exploring this issue further, they discovered that many of these donors were confused about the frequency and extent of their contributions (contains ['politics', 'investigation', 'donations', 'elderly', 'winningred', 'actblue'])
The CNN team started investigating the use of pre-checked donation boxes and recurring donations, which sparked their interest in investigating the impact on elderly donors. They found that emotional appeals, highly personalized messages, and relentless text messages were used to persuade these individuals to donate, often resulting in financial strain (contains ['politics', 'elderly', 'investigation', 'fundraising', 'persuasive', 'emotional'])
