A Political Psychology Lecture by Dr. Marcus Bennett
April 15, 2025
The lecture hall is buzzing with conversation as students filter in and take their seats. Many are scrolling through their phones, some showing each other political fundraising emails they've received. Dr. Bennett stands at the podium, organizing his notes as the projector displays the title slide: "The ActBlue Effect: How Fundraising Infrastructure Shapes Democratic Politics." As the clock strikes the hour, he looks up and addresses the class.
Dr. Bennett: "Good morning, everyone. Today we'll be examining something that fundamentally reshapes modern political campaigns but remains largely invisible to the average voter: the infrastructure of political fundraising, specifically the Democratic Party's relationship with ActBlue."
Dr. Bennett: "Most political analysis focuses on personalities, policies, and rhetoric—the visible elements of politics. But beneath these surface features lie structural systems that determine who gets to participate in our democracy and how. One of the most consequential yet least understood of these systems is ActBlue, which has processed over $16 billion in political donations since 2004."
Dr. Bennett: "As behavioral psychologists and political scientists, we need to understand not just what ActBlue does mechanically, but how it shapes political behavior—from candidates to donors to party leadership. And as we'll explore today, the evidence suggests that this fundraising infrastructure has fundamentally altered the power dynamics within the Democratic Party, often in ways unintended by its creators."
Dr. Bennett: "What makes ActBlue so powerful isn't just the technology—it's the network effects it has created. By 2025, millions of Democratic donors have saved their payment information, creating what amounts to a massive financial infrastructure that can be activated in moments."
Dr. Bennett: "When Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg died in 2020, ActBlue processed over $70 million in donations in a single 24-hour period. After the Dobbs decision in 2022, they raised over $20 million in a day. These aren't just fundraising statistics—they represent a fundamentally new type of political behavior: reactive microfunding as political expression."
Alex: "Professor Bennett, couldn't any candidate just create their own donation system? Why is ActBlue so special?"
Dr. Bennett: "Excellent question, Alex. The short answer is scale and network effects. A candidate could create their own system, but they would miss out on the millions of stored credit cards and the ease of one-click donations. It's similar to why new social media platforms struggle to compete with established ones—the network is the product. In 2016, Bernie Sanders chose ActBlue despite his outsider status, because the alternative would have meant starting from scratch."
Dr. Bennett: "This creates what economists call a 'natural monopoly' within the Democratic ecosystem. Republicans recognized this late and launched WinRed in 2019 as their counterpart, but they're still playing catch-up to ActBlue's 16-year head start."
Dr. Bennett: "What we're seeing in these fundraising emails isn't just marketing—it's a sophisticated application of behavioral economics principles. I've been collecting and analyzing political fundraising emails for the past three years, and the patterns are striking."
Dr. Bennett: "Let me share a recent example from my inbox. This email begins with 'When we checked our list your name was missing' and shows an image of a membership card marked 'PENDING RENEWAL.' It creates the impression of an actual membership program with benefits and expiration dates—when in reality, this is simply a donation solicitation."
Dr. Bennett: "This psychological manipulation isn't unique to one party or organization. However, ActBlue's infrastructure has enabled these tactics to scale dramatically across hundreds of campaigns simultaneously. The result is a kind of psychological pollution in our political discourse—where genuine civic engagement gets conflated with financial transactions."
Maya: "Are these tactics actually effective? I delete most of these emails without reading them."
Dr. Bennett: "Maya raises an excellent point. For most people, these tactics generate fatigue and eventually disengagement. But fundraising emails operate on a numbers game. If just 0.1% of recipients donate, that can generate significant revenue when you're sending to millions of people. And ActBlue's constant optimization ensures they're always improving that conversion rate."
Dr. Bennett: "What's particularly interesting is how these emails create what psychologists call 'illusory agency.' They make donors feel they're taking meaningful action against threats, when in reality, many donations simply fund more fundraising infrastructure rather than substantive political work."
Dr. Bennett: "The most profound effect of ActBlue isn't just the money it processes—it's how it has inadvertently restructured power within the Democratic Party. Traditional party leadership once controlled access to donors and fundraising networks. Now, that power has shifted to digital platforms and the consultants who know how to leverage them."
Dr. Bennett: "When the DNC made qualifying for presidential debates contingent on having 65,000 unique donors through ActBlue in 2020, they effectively outsourced candidate selection to the platform. This created a self-reinforcing system where fundraising ability—not policy expertise, leadership qualities, or governing experience—became the primary qualification for candidacy."
"It's transformed Democratic politics, and it's enabled us to compete with the big bucks boys on the other side," said former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean, whose 2004 presidential run pioneered grassroots online fundraising.
Dr. Bennett: "The internal tensions at ActBlue reveal deeper structural problems. In February 2025, seven senior staffers resigned from the organization, including their chief legal officer. Two unions representing ActBlue employees wrote to the board noting an 'alarming pattern' of departures that was 'eroding our confidence in the stability of the organization.' These aren't just personnel issues—they reflect the challenges of an organization that has become a critical piece of democratic infrastructure without corresponding accountability."
James: "Professor, isn't this just democracy in action? If people choose to donate to certain candidates, isn't that their right?"
Dr. Bennett: "That's a thoughtful question, James. Yes, in one sense this is democratic—it allows millions of small donors to participate. But it's democracy mediated through a specific technological and psychological architecture that privileges certain types of candidates and messages."
Dr. Bennett: "Consider this: Two equally qualified candidates enter a race. One has a digital team that excels at writing emotionally manipulative emails using phrases like 'Trump is about to destroy democracy!' while the other focuses on substantive policy messages. The research shows the first candidate will likely out-fundraise the second by orders of magnitude—not because their ideas are better, but because fear and urgency drive clicks and donations."
Dr. Bennett: "One of the most striking consequences of the ActBlue system is what I call the 'centralization paradox.' While the platform enables fundraising for thousands of campaigns and causes, it effectively creates a single pool that all Democrats must draw from—whether they're establishment figures or progressive insurgents."
Dr. Bennett: "This has created bizarre situations where politicians with fundamentally different visions for the Democratic Party compete for the same donor dollars through the same platform, often using identical messaging tactics. The resulting donor fatigue hurts everyone in the ecosystem."
Dr. Bennett: "Consider this example from my research: A progressive donor who gave $5 to Bernie Sanders in 2020 might subsequently receive fundraising solicitations from moderate Democrats, the DNC, and even candidates they ideologically oppose—all because their information entered the broader Democratic fundraising ecosystem through ActBlue."
Dr. Bennett: "This dynamic undermines authentic political differentiation. When every candidate is sending emails with subject lines like 'We're falling short!' or 'Trump is destroying democracy!' the actual policy differences between candidates become obscured behind homogeneous messaging."
Sarah: "Why can't progressive candidates just create their own platform instead of using ActBlue?"
Dr. Bennett: "That's the million-dollar question, Sarah. The network effects of ActBlue are so powerful that opting out means losing access to millions of stored credit cards and the ease of one-click donations. AOC, despite being a critic of the Democratic establishment, uses ActBlue because the alternative would mean starting from zero with a much higher barrier to donation."
Dr. Bennett: "In December 2024, 142 consultants, campaign staff, nonprofit staff, technology vendors, donor organizers, donors, and academics signed a letter to ActBlue saying the organization needed to do a 'better job' of protecting Democratic contributors from being 'exploited.' This suggests growing awareness of the problem, but no clear solution yet."
Dr. Bennett: "Despite these challenges, there are potential paths forward. The most radical approach would be for progressive and independent candidates to develop their own fundraising infrastructure separate from ActBlue. While this would involve short-term financial sacrifices, it could create long-term alignment between fundraising methods and political values."
Dr. Bennett: "Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has experimented with this approach by redirecting supporters to donate through her own channels, which she then distributes to aligned campaigns. This maintains her control over messaging and data while still supporting broader movements."
Dr. Bennett: "More incremental reforms could include ethical standards for fundraising messages, opt-in requirements for list sharing, and greater transparency about how donations will be used. These wouldn't solve the structural problems but could mitigate some of the worst psychological manipulation currently prevalent in the system."
Dr. Bennett: "The most comprehensive solution would be public campaign financing, which would reduce dependence on private donations altogether. Maine, Seattle, and New York City have implemented various forms of this approach, from democracy vouchers to matching funds programs."
Michael: "Professor, don't Republicans face the same issues with WinRed? Isn't this just how modern politics works?"
Dr. Bennett: "You're right that WinRed operates on similar principles, Michael. The difference is that WinRed was consciously modeled after ActBlue and is still playing catch-up. But yes, the psychological dynamics and structural impacts exist in both parties' fundraising ecosystems."
Dr. Bennett: "What's important to understand is that neither system emerged from a deliberate, transparent decision about how our democracy should function. They evolved through technological innovation, organizational path dependency, and the competitive pressures of modern campaigns. The question is whether we can now step back and design systems that better align with our democratic values."
Dr. Bennett: "As we conclude today's lecture, I want to emphasize that ActBlue itself isn't inherently problematic. It has democratized political fundraising in important ways and reduced dependence on mega-donors. The challenge lies in how this technological infrastructure has inadvertently reshaped power dynamics within the Democratic Party."
Dr. Bennett: "My research indicates the Democratic Party is at a critical inflection point. ActBlue's challenges—staff resignations, unions warning of organizational instability, and growing criticism from progressives—suggest the current model may not be sustainable. This creates both risk and opportunity for democratic reform."
Dr. Bennett: "When we examine voter distrust in political institutions, we often focus on visible factors: polarization, misinformation, or policy failures. But underlying these are structural factors like campaign finance systems that shape who can participate in democracy and how. Acting now to reform these systems is essential before the 2026 election cycle begins."
Dr. Bennett: "For independents and progressives especially, this moment offers a choice: continue within a system that structurally disadvantages outsider voices, or invest in building alternative infrastructure that aligns fundraising methods with political values. As AOC's experiments with direct fundraising show, there are potential paths forward."
Dr. Bennett: "The central insight from our analysis is that the Democratic Party hasn't lost control to individuals or factions—it has ceded power to a technological architecture and the behavioral psychology it embodies. Reclaiming democratic legitimacy requires confronting this structural reality."
Dr. Bennett: "For next week, please read the articles I've posted on the course site about public campaign financing systems and prepare to discuss how different funding models might affect candidate selection, messaging, and governance. Thank you for your attention today."
Dr. Bennett: "Democrats are being bombarded by these political ads now because the Democratic Party has not stated that it will take back control of the candidate selection process and base it on qualifications not money raised. What we're witnessing is essentially a free-for-all, a type of political wrestling competition that pits Democrats against Independents, Progressives, and others within the same fundraising ecosystem."
Dr. Bennett: "People and candidates can start campaigning now—almost immediately after an election cycle ends—because there are no qualification rules except money raised. The permanent campaign has replaced governance as the primary activity of political figures, and ActBlue's infrastructure makes this possible."
Dr. Bennett: "Look at what Democratic voters experience: their inboxes are flooded with donation pleas that simply state 'we are against this or that' and 'please donate.' The substance is rarely there. Many campaign websites are just elaborate placeholders for donate buttons. This isn't necessarily the fault of individual candidates—it's the logical outcome of a system that rewards this behavior."
Dr. Bennett: "We need to be direct about this: the Democratic Party has become, in many ways, the puppet of ActBlue's infrastructure, and ordinary Democrats are being turned into puppets who keep receiving automated donation pleas. The relationship between party, platform, candidate, and voter has been fundamentally inverted by these technological systems."
Taylor: "So, professor, if the 2026 congressional election cycle has already begun for Democrats, is it time for prospective candidates to start their campaigns, and how would they do it?"
Dr. Bennett: "That's an excellent question, Taylor. In our current system, the answer is unfortunately yes. While the average voter might find it absurd to start campaigning nearly two years before an election, the ActBlue-driven fundraising machinery demands early entry. Candidates who wait for the 'traditional' campaign timeline will find themselves at a severe disadvantage in both funding and digital presence."
Dr. Bennett: "As for how they would start, the first step is no longer building community relationships or developing policy platforms—it's establishing digital fundraising infrastructure. This means getting set up on ActBlue, building email lists, and beginning the relentless cycle of fundraising appeals. The policy work often comes later, if at all. This inversion of priorities is a direct consequence of the system we've been discussing."
Maya: "It looks like many of the national candidates advertising are independent or progressive, while mainstream or regular Democrats don't think that way and will wake up in a year to start their campaigns."
Dr. Bennett: "Your observation is spot-on, Maya. Progressive and independent candidates have been quicker to adapt to this new reality, perhaps because they've always had to work outside traditional power structures. Establishment Democrats often still operate on the old timeline, believing their institutional advantages will compensate for a late start."
Dr. Bennett: "Perhaps every Democrat that can run for some city, county, state, or federal position should run now or forever hold their peace because they are already behind in whatever race they want to enter. The Democratic Party is being cut up like a cake, and those who speak up get what they want while those playing by the old rules get what is left."
James: "Isn't this just a failure of leadership within the Democratic Party itself? Why aren't they establishing clear qualification standards or organizing the process better?"
Dr. Bennett: "If the Democrats want to be effective in executive positions, they have to hold them and get voted into them. Democrats have treated democracy as a spectator sport in a way as progressives and independents are out on the field holding events, raising money, and talking to the people. The Democrats don't have a counter narrative to those voices because of respect or something, but those voices do not hold back on being critical of the Democratic Party."
Dr. Bennett: "Wherever there is an independent or progressive candidate that is openly competing with the Democratic candidate or voice, then the issues can be discussed in the open. Perhaps the progressives or independents have too liberal of a view, or the mainstream Democrats have too conservative of a view, but is there a common ground? The Democratic Party appears to have thrown in the towel on congressional and other races in concession to independent and progressive voices."
Dr. Bennett: "By being silent, the mainstream Democrats are doing themselves, the Democratic Party, and the country a disservice. Individual Democrats have to get a voice or accept the loudest opinions and best fundraisers. This passivity has created a vacuum that is filled by whoever shouts the loudest or raises the most money fastest."
Emma: "But professor, doesn't this create a situation where candidates are selected based on their digital marketing skills rather than their leadership abilities or policy expertise?"
Dr. Bennett: "Emma, you've hit on perhaps the most troubling consequence of this system. Yes, we are increasingly selecting candidates based on their digital marketing prowess or their ability to trigger emotional responses that drive donations. Leadership qualities, policy expertise, governing experience—these traditional qualifications have become secondary considerations in our fundraising-first political environment."
Dr. Bennett: "From a psychological perspective, what we're witnessing is a classic case of structural incentives reshaping behavior. The ActBlue system rewards emotional appeals, crisis framing, and high-frequency solicitations. Candidates who excel at governing but struggle with digital performance art are systematically disadvantaged, regardless of their potential effectiveness in office."
Dr. Bennett: "This helps explain the growing confusion and disillusionment among Democratic voters. Many have simply stopped donating altogether—not because they don't support Democratic causes, but because they've lost faith in the system. They can't distinguish between legitimate needs and manipulative tactics, between candidates who align with their values and those who simply have better digital consultants."
Dr. Bennett: "The constant barrage of identical-sounding appeals creates what psychologists call 'decision fatigue.' When faced with too many options and too little meaningful differentiation, people often respond by disengaging entirely. Our research shows a significant percentage of former ActBlue donors have stopped contributing specifically because of this issue."
Dr. Bennett: "What's particularly concerning is how voters are increasingly treated like cattle being herded to the voting booth—their primary value being their donation potential and their ballot, not their voices or their needs. The psychological distance between elected officials and constituents grows wider as digital intermediaries replace direct engagement."
Dr. Bennett: "If Democrats want their party back, they must actively participate in reforming this system. This isn't just about technological tweaks or new platforms—it's about reclaiming the human element of politics. It means demanding transparency in fundraising, insisting on substantial policy discussions, and supporting candidates who reject manipulative tactics even if it means they raise less money in the short term."
Dr. Bennett: "The central insight from our analysis is that the Democratic Party hasn't lost control to individuals or factions—it has ceded power to a technological architecture and the behavioral psychology it embodies. Reclaiming democratic legitimacy requires confronting this structural reality."
As students gather their things and begin filing out of the lecture hall, several linger to ask Dr. Bennett additional questions. The discussion continues in small groups throughout the hallway, with students debating whether technological infrastructure or traditional leadership truly controls modern political parties. Dr. Bennett notices a few students checking their phones, grimacing as they receive yet another fundraising email—the lecture's concepts playing out in real-time on their screens.