Really appreciated this post, Lincoln — especially how you put concrete multipliers on the relative value of different giving vehicles and timing. Having rough factors like that helps clarify tradeoffs that often stay abstract.
A few thoughts to build on your analysis:
General elections are usually harder to influence with money, since outcomes are mostly shaped by broad political winds, candidate strength, and the Partisan Voting Index (PVI) of each district (how strongly it leans toward one party).
Primaries, by contrast, can be far more sensitive to funding—especially open primaries without incumbents. Early, modest support can meaningfully affect who gets on the ballot. Helping incumbents avoid a primary challenge can sometimes be valuable as well.
On relational giving, there are three aspects worth considering:
Who gives and why it’s important to be known: Donations are most effective when the candidate (and/or their staff) understands who is giving and the motivation behind the gift. Bundling or giving through trusted connectors ensures the campaign knows who values their work and why.
Opportunities for education and relationship-building: Well-structured giving—such as through one-on-one meetings (which are surprisingly easy to get), small events, roundtables, or policy briefings—can create space to educate candidates on key issues and foster authentic, ongoing relationships.
The domain of giving: Whether the support comes via a 501c3, c4, PAC, or direct campaign contribution shapes not just the legal boundaries but also the potential for meaningful relational and educational engagement. As Lincoln indicates, direct campaign contributions (or the bundling of them) most directly incline the opportunity to build a relationship.
Finally, it’s worth reflecting on how central favorable policy change is to your cause area. For some issues—like animal welfare, AI safety, protein innovation (aka alternative proteins) or voting rights—policy seems to be the main lever. For others—like cultural change, or consumer behavior —private-sector or societal shifts may dominate. Aligning your giving vehicle with the true leverage point seems key.
Note: as context, I am a founder and president of two 501c4 lobbying organizations (Food Solutions Action and Americans for the Common Good) and a PAC.
Really appreciated this post, Lincoln — especially how you put concrete multipliers on the relative value of different giving vehicles and timing. Having rough factors like that helps clarify tradeoffs that often stay abstract.
A few thoughts to build on your analysis:
Finally, it’s worth reflecting on how central favorable policy change is to your cause area. For some issues—like animal welfare, AI safety, protein innovation (aka alternative proteins) or voting rights—policy seems to be the main lever. For others—like cultural change, or consumer behavior —private-sector or societal shifts may dominate. Aligning your giving vehicle with the true leverage point seems key.
Note: as context, I am a founder and president of two 501c4 lobbying organizations (Food Solutions Action and Americans for the Common Good) and a PAC.