8 ms·

Vote with your dollars, it's likely the most important vote you've got. The ACLU single donation page is here: https://www.aclu.org/secure/make-gift-aclu-3?s_s

Vote with your dollars, it's likely the most important vote you've got. The ACLU single donation page is here: https://www.aclu.org/secure/make-gift-aclu-3?s_src=UNS140001C00 https://www.aclu.org/secure/make-gift-aclu-3?s_src=UNS140001... The ACLU membership page is here: https://www.aclu.org/secure/our-civil-liberties-are-under-attack-1 https://www.aclu.org/secure/our-civil-liberties-are-under-at... I have been an ACLU member for years, but am otherwise unaffiliated. Crap like this is why I'm a member. They are on the front lines.

cstavish 12y ago
The ACLU needs a "let me donate but don't send me a pound of mail each year" membership option.
- javajosh 12y ago
  Amen to that. That's a big issue with most charities, actually. I wonder how the cost/benefit works out, though? I'm guessing it's probably still worth it to send the mail.
  - baddox 12y ago
    At this point, it's almost certain that the benefits outweigh the costs, considering that non-profits still compete, and every non-profit I've heard of sends tons of mail.
    - yaddayadda 12y ago
      At this point, it's almost certain that the PERCEIVED benefits outweigh the PERCEIVED costs, considering that non-profits still send tons of mail. There is little doubt that there are benefits to their current model. tvanantwerp covered some of those benefits. But there are costs and benefits that don't appear to be included in their current calculations. If anybody doubted the difference that lots of little contributions can make need only look at successful crowd-sourcing systems and campaigns. I believe that most non-profits have been told to go after the big fish donators and if they have to destroy all the little fish in the process, "oh, well". My point, and based on the other comments, I'm not alone, is that the little fishes' contributions may add up and be worth more than the big fishes with a lower overall cost (because it costs to produce and distribute those tons of mail).
  - johnbenwoo 12y ago
    The issue is that, from the charity's standpoint, your most likely donors are those who have already donated. It would be nice if you could volunteer a higher donation in exchange for a promise not to be mailed / emailed for a year or two (or ever). I donate to a public radio station on a monthly basis, and some months I feel like they're putting that entire donation into efforts to market to me.
  - tvanantwerp 12y ago
    I work at a 501(c)(3), and direct mail is absolutely worthwhile. Maybe 1.5-3% of recipients of a prospecting piece actually respond, and they probably won't make up for the cost of the mailing. However, those respondents then get more mailings specifically for current donors and those mailings make money. Out of that group, donors are checked against databases of known giving history and net worth. These databases aren't always accurate or comprehensive, but it helps fundraisers to ID people who might be able to give more--sometimes a lot more. When high-value prospects are IDed, they usually get assigned to a major gift officer who starts building a personal relationship to solicit very large gifts. This is where the charity makes the majority of its revenue. I usually see 95% of revenue come from the top 5% of donors, largely individuals. If you're uninterested in receiving lots of mail, most charities will try to accommodate that request. However, resources are limited and dealing with the problems of $XX level donors often takes second place to the problems of $XXX,XXX level donors. I've seen stacks of returned direct mail several feet high from people who moved, died, wanted no more mailings, you name it. It was always on the to-do list to remove those names, but never at the top of the to-do list.
    - jacquesm 12y ago
      This comment is an excellent illustration of why privacy is so important. Your goals are noble (I hope) but the methods employed are absolutely terrible. "databases of known giving history", "databases of net worth"...
      - enraged_camel 12y ago
        This is precisely why I only donate to charities and causes anonymously. It's sort of stunning that ACLU, the champion of privacy, does not offer this option.
    - yaddayadda 12y ago
      As someone who would regularly give to the ACLU - IF THEY DIDN'T SPAM ME - I can guarantee they are loosing money (and supporters) because of their policy. In particular, I contacted them asking if contributors were put on mailing lists. I was told that regular membership contributors were added to several mailing lists, but that one-off contributors were only sent a small amount of ACLU generated mail, and if I put a note on my donation to the effect of "do not send ACLU mail" then I wouldn't even get that much. I set up my bank's auto-bill system to send them a $100 monthly check (i.e. regular "one-off" contributions) and had "DO NOT SEND ACLU MAIL" in three different locations on the check and that phrase was the only thing in all caps on the check. Within two weeks of the check being sent I had started getting non-ACLU mail that had a typo from that check. I immediately cancelled my bank's auto-bill to them. That was more than 3 years ago. So their spam has cost them at least $3,600 from me alone.
- aeturnum 12y ago
  I ran into one of the higher-ups for the ACLU at Ashby BART (executive director or something?). I mentioned this problem and asked how I could donate without receiving any marketing materials what so ever. He gave me his card and told me to email him personally. I don't think this is one of their priorities.
ghoul2 12y ago
Kinda unrelated, but I have come across this "vote with your dollars" thing way too many times, always by USians. I ask this out of genuine curiosity - no criticism intended: In a democracy, the most disproportionate power a regular citizen has is the vote. Bill Gates (as an example) has exactly one, and so do you. Dollars, on the other hand - Bill G has quite a few orders of magnitude more than you. So many infact, that your "dollar votes" end up being a rounding error either way - with him or against him. You cannot hope AT ALL to win based on "voting with your dollars". But voting with your votes, you just may stand a chance. What the US govt is doing, NSA is doing - in the end it will have to be fixed in Congress, not in Courts. Not by ACLU. But by people voting with their votes. Even congressmen are used to "vote with dollars", and of course the supreme court has now made it official that "dollars are free speech". All of that can be reverted with "vote with votes" only - not with dollars. Thats my belief, not being a USian. I am trying to understand why "vote with your dollars" seems so popular and - well - believable a concept in the US? Isn't "voting with your dollars" a clear rejection of democratic power?
- themodelplumber 12y ago
  People are going to vote anyway, so "voting with dollars" is really kind of a bonus option. And maybe to some degree it expresses the de facto effect of dollars on many government officials and government processes. So there's a need to have some money to counterbalance that, and while my $5 won't do much, it's a cumulative result that they're after. At the same time, it's just a simple statement that wraps a "please support non-government groups that are fighting to change government" message. And there's no need to fight Bill Gates because he's not part of the situation at hand.
  - dragonwriter 12y ago
    > People are going to vote anyway Post-WWII in the US, in Presidential general elections (generally, the highest turnout elections), the highest turnout was 62.8% in 1960, the lowest 49.0% in 1996, and most elections have been in the mid-50%s. So, "people are going to vote anyway" seems pretty far from true.

cstavish 12y ago

The ACLU needs a "let me donate but don't send me a pound of mail each year" membership option.

javajosh 12y ago
Amen to that. That's a big issue with most charities, actually. I wonder how the cost/benefit works out, though? I'm guessing it's probably still worth it to send the mail.
- baddox 12y ago
  At this point, it's almost certain that the benefits outweigh the costs, considering that non-profits still compete, and every non-profit I've heard of sends tons of mail.
  - yaddayadda 12y ago
    At this point, it's almost certain that the PERCEIVED benefits outweigh the PERCEIVED costs, considering that non-profits still send tons of mail. There is little doubt that there are benefits to their current model. tvanantwerp covered some of those benefits. But there are costs and benefits that don't appear to be included in their current calculations. If anybody doubted the difference that lots of little contributions can make need only look at successful crowd-sourcing systems and campaigns. I believe that most non-profits have been told to go after the big fish donators and if they have to destroy all the little fish in the process, "oh, well". My point, and based on the other comments, I'm not alone, is that the little fishes' contributions may add up and be worth more than the big fishes with a lower overall cost (because it costs to produce and distribute those tons of mail).
- johnbenwoo 12y ago
  The issue is that, from the charity's standpoint, your most likely donors are those who have already donated. It would be nice if you could volunteer a higher donation in exchange for a promise not to be mailed / emailed for a year or two (or ever). I donate to a public radio station on a monthly basis, and some months I feel like they're putting that entire donation into efforts to market to me.
- tvanantwerp 12y ago
  I work at a 501(c)(3), and direct mail is absolutely worthwhile. Maybe 1.5-3% of recipients of a prospecting piece actually respond, and they probably won't make up for the cost of the mailing. However, those respondents then get more mailings specifically for current donors and those mailings make money. Out of that group, donors are checked against databases of known giving history and net worth. These databases aren't always accurate or comprehensive, but it helps fundraisers to ID people who might be able to give more--sometimes a lot more. When high-value prospects are IDed, they usually get assigned to a major gift officer who starts building a personal relationship to solicit very large gifts. This is where the charity makes the majority of its revenue. I usually see 95% of revenue come from the top 5% of donors, largely individuals. If you're uninterested in receiving lots of mail, most charities will try to accommodate that request. However, resources are limited and dealing with the problems of $XX level donors often takes second place to the problems of $XXX,XXX level donors. I've seen stacks of returned direct mail several feet high from people who moved, died, wanted no more mailings, you name it. It was always on the to-do list to remove those names, but never at the top of the to-do list.
  - jacquesm 12y ago
    This comment is an excellent illustration of why privacy is so important. Your goals are noble (I hope) but the methods employed are absolutely terrible. "databases of known giving history", "databases of net worth"...
    - enraged_camel 12y ago
      This is precisely why I only donate to charities and causes anonymously. It's sort of stunning that ACLU, the champion of privacy, does not offer this option.
  - yaddayadda 12y ago
    As someone who would regularly give to the ACLU - IF THEY DIDN'T SPAM ME - I can guarantee they are loosing money (and supporters) because of their policy. In particular, I contacted them asking if contributors were put on mailing lists. I was told that regular membership contributors were added to several mailing lists, but that one-off contributors were only sent a small amount of ACLU generated mail, and if I put a note on my donation to the effect of "do not send ACLU mail" then I wouldn't even get that much. I set up my bank's auto-bill system to send them a $100 monthly check (i.e. regular "one-off" contributions) and had "DO NOT SEND ACLU MAIL" in three different locations on the check and that phrase was the only thing in all caps on the check. Within two weeks of the check being sent I had started getting non-ACLU mail that had a typo from that check. I immediately cancelled my bank's auto-bill to them. That was more than 3 years ago. So their spam has cost them at least $3,600 from me alone.
aeturnum 12y ago
I ran into one of the higher-ups for the ACLU at Ashby BART (executive director or something?). I mentioned this problem and asked how I could donate without receiving any marketing materials what so ever. He gave me his card and told me to email him personally. I don't think this is one of their priorities.

ghoul2 12y ago

Kinda unrelated, but I have come across this "vote with your dollars" thing way too many times, always by USians. I ask this out of genuine curiosity - no criticism intended: In a democracy, the most disproportionate power a regular citizen has is the vote. Bill Gates (as an example) has exactly one, and so do you. Dollars, on the other hand - Bill G has quite a few orders of magnitude more than you. So many infact, that your "dollar votes" end up being a rounding error either way - with him or against him. You cannot hope AT ALL to win based on "voting with your dollars". But voting with your votes, you just may stand a chance. What the US govt is doing, NSA is doing - in the end it will have to be fixed in Congress, not in Courts. Not by ACLU. But by people voting with their votes. Even congressmen are used to "vote with dollars", and of course the supreme court has now made it official that "dollars are free speech". All of that can be reverted with "vote with votes" only - not with dollars. Thats my belief, not being a USian. I am trying to understand why "vote with your dollars" seems so popular and - well - believable a concept in the US? Isn't "voting with your dollars" a clear rejection of democratic power?

themodelplumber 12y ago
People are going to vote anyway, so "voting with dollars" is really kind of a bonus option. And maybe to some degree it expresses the de facto effect of dollars on many government officials and government processes. So there's a need to have some money to counterbalance that, and while my $5 won't do much, it's a cumulative result that they're after. At the same time, it's just a simple statement that wraps a "please support non-government groups that are fighting to change government" message. And there's no need to fight Bill Gates because he's not part of the situation at hand.
- dragonwriter 12y ago
  > People are going to vote anyway Post-WWII in the US, in Presidential general elections (generally, the highest turnout elections), the highest turnout was 62.8% in 1960, the lowest 49.0% in 1996, and most elections have been in the mid-50%s. So, "people are going to vote anyway" seems pretty far from true.