Trump donation tactics led to millions in refund into 2021 According to the New York Times, former President Donald Trump’s aggressive financing strategy used in last year’s presidential election repaid millions of dollars to donors in 2021.
Trump and the Republicans returned $ 1280 million to donors earlier this year. This is 20% of the total collected online by the former President and his committee in 2021.
In return, the signs of continued snowfall, according to The New York Times, said the strategy of selecting donors for automatic subscriptions through pre-checkboxes in the Trump campaign led to unintended contributions from a large number of supporters. rice field.
Trump donation tactics led to millions in refund into 2021 However, despite investigations and disagreements from the Federal Election Commission, Forbes still uses pre-checked regular donation boxes to raise funds for Trump’s political action committee. I am reporting that there is.
Read more: How Donald Trump ignores police, charities, and Rudy
According to a New York Times survey, the Trump campaign sets up a strategy to automatically raise funds from donors by automatically pre-checking weekly withdrawal boxes.
Research shows that another automatically checked box that doubles donations, called a “gold bomb,” means that some donors paid much more than expected.
According to the paper, negations are often buried under a few lines in bold.
The Times reported that the demand for refunds has increased since the introduction of these boxes, and fraud reports have surfaced to credit card companies. As a result, Operation Trump began to repay donors.
According to Forbes, the Trump campaign had to repay 10.7% of online donations in 2020.
As mentioned in the treatise, the strategy of automatically pre-checking boxes has proven to be beneficial to Trump’s campaign. According to The Times, this is an “interest-free loan” from supporters, an increase in pre-election income.
But Peter Loge, director of the George Washington University Political Communication Ethics Project, told The New York Times that it was very controversial. “If you need a lot of repayment, you’re doing something very wrong or very unethical.”