Reform The GOP

Can you help? Ideas? Yesterday we were able to get on the Chris Stigall Show on The Salem News Channel. We spoke with Mark Davis, who was filling in for Chris. We asked Mark if he thinks small, individual donors are important to the RNC’s success, and if so, is it not counterproductive for the RNC to continue the process of selling donors’ date (cell phone numbers and email addresses) ? Surprisingly, he was somewhat supportive of the RNC's practice of selling donor data, in short, because he thinks it works. He suggested a better method for those concerned about being bombarded (our words) with emails and text messages, that they donate directly through a candidate’s website. Is he correct on that point, or does the RNC have some control and interaction with candidate donations and donor data via the candidate? The following response is from Chat GPT:
Mark Davis is partially correct — but his answer leaves out important caveats.
Donating directly to a candidate can reduce data resale exposure, but it does not guarantee insulation from the RNC or broader party data ecosystems.

Let’s break it down cleanly.

1. How donor data actually flows in U.S. campaigns

There are three distinct layers to keep straight:

A. The candidate committee (e.g., “Smith for Senate”)

This is the candidate’s authorized committee

It legally owns the donor list it collects

It reports donor info to the FEC (name, city, employer, amount — not phone/email publicly)

B. The party committees (RNC, NRSC, RGA, etc.)

Separate legal entities

Aggressive fundraisers

Routinely rent, share, and monetize donor lists (this is the practice you’re reacting to)

C. The data vendors and platforms

WinRed, Data Trust, i360, etc.

These are the plumbing

They aggregate behavior, donation history, engagement, and response rates

2. Is donating through a candidate’s website safer?
✔️ In principle — yes

If:

You donate directly to the candidate’s authorized committee

The donation page is not a joint fundraising committee

You opt out of list sharing (when that option exists)

Then:

Your data starts life owned by the candidate

The RNC does not automatically receive it

So Mark Davis is directionally correct.

3. The big caveat he didn’t emphasize
🚨 Candidate committees can and often do share or sell donor lists

This happens when:

A candidate enters a data-sharing agreement with the RNC

The candidate participates in joint fundraising committees

The campaign uses shared infrastructure where data access is pooled

The candidate later licenses the list to the party after the election

Importantly:

There is no law prohibiting a candidate from sharing donor data with the RNC.

So donating via a candidate reduces probability, not eliminates risk.

4. Joint Fundraising Committees (the biggest trap)

Many donation pages quietly say something like:

“Paid for by the RNC and Smith for Senate Joint Fundraising Committee”

In that case:

Your data is immediately shared

You are effectively donating to multiple entities

You will almost certainly be added to national party lists

This is where many donors are unknowingly captured.

5. Why the RNC sells data in the first place (the uncomfortable truth)

From the RNC’s perspective:

Small donors are valuable once

Their data is valuable forever

Selling lists funds operations without asking donors for more money

Donor fatigue makes resale tempting

But your instinct is correct:

This practice is corrosive to long-term grassroots trust.

It turns motivated citizens into:

Spam targets

Churn statistics

One-time ATMs rather than repeat supporters

6. If someone wants to donate and protect their data, best practices

Here’s the most defensible approach:

Donate directly to the candidate’s authorized committee

Avoid joint fundraising pages

Read the privacy policy (especially list-sharing language)

Use a dedicated email address for political activity

Consider donating by check (lowest data exhaust)

Avoid national party committees if data control matters to you

None of this is foolproof — but it meaningfully changes the odds.

7. Bottom line

Mark Davis is right in principle

Incomplete in practice

The RNC does not automatically control candidate donations

But the modern GOP data ecosystem is highly interconnected

Small donors are often treated as data assets, not stakeholders

Your question wasn’t just fair — it was structural.
It goes to whether political parties see citizens as partners… or inventory.

Yes. GOP leaders are still selling and disclosing their supporters' information. The solicitations have moderated a bit, but mid-terms are just around the corner. The solution: Do not donate.

Does the GOP and RNC think republican voters are stupid? If not, why do they bombard their members with text messages of fake surveys and other disingenuous fund raising campaigns, via Winred and the like? Do they not realize they are losing credibility when it's needed the most, right before this critical election cycle? What is worse, there is no way for the People to reach them to convey that this is a damaging strategy. Try calling the RNC. The joke will be on you, again. What a sham, and what a shame.

You can't make this up. The United States is the biggest funder of the UN. Here is a job opening partially funded by your tax dollars:
"Research Specialist on Gender and Climate Change Consultant
Remote"
Apply now
Job description
LOCATION :
Homebased
APPLICATION DEADLINE :
04-Sep-24 (Midnight New York, USA)
Background
UN Women, grounded in the vision of equality enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations, works for the elimination of discrimination against women and girls; the empowerment of women; and the achievement of equality between women and men as partners and beneficiaries of development, human rights, humanitarian action and peace and security.
The next edition of Progress of the World’s Women will focus on gender equality and climate change. The global report will build on the paper, Feminist Climate Justice: A Framework for Action, as its conceptual framework. Alongside the global report, a gender equality and climate policy scorecard will be produced, which will define a gender-responsive climate policy agenda and assess the extent to which countries are implementing it.
Under the direct supervision of the Deputy Chief, Research and Data section and in close collaboration with the research specialists in the team, the research specialist on climate change consultant is responsible for leading on the pilot for the gender equality and climate policy scorecard; and for producing an outline and research commissioning strategy for the global report.
Duties and Responsibilities
1. Lead the development of an outline of the global Progress of the World’s Women report.
Based on the conceptual framework outlined in UN Women’s paper: Feminist Climate Justice: A Framework for Action, and in consultation with the research and data section, other experts in UN Women and external experts on gender and climate change, develop options for the outline of the global Progress of the World’s Women report.
Once an approach has been agreed, develop initial outlines for the chapters, to include key policy issues covered, and data to include.
........
3. Contribute to the pilot of the gender equality and climate policy scorecard................

Welcome UN Women is the global champion for gender equality, working to develop and uphold standards and create an environment in which every woman and girl can exercise her human rights and live up to her full potential. We are trusted partners for advocates and decision-makers from all walks of life, and....

Calling on Patriots to help save "our" country. Please like, comment, and share this petition so our numbers will grow:
{WHEREAS, there exists incontrovertible evidence that Republican Party Members are, and have been, reluctant to donate through Winred, because they are aware of the following detrimental consequences: (1) their information will be shared and sold to numerous third parties (2). Those parties will harass them with solicitations by email, cell phone calls, and text messages, often under the guise of a “survey”, or other misrepresentation, as to the true nature of the contact (3). There is a high likelihood that their donation, at least in part, will be funneled to an unintended recipient or use (4). They are aware that there is no effective way to opt- out, because their data will be shared, sold, or otherwise disseminated to countless entities. They know the burden of opting-out will be daunting if not impossible.
WHEREAS, we offer a solution, in the form of a promise to donors, to the following effect:
“We will never apply any part of your donation to a candidate or cause other than the candidate or cause named and described in your donation. Your personal information is 100% protected. We will never share or sell your information at any time. Your phone number will only be used to send you login information and extremely important updates or alerts. You can easily and completely opt-out at any time, no questions asked”.
NOW, therefore, be it resolved that the subscribers herein swear or affirm that they are citizens of the United States of American, with full privileges to vote in their respective districts, for local, state, and federal offices, laws, and amendments, and that their interests lie solely in securing the happiness of the people of the United States}
Signed,
The Minute Patriots, _____________________

Patriotic Americans will not attempt to rewrite history, nor will they accept revisions of it. History is fact, and it is a sacred duty of those governed by their consent, to exert reasonable effort to know history. While much of western civilization is disputed, there remain certain facts upon which all reasonable and informed people agree. For example, does anyone disagree that a man named George Washington served as the first president of the united states after the adoption of the constitution? Does any reasonable person believe that John Adam's "Thoughts on Government" were not penned in his hand? So we must agree that there are some parts of American History that do not lie in dispute. Can we agree that they intended to build a form of government whose powers would be forever limited? Who can argue that the founders who prevailed; those whose thoughts on government were the foundation for American government, sought to build anything but a government of limited powers? So herein lies the essence of our feud: roughly half of the country has been lead to believe that our founders were wrong in their thoughts on government. They have been convinced that, fundamentally, there are better ways under which the governed should consent to be ruled. That a powerful central government, and powerful state and local governments, are the best instruments to secure the greatest happiness of the people. The only missing link, their leaders espouse, is the appointment of the right leaders. Once accomplished, they proclaim, all will be well. A nation of men and women rulers, rather than a nation of laws and limited government. This is the essence of the battle raging in America today. How it ends will become history, some of which will be subject to interpretation, and some will not. We challenge all Americans to take up your sacred duty. Learn that part of our history that does not lie in dispute, and then chose sides from an informed position. To quote John Adams, the "People must think for themselves".

Response to a facebook comment by citizen Mary McDaniel
"The Minute Patriots NPR is simply reporting truth. I wish 1 PERSON would show us the PROOF that the election was rigged, as Trump says. Proof was shown in Trump’s trial of election fraud, against him!! That's all the Republicans have to do as well. Produce the evidence!"
Our response: "Firstly, which American founder is your hero? It is indeed a short list from which to choose. Only a handful were truly essential, who, without them, American would not have happened. John Adams is among that short list, perhaps at the very top. Among his many quotes is the following: "Liberty cannot be preserved without a general knowledge among the people, who have a right … and a desire to know.”
—John Adams, 1765". Likewise, "Whenever the people are well informed, they can be trusted with their own government; that whenever things get so far wrong as to attract their notice, they may be relied on to set them to rights.”
—Thomas Jefferson, 1788. And so, we hold that these axioms are timeless. Today, as much as ever, we all get information, which some call "news", from both sides of the struggle to right the ship. This means we should not only subject ourselves to the voices of the Left (MSNBC, CBS, NBC, ABC, NPR, and the like), but we should also "learn" what Newsmax, One America, The Charlie Kirk Show, and numerous conservative talk radio shows have to say about our government and our world. Is there "any" factual basis in that which they present? This goes for both sides of the isle. Recommended readings: " A Patriots History of the United States", by Larry Schweikart and Michael Allen, "John Adams", by David Mccullough (the audio version is exceptional), "Frederick Douglas Republicans", by K. Carl Smith, "The Communist Manifesto", by Karl Mark and Frederich Engles, "The Federalist", introduction by Robert A. Ferguson, "The Minutemen and Their World, by Robert A. Gross, "1776", by David McCullough, "The First American", by H.W. Brands, "Alexander Hamilton", by Ron Chernow, for starters. If we sincerely want to know the facts of the case (the "election fraud" case you described, we should look to the court records. What crime was the republican nominee charged with, and what were the named elements of the crime(s)? How many times in the past had people been charged with those specific elements, in the same jurisdiction? How many convictions occurred? Were there statutes of limitations for the alleged crimes? Who is Merrick Garland, and why did he leave the justice department to prosecute Donald Trump in a state court? Who is the judge’s daughter, Loren Merchan ( president of Authentic Campaigns, a Chicago-based progressive political consulting firm whose top clients include Rep. Adam Schiff)? Why was the trial repeatedly called a "hush money" trial? Is "hush money" illegal? Thank you for your comments."

A huge leap in the race! Progress! The RNC has made changes, at least to the National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC) You can now donate electronically and by mail without providing your phone number! Secure.winred.com now includes the following: "If you would prefer to donate online without providing your phone number, click here.

Want to donate by mail? Click here to print out a donation form that you can send to our address". We can do it now to support Republican Senators. Great! But how do we get Winred and the RNC to add these options to all of their fundraising platforms, including Donald Trump for President? Many people, especially the young voters, don't have printers or check books, and will only donate if its easy and fast.

Please write your members of congress, as we have, in a plea to join Rep. Good's Call for Defunding Biased NPR!
April 19, 2024
Press Release
Washington, D.C. - Congressman Bob Good (VA-05) introduced the Defund NPR Act to ensure that no taxpayer dollars fund the biased radical left messaging at National Public Radio (NPR). This legislation prohibits federal funding of NPR and prevents local public radio stations from using federal grant money to purchase content or pay dues to NPR.
“It is bad enough that so many media outlets push their slanted views instead of reporting the news, but it is even more egregious for hardworking taxpayers to be forced to pay for it. National Public Radio has a track record of promoting anti-American narratives on the taxpayer dime,” said Good. “My legislation would ensure no taxpayer dollars are used to fund the woke, leftist propaganda of National Public Radio.”
NPR was originally created to be an educational news source and to “speak with many voices, many dialects.” In the 55 years since NPR was founded, they have become a primary outlet for advancing biased and radical media coverage of political and social issues. On April 10, 2024, former Editor of NPR, Uri Berliner, issued a scathing review of the news outlet claiming it has “lost America’s trust.” Mr. Berliner resigned from NPR shortly after due to a lack of viewpoint diversity and a hard embrace of diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) principles.
Background:
In 2021, the staff of NPR had a significant disparity in party affiliation: 87 Democrats and 0 Republicans.
On July 4, 2022, NPR broke a 33-year tradition of reading the Declaration of Independence and instead focused on Thomas Jefferson, the author of the Declaration of Independence, and his relationship with his slave Sally Hemmings.
NPR receives taxpayer dollars directly and indirectly, which means that taxpayer dollars are funding a radical, DEI-focused media outlet.
Under current law, NPR is able to receive even more taxpayer dollars than are specifically authorized for the outlet, because any public radio station that receives federal grants must use 26 percent of the funds for production or the acquisition of programming, including programming for national distribution.
These stations commonly use funds to buy programming from NPR – further funding NPR’s operation and expanding the reach of NPR’s woke ideology.
Co-sponsors (8): Rep. Perry (R-PA), Rep. Duncan (R-SC), Rep. Bishop (R-NC), Rep. Miller (R-IL), Rep. Clyde (R-GA), Rep. Eli Crane (R-AZ), Rep. Jackson (R-TX), Rep. Harris (R-MD)
Supporting Groups: Family Research Council