Why should change wait
until Election Day?
Less money talking about change.
More money making it happen.
Campaigning by Doing asks candidates to put 5% of campaign contributions toward the causes they campaign on, helping constituents before Election Day. Independent administrators decide where the money goes.
A proposal under development, not an operating program.
Promises you can see at work.
Food on a shelf. Support for veterans. Help after a disaster. A campaign’s priorities could start making a difference before the votes are counted.
$1 million raised
↓
$50,000 for public benefit
Illustration: 5% of $1 million in contributions received after a commitment begins.
The candidate chooses the cause.
Not who gets the help.
The initial proposal focuses on congressional races. A House candidate names a priority for the district; a Senate candidate names one for the state. Independent administrators make the decisions about recipients.
Tell donors upfront.
The commitment is disclosed before donors give. The commitment comes from campaign contributions, not the candidate’s personal fortune.
Keep help independent.
Administrators apply public rules. Campaigns receive no beneficiary lists. Help never depends on a person’s vote or support.
Make the money traceable.
The administrator publishes receipts, allocations, costs, corrections, and aggregate results. Candidates can point to the record, but cannot edit or suppress it.
Spending to influence our communities? Help them, too.
Groups spending to influence the race face a separate 5% challenge through their own independent administrators. The campaign may not negotiate participation, choose the cause or recipients, coordinate timing or publicity, or claim credit.
Giving does not excuse secrecy. Disclosure of original funding sources remains a separate standard.
Read the outside-money questionAsk your candidate to back their words with action.
Give your candidate something to answer.
Find the people running to represent you, then ask them to back their words with action.
- Find your candidates. Open VOTE411’s candidate lookup (new tab), enter your voting address there, and look for your U.S. House and Senate races. These are election guides, so you can find challengers as well as incumbents. Coverage and contact details vary.
- Copy the message below. Add a sentence about a priority that matters to you, if you like.
- Send it to the campaign. Open the candidate’s campaign website from their profile, where available. Look for “Contact” or “Contact Us,” often at the bottom of the page. Paste the message into the contact form, or click the campaign’s email link and paste it into your email draft. You can also send a direct message, where available, or tag the campaign’s official account on X, Facebook, or Instagram. If no link is listed, search the candidate’s name, office, and “official campaign website.” Check the race and election year before sending.
Need another lookup? Try U.S. Vote Foundation’s Ballotpedia-powered guide (new tab). You enter your address on the lookup provider’s site, not here. These independent resources are not affiliated with Campaigning by Doing.
Give voters a reason to believe you.
Your platform tells voters what matters to you. Putting campaign resources behind those priorities gives them something concrete to judge.
Could a visible commitment earn trust and support worth the cost? Campaigns and qualified legal, research, and administrative partners are invited to discuss how to test that question.
What would exploring a pilot involve?
Campaign-specific legal review, charity willingness, donor response, competitive impact, and an independent administrator with the capacity to account for every transfer. Results should include failures as well as successes.
A proposal you can scrutinize.
Campaigning by Doing is an independent proposal for a 5% candidate commitment, a separate 5% outside-spender challenge, and original-source disclosure.
Does backing campaign promises with action change how voters respond? Research should test the benefits, costs, and risks, and publish what it finds.
Fair questions. Straight answers.
Campaigns need resources to compete. Donors may object. Voters may welcome the commitment or call it a stunt. Those questions deserve honest answers.
Would this replace public policy?
No. A food-bank grant cannot replace an anti-poverty program. This asks candidates to demonstrate priorities with resources they already control while continuing to make their case for governing.
Could this weaken a campaign?
Yes. Five percent has a real opportunity cost. A pilot would need to assess fundraising, voter response, and the campaign’s ability to compete. Benefits must be measured, not assumed.
Who decides who benefits?
An independent administrator applies public rules to select organizations, projects, and beneficiaries. Candidates name broad priorities but do not select recipients or obtain individuals’ identities. No endorsements, staged check presentations, or political conditions on help.
How does the outside-spender challenge work?
Each group is asked to commit 5% of its race-specific independent expenditures through its own independent administrator. Participation is voluntary. The candidate may not negotiate participation, direct the cause or recipients, coordinate timing or publicity, or claim credit. Outside-spender participation or refusal never changes the candidate’s obligation. Original-source disclosure remains a separate standard whether or not a group accepts the challenge.
Is this ready to operate?
No. The exact structure requires professional legal and operational review, willing recipient organizations, and independent administration. This is a proposal, not an operating aid program. No funds are being solicited through this site.
What still needs to be decided?
The accounting base and start date; treatment of refunds, loans, in-kind contributions, and transfers; payment timing; donor opt-outs; eligible activities; and the exact legal and administrative structure. Supporting discussion today creates no payment obligation.
Could this become charity as a campaign prop?
That is a real risk to test. The proposed safeguards prohibit beneficiary lists, endorsements, staged check presentations, and political conditions on assistance. Campaigns may explain the commitment, while independent administrators control recipient decisions and reporting. Safeguards alone do not establish that voters or recipient organizations will accept the model.
Why 5%?
Five percent is the proposed starting point: a visible commitment that leaves most campaign resources available for campaigning. It is not an empirically established optimum, and its costs and benefits need testing.
Is this for one party?
The same standard is open to Democrats, Republicans, and independents.