As election day nears, you may have noticed a spike in text messages from political campaigns. A few years ago, you likely received one or two, if any. Now, it’s almost constant. Why the sudden flood?
Because of three main factors: access, cost and momentum. With voters increasingly listing cell phone numbers on their registrations, campaigns now have direct access to reach them through text. Text messaging is also cheaper than other methods, allowing campaigns to stretch limited budgets. Finally, a feedback loop is at play — campaigns see others doing it, so they feel compelled to follow suit. Together, these factors create a perfect storm, making texting seem not just practical but, for some campaigns, almost necessary.
Campaigns have access to a surprising amount of information about voters, much of it drawn from public voter registration lists, which can be purchased from the county Registrar of Voters.
These lists typically include details like your name, address, party affiliation, voting history, and, increasingly, your cell phone number. In the past, voters usually provided a home phone number, making landline robocalls the go-to method for campaigns to reach supporters. But as mobile phones have replaced landlines, the contact landscape has shifted.
Today, mobile numbers are more common in voter files, and many voters no longer have a landline. Since FCC regulations prohibit campaigns from using automated robocalls to mobile phones, campaigns have had to find another way to reach these voters. Text messaging has filled this gap: While it’s effectively automated, it technically requires human initiation through peer-to-peer platforms to comply with regulations.
As a result, peer-to-peer texting has emerged as one of the most accessible ways for campaigns to reach voters directly. In effect, texting has filled the gap that robocalls once occupied, offering campaigns a way to reach voters directly despite the decline in landline listings.
Another important factor driving the surge in texts is simple economics. For most campaigns, the ideal is to saturate voters’ screens, mailboxes, and airwaves, using television ads, mailers and digital advertising.
Mailers, TV ads and Instagram videos leave lasting impressions, create visibility, and build name recognition — goals every campaign has. Yet these tools come at a steep price. Television commercials can easily cost six figures, and mailers or digital ads cost thousands or even tens of thousands of dollars depending on the district.
Text messaging, on the other hand, allows campaigns to reach voters directly at a fraction of the cost, often just a few cents per message.
For example, take a text message sent citywide to likely voters in the city of San Diego, such as those sent on behalf of Larry Turner for mayor or Brian Maienschein for city attorney. A piece of direct mail to this audience would probably cost somewhere between $170,000 – $200,000. A text to this same audience would cost about $15,000 – $20,000.
But it isn’t just cash-strapped campaigns turning to texting. Well-funded campaigns have embraced text messaging too, especially as election day draws closer. In part because it’s one of the best ways to spend money quickly. The budget pressures for candidates intensify toward the end of a campaign, creating a unique dilemma: Candidates do not want to end a campaign owing people money. But having a surplus raises eyebrows among supporters, too. They may question why those funds weren’t fully utilized.
If they end with money in the bank, candidates will be haunted wondering whether spending every last dollar might have swayed just enough voters to tip the scales.
So, in the final days before election day, if they don’t have time to purchase and produce TV or social media ads, candidates and independent groups can spend leftover funds on text messaging. The beauty of texting is that it’s an easy way to push last-minute voter contact with minimal turnaround. Unlike television or mail, text messages don’t require advance reservations or production time, and they can be sent out almost immediately, offering campaigns an easy way to spend any remaining funds without delay.
It’s worth noting that, despite some limitations, texting does offer unique advantages for certain campaign objectives. For example, targeted messages to core supporters can be highly effective for event mobilization, fundraising appeals, and get-out-the-vote efforts. In fundraising, for instance, campaigns only need a small percentage of recipients to donate for the tactic to be worthwhile. This low conversion threshold makes texting particularly useful for direct fundraising, where even a modest response can cover the cost of the effort and then some.
Finally, there’s a third factor that’s more about momentum than money: the bandwagon effect. Text messaging, while once an experimental tool for a few campaigns, has become a fixture largely because one campaign’s strategy often prompts others to follow suit. As more campaigns adopt texting, it reinforces the perception that everyone should be doing it, creating a feedback loop. This dynamic has transformed texting from a supplementary tactic to a near-standard practice, whether or not campaigns find it strategically ideal.
So, the next time your phone pings with another campaign message, remember: The flood of texts is less about carefully crafted strategy and more a product of budget limitations, shifts in voter contact norms, and the contagious momentum of campaigns mirroring each other’s tactics.
In an age when campaigns will seize any available opportunity to connect with voters, text messaging has become just one more tool — strategic in its own right but also deeply shaped by today’s campaign realities.
