CHAPTERS
- 0:00 – 0:15
Meet Brian Derrick & Oath: data-driven political giving
Kara introduces Brian Derrick and his platform Oath, which aims to help donors identify where contributions will matter most. The framing sets up fundraising as a key lever in the 2024 election ecosystem.
- •Brian Derrick’s background as a political strategist and founder/CEO of Oath
- •Oath’s mission: direct donor money to the highest-stakes, highest-impact races
- •Fundraising is positioned as central to political power and outcomes
- 0:15 – 1:06
The ‘rage donation’ problem and why money gets wasted
Brian explains how outrage at political villains drives impulsive donations that often don’t meaningfully change outcomes. Oath is designed to counter emotional giving with strategic allocation.
- •Outrage cycles (news/social) trigger immediate, reactive donations
- •Money often goes to symbolic fights rather than winnable/impactful contests
- •Goal shifts from ‘punish a villain’ to ‘prevent them gaining power’
- •Need for a system that measures what a donation will actually accomplish
- 1:06 – 1:37
How Oath works: objective analysis, issue-based targeting, less spam
Brian outlines Oath as a free platform that evaluates where dollars are most needed to advance specific values. He also highlights the practical downside of traditional donation funnels—endless follow-up solicitations.
- •Objective analysis to prioritize races where marginal dollars matter most
- •Issue filters like reproductive rights and protecting democracy
- •Strategic giving versus scattershot fundraising
- •Reducing donor blowback: fewer texts/calls after giving
- 1:37 – 2:53
Scott’s ‘three donor buckets’ and the Biden money-tap question
Scott proposes a framework: big donors waiting, mid-level donors revolting, and small donors being heavily solicited. He asks whether fundraising pressure could force change at the top of the ticket.
- •Three-tier donor model: big, medium, small donors
- •Hypothesis: big donors pause; mid-tier stops Biden giving and explores alternatives
- •Small donors targeted with urgent campaign messaging
- •Core question: has Biden’s fundraising effectively dried up?
- 2:53 – 3:53
Donors pivot to down-ballot and ‘reverse coattails’ strategy
Brian says presidential-level giving has slowed to a trickle, while interest in down-ballot races is rising. He describes “reverse coattails,” where exciting local candidates boost turnout regardless of the presidential nominee.
- •Presidential donations slowing; donors browsing alternatives
- •Increased Oath traffic from donors wanting to give strategically
- •Down-ballot focus in competitive states with younger/energizing candidates
- •Reverse coattails: build turnout from the bottom up
- •Donor pressure as leverage to push for a more viable nominee
- 3:53 – 4:25
New funding vehicles: ‘Pass the Torch’ and donating to a future nominee
Brian mentions a partner effort enabling donors to give contingent on a new Democratic nominee. The point underscores that donor intent remains strong, but is being re-routed to express strategic and political preferences.
- •Pass the Torch fund: supports a new nominee (not Biden)
- •Mechanism for donors to stay engaged while signaling dissatisfaction
- •Donors still motivated by high election stakes
- •Shift from emotional giving to strategic, conditional giving
- 4:25 – 5:59
Down-ballot fallout risk: worst-case scenario analysis if Biden collapses
Kara presses on coattails and the damage to lower races if Biden stays and loses badly. Brian describes an internal memo modeling devastating down-ballot consequences from a landslide loss and emphasizes threats from election deniers and extremists.
- •Concern about negative coattails harming Senate, House, and state races
- •Worst-case scenario: late debate-like moment leading to landslide
- •Impact includes state legislatures and state supreme courts
- •Democracy-stability framing; avoiding a 2010-style collapse
- •Prioritizing races that can be saved even if top-of-ticket underperforms
- 5:59 – 7:31
Who matters more: small donors vs big ‘whales’ and mid-tier checks
Kara asks whether Biden’s claimed small-dollar surge offsets major donor defections. Brian argues campaigns need both, but presidential-scale operations rely heavily on six-figure checks and the mid/high-dollar ecosystem to fund infrastructure and response.
- •Both grassroots and major donors are necessary for scale
- •Biden expected to spend >$1B; large checks are structurally important
- •Grassroots gives momentum and unity signals
- •Mid/high-dollar funding enables offices, staffing, and rapid ad response
- •High-profile donor pauses drive broader narratives and constraints
- 7:31 – 9:50
When will we know if fundraising has truly collapsed? Reporting timelines
Scott asks for the fundraising ‘litmus test’ and when the public will see evidence. Brian explains the reporting cadence and notes campaigns can spin finance data; Biden also has enough cash to avoid near-term operational collapse.
- •Public fundraising clarity may not arrive until early August
- •Upcoming reporting windows: July 16 quarterly report (limited new signal)
- •Campaign finance data can support multiple narratives
- •Biden has historic cash; no pre-convention cash crunch expected
- •If Biden is nominee post-convention, taps may reopen as donors have no alternative
- 9:50 – 10:51
What Brian is hearing: donor collectives re-targeting and building alternatives
Brian shares that donor groups are actively discussing how to ‘match the crisis,’ often by withholding from Biden or shifting targets. He emphasizes that money is still moving, but it’s hard to quantify direct damage to Biden’s accounts.
- •Multiple donor collectives holding parallel ‘what now’ discussions
- •Some withhold money entirely; more commonly they re-target to Senate/House
- •New Super PACs forming to support alternative candidates
- •High activity in political giving despite uncertainty
- •No reliable estimate of how much Biden’s direct fundraising slowed
- 10:51 – 12:17
Under-the-radar priorities: state courts, Arizona legislature, and ballot measures
Kara asks for the most important races people aren’t talking about. Brian highlights Michigan and North Carolina state supreme court contests, Arizona legislative flips tied to abortion policy, and a wave of ballot initiatives.
- •State supreme courts (MI, NC) shape maps, voting rights, abortion, guns
- •Arizona state legislature: plausible flip even if Dems lose presidency
- •Legislative control could reverse Arizona’s abortion ban
- •Ballot measures as ‘direct democracy’ leverage
- •Examples: reproductive rights in ~a dozen states; anti-gerrymandering in Ohio; living wage in Missouri
- 12:17 – 14:11
Is ‘chaos’ unavoidable? Risk-taking, the convention timeline, and strategic choice
Kara challenges the argument that switching candidates is too risky or too late. Brian argues chaos is already here after the debate, predicts a rocky stretch until the convention, and frames the choice as whether to channel uncertainty into renewal or cling to Biden and hope.
- •Chaos attributed to the debate moment; now the party is reacting
- •Six-week runway to convention as the key uncertainty window
- •Biden insisting daily he’s staying doesn’t end the turmoil
- •Decision point: new candidate energy vs sticking with Biden
- •Post-convention: situation likely settles one way or another
- 14:11 – 16:47
Trump and RFK Jr fundraising: billionaire money, policy influence, and thin grassroots
Scott asks how Trump’s fundraising compares to 2020 and about RFK Jr’s funding. Brian says Trump is stronger due to billionaire backing and transactional fundraising, while RFK Jr relies on a small set of wealthy patrons with limited grassroots support.
- •Trump fundraising stronger than 2020; intensified billionaire outreach
- •Example: $50M Tim Mellon check to a Trump Super PAC
- •Claims of policy-for-money dynamics (e.g., oil exec ask; platform shifts)
- •RFK Jr propped up by a handful of large donors (incl. running mate)
- •RFK Jr lacks scalable grassroots donations; large checks enable ballot access efforts
