1

Artifact 9

Campaign Finance and the Cheri Beasley Campaign

Sam Hodges

Department of Political Science, Appalachian State University

PS 5900: Political Science Internship

November 13, 2022

 2

Overview

This semester, I interned with Cheri Beasley for the Senate campaign. I was made aware

of the opportunity through emails from Dr. Tatyana Ruseva. After submitting my application and

having a phone interview right before the summer, I was made an intern with the finance

department. The Cheri Beasley campaign was a political campaign whose goal was to get Chief

Justice Cheri Beasley elected as a Senator for North Carolina. Chief Justice Beasley was the first

African-American woman to be elected Chief Justice of North Carolina's Supreme Court. She

would have been the first African-American woman to become a Senator for North Carolina.

Although she did lose, I was still excited to participate in a historic campaign. The finance

department was responsible for the monetary area of this campaign. They helped to find and

persuade donors to donate to the campaign. They also helped manage the money and decide how

and where to spend it. This internship was shorter than others, as it lasted until November 8th,

when the election ended. I had one main task as an intern that I was responsible for in the first

few weeks of the internship. The first few weeks consisted of finding donors for the campaign.

The campaign had a database of people who had donated to other North Carolina and nationwide

Democratic campaigns in the past few years. The campaign used that database to cross-reference

with a list of potential donors that they had. I had to cross-reference the information in the two

databases to ensure we could find and communicate with the donors. This consisted of

confirming addresses, names, and occupations. Mostly, these responsibilities were easy, and it

was not difficult to get through one hundred names or more in just two hours. The lists contained

thousands of names. After that, I was moved to a project where I had to find more donors, but

differently. I would be given a list of donors or potential donors, and then I had to find contact
 3

information for that person so the campaign could invite them to events. The essential contact

information to find was an email address, as that was what the campaign would use to contact

people. The campaign provided a list of websites to find people, including TruePeopleSearch and

Truthfinder. I found those websites to be the most reliable in finding people and their email

addresses, but I would also utilize a quick Google search if I needed help finding them through

that website. As the November 8th election drew closer, I started doing more activities that were

talking to people. The campaign became less about raising money and more about contacting

voters and making sure they got out to vote. The finance team was mainly folded into the field

team, knocking on doors and making phone calls. For two weeks, I was given a list of phone

numbers I could call from my computer and a script. I called hundreds of numbers, and most

people did not pick up. However, the people who did pick up were usually very kind to talk to.

The provided script asked people to volunteer to knock on doors and talk to potential nonvoters

about getting out to the polls and casting a ballot in support of Cheri Beasley and other North

Carolina Democrats. If people wanted to avoid knocking on doors, there was another ask for

doing phone banking to get people out to vote. Finally, I knocked on doors for the last two weeks

leading up to the election, trying to get people out to vote. I knocked on 50+ doors in the Boone

area. This was the most rewarding task I was assigned during this internship. Though most

people did not answer their doors, it was good to talk to those who did. They were all of the

varied ages, races, and political orientations. It felt fun and helpful to give them information to

help them vote, such as who was on the ballot or where their polling place was. It was also good

to talk to people who had already voted and hear their enthusiasm for Cheri Beasley and other

local Democratic candidates. Many older adults I talked to were also enthused that I was out

knocking on doors, saying that the world needed more young people doing things like that, out
 4

and engaged in politics. Boone is a highly mountainous place with many hills, so walking around

areas to knock on doors was very tiring, and I was chased away by a dog or two. However, it was

still exciting and rewarding to canvass so many doors and talk to many people.

Academic Research

An important thing to note is what drives donations to political campaigns. Ideology is

the most common factor that drives individuals to donate (Rhodes et al., 2018, p. 514). However,

there is also a substantial difference between those with much money and those without much

money. People who are wealthy and pay attention to politics usually spend their money on state

candidates that cover their jurisdiction or donate to political organizations such as Political

Action Committees (PACs). In contrast, people who do not have much money to spend or ignore

politics will typically only give to political parties or not donate succinctly (Rhodes et al., 2018,

p. 514). The amount of money an individual has access to can drive where a person donates in

political contexts. Wealthy people can afford to give to people who might not even represent

them but still represent their interests. In contrast, people who do not have much donatable

money might be better off donating to someone who will directly influence their day-to-day lives

wherever they live.

Gender can impact how and to whom an individual donates to. Women have been

drastically underrepresented in campaign donations and continue to be today. Though the

number of women donating money has increased as they have entered the labor force and started

to make more money, they are still underrepresented (Herwig & Gordon, 2018, p. 822). Women

are more likely to donate only to candidates, especially presidential candidates. Women are also

much more likely to donate money to politics when their gender is a particularly salient issue on

the ballot. They also give more when women's issues are at stake and when women are on the
 5

ballot. Data shows that women's donations likely caused the 1992 "Year of the Woman," a

landmark election where many women were elected at the federal level.

Conversely, men are much more likely to give to political parties and PACs, as well as

candidates. When women give to PACs, they are much more likely to be ideological PACS

representing women's issues. Men give more money to industry PACs, showing a broad divide

between the genders on this issue. Men are also much more likely to give House candidates

money than women (Herwig & Gordon, 2018, p. 822).

Media coverage can drive people to donate, or not donate, to political campaigns. Though

we often like to think that appearances on news networks like CNN or Fox are the only ones that

matter, researchers have found that media coverage does not have to be from those verified news

networks. For example, there is something that people call the "Colbert effect," wherein

candidates who go onto talk shows like Stephen Colbert's experience a bump in donations and

support after their appearance (Fowler, 2008, p. 533). However, this bump only applies to

Democrats and not Republicans. When Democrats go onto the show, they experience a one-third

increase in donations over 30 days.

This shows that these TV programs positively affect Democrats and not Republicans,

showing that these programs might be biased in a liberal direction. On the other hand,

Republican donations stay flat or even decrease. This could explain why researchers also found

that Democrats go onto Colbert when they are down in the polls, while Republicans only do it

when they are up (Fowler, 2008, p. 538).

Another essential thing to note is who donates to political candidates. Lawyers and

retirees are among the people who donate the most amount of money to political candidates. For

example, in 2008, lawyers and law firms had given around $54.8 million to the presidential
 6

candidates, and the next highest group, retirees, had given about $41.5 million. Democrats got

most of these campaign donations (Filisko, 2007, p. 45). Some of the lawyers in this study said

they were encouraged to make donations through their law firms (Filisko, 2007, p. 47).

According to a 2022 study, scientists and professors are much more likely to donate to

Democrats than Republicans, even more so than the administration at the universities where

some of those professors work (Kaurov et al., 2022, p. 3). This has been a big deal because

Republicans have strayed more and more from science and had an anti-intellectual stance that

claims that much science is a result of liberal bias.

An example would be the Republican attacks on the CDC, Dr. Anthony Fauci, and

scientific elites during the COVID-19 crisis. This can be contrasted with an increase in trusting

science and scientists among Democrats (Kaurov et al., 2022, pp. 5-6). This trend of a sharp

divide between Democrats and Republicans was not even a big deal until around 2000. Until

then, scientists donated to Democrats and Republicans reasonably evenly. This has become a

problem, as scientists, who are not even exceptionally liberal, are shoe-horned into donating to

the Democrats because they are the only ones who listen to them when they talk about the

dangers coming. Additionally, Republicans have successfully changed political conversations by

denying science (Kaurov et al., 2022, p. 7).

An issue that arises from individual donors is the polarization and extremism that arises

from it. Donors have become increasingly extreme on both ends of the political spectrum. As

they have become more divided, they have donated to more and more polarizing candidates.

When candidates are competing for the money of donors, they have also been forced to become

more extreme in order to be able to finance their campaigns (Kujala, 2020, p. 597). For example,

researchers have found that people who win their primary elections are more responsive to their
 7

donors, at least at the congressional level. Democratic donors might be more willing to support

moderate people, but Republican donors are very polarized and therefore support the more

polarizing candidates (Kujala, 2020, p. 587). Either way, donors on both sides of the political

aisle are more likely to support extreme candidates, which affects polarization across the country.

This effect is particularly evident among House candidates. They are much more responsive to

their donors than other electoral candidates. Researchers have pointed out that this speaks to the

ability of the wealthy to push middle and lower-class voters' concerns to the side simply by

donating money to politicians (Kujala, 2020, p. 598).

Next, this paper turns to the impact of corporate finance on elections and politics in

general. Since the Citizens United Supreme Court ruling, many have lamented the influence of

corporate money in politics. There was some hope that it would be overturned, but that hope

went away after President Donald Trump put three conservative justices on the Supreme Court.

They have made no indication that they would overturn it and every indication that they would

uphold the decision (White & Kerbel, 2022, p. 136). Many other people try to get around the

already flimsy rules we have in place by donating through 501c groups that do not require to

disclose to whom they give their money. Another popular way of getting around the donation

rule is to donate through 527 organizations, which are tax-exempt and do not have limits on how

much they can take or donate (White & Kerbel, 2022, pp. 135-6). Corporate donations are only

sometimes in the public's interest and often go against the public's interest. Some claim that the

so-called "free speech" of corporations is so loud because of how much influence they have that

it effectively silences the influence of regular people who do not have that much money and

power (Leong et al., 2013, p. 431). However, others argue that corporations have the right to be

involved in politics because they, like individuals, will be affected by policy decisions (Leong et
 8

al., 2013, p. 431). Some have advocated for corporations and big donors to be excluded from the

process because they contribute to the polarization of the political system and drive our

politicians to extremes, making elected officials less able to concentrate on the real people who

are pretty moderate. The data does not support this theory. The data shows that small and large

donors are equally polarized, so restricting donations to only small donors would not let the

moderates speak; it would still be mainly extremists. Wealthy people can donate to more places,

people, and organizations (Rhodes et al., 2018, p. 514).

Some research found that corporate donations to political candidates might not have the

effect that many think they do. Rather than corporate donations helping the actual corporations,

researchers found that corporate executives donate money in order to help themselves rather than

the company. Even more shocking is that the worse the corporate leadership, the more they will

donate to political candidates. Moreover, those donations do not do what they think they will do.

For every $10,000 increase in donations from a corporate entity, there is a 7.4-point reduction in

excess returns (Aggarwal et al., 2012, p. 36). However, this data should be taken with a grain of

salt, as this was research done very soon after the Citizens United ruling. The researchers only

did research between 1991 and 2004 and had little data after the decision. The researchers

themselves admit that the use of corporate funds for political donations was likely to increase

after the Citizens United decision (Aggarwal et al., 2012, p. 37). It would be interesting to see

this study conducted again now, as the researchers admit that things have changed since Citizens

United.

Corporate political donations and individual political donations come with problems. The

biggest and also most fundamental problem that has been associated with political donations is

that they are essentially bribes. Candidates need money to run campaigns, and in the present day,
 9

a campaign can be millions of dollars, with the price increasing as the office gets more critical.

Private corporations or individuals can supply that money, but the money is not given for free.

Donors want their interests represented by those they donate to (Painter, 2022, p. 231).

Though it has been established that donations come with problems, only some have the

same solution as to how to solve the problems. Some researchers say that a society's rational

preferences should be best accommodated, so if the society benefits from corporate donations,

they should allow them with some regulation (Leong et al., 2013, p. 429). Many countries say

that corporations must disclose whom they are donating to and how much money they are

donating so that voters can be informed and know who is funding the candidates they vote for

(Leong et al., 2013, p. 432). From a utilitarian standpoint, it makes sense to outrightly ban

corporations from making political donations. However, based on the current rights-based

system, this would most likely not fly in the United States (Leong et al., 2013, p. 442).

Therefore, some researchers say that the best option when a ban is not available is a strict

limitation of corporate donations, set at the lowest possible level.

Moreover, they say that people should not be able to donate money from their company

money, but for personal reasons. This would eliminate some of the corruption that we see around

the country. However, these things would probably not eliminate all of the corporate donations

we see in politics because although we would be able to see the donations that people make, the

average American citizen would be unable to hold the government or the corporation

accountable without significant cooperative action amongst citizens (Leong et al., 2013, pp.

442-3). Though this is possible, it is also unlikely that it would happen. Another suggested type

of reform would be more substantial dollar limits on political contributions. Some limits have

been upheld recently, but others were struck down by the Supreme Court (Painter, 2022, p. 236).
 10

Others want 501c to disclose who donates to them, what they are donating to, and how much

money is in each category (Painter, 2022, p. 237). More clear disclosure could help people

understand whom they are voting for and who the people they are donating to are beholden to.

One way of reducing the impact of corporate and significant donations is not to accept

them at all. This would require an ideological shift from candidates, but it has been done before.

The Bernie Sanders campaigns have disavowed super PAC donations in an exciting attempt to

bring up the bad that comes from significant donations to political campaigns. The Sanders

campaign was also able to rely on small donations in order to stay afloat. They did this by

portraying smaller donations as a more democratic version of donations than a corporation and

super PAC donation. By framing themselves as a great place for small donations, they made up

for the fact that they were not accepting super PAC donations. Their campaign donor data has

also been given to other campaigns to help them raise money for their campaigns (Thimsen,

2022, p. 104). Beyond sharing their data with other campaigns, scholars doubt that the Sanders

campaign has made a lasting impact and doubt even more that many will follow suit. However,

the campaign did show the possibility of having a somewhat successful campaign by primarily

relying on smaller donations to get their point across. All that remains is for other campaigns to

pick up the torch and continue down that path of small donations for the movement to pick up

speed.

Some have even proposed giving financial aid to encourage small donations to bolster

them instead of big corporations. A bill passed in the House in 2021 would give a 6:1 match for

money donated to presidential and congressional candidates. Therefore, for every $1 donation,

$6 more would be given to the candidate at no cost to taxpayers or candidates. Another proposal

was to give citizens a tax break for donating to political candidates or candidates (Painter, 2022,
 11

p. 240). These would include incentives for smaller donors to give to political candidates in the

hope that they would gain some ground and start becoming on par with big corporations and

wealthy donors. This would allow middle and lower-class citizens to have some say in the

political world.

Many proposed solutions have to do with the courts or the Constitution, but they are

unlikely to happen. Some researchers have suggested that the Supreme Court needs to be

convinced to reverse the Citizens United Decision. However, as previously mentioned, this is

unlikely to happen given the current majority-conservative Supreme Court. Because the odds are

stacked against that happening, others have suggested an amendment to the Constitution that

would invalidate the Citizens United ruling (Painter, 2022, pp. 234-5). However, this idea is

almost equally likely not to happen. This would require enormous cooperation from both

Democrats and Republicans in order to reach the two-thirds majority needed to make a

Constitutional amendment. There is so much polarization between Democrats and Republicans,

some of it fueled by donors themselves, that it would be tough for something like that to happen.

It is hard enough for Democrats to push through a policy right now when they have control over

all three branches of the government; it would be almost impossible for them to get a two-thirds

majority in the Senate, House, and state legislatures.

Integrating Research and Practice

The finding that ideology strongly influences how individuals donate is not surprising.

The people the finance department interacted with were strongly Democratic and not at all

moderate or conservative in the slightest. The long list of people who had donated in the past

comprised more than just recent donors or those who had only donated a small amount. When

looking up these donors, it was easy to see that they had donated multiple times and had
 12

contributed large amounts of money, either all at once or in smaller amounts that added up.

These were the people that the Cheri Beasley campaign was calling or emailing, asking for

money from. They were not people the campaign was unsure they could rely on but people who

had been consistent donors over the years. When making phone calls, it was common for one to

hear from whoever answered the phone that they had already donated money, even if the phone

call was not a fundraising one.

Interestingly, none of these people requested to be taken off the phone list but said thank

you and continued on their way. The people who were invited to the significant events were also

very wealthy, so research that says that wealthy people are the ones that donate to state-level

candidates aligns with the experiences of the campaign. This speaks to their stalwart ideology

and support for Democratic candidates.

There were also a substantial amount of women donating to the campaign. This also

comports with the research that was done. Cheri Beasley was a woman who was fighting for

women's issues this election cycle, particularly after Roe v. Wade was overturned earlier this

year. The research shows that women are more likely to donate when women's issues are at stake

during that election. That same research also found that women donated in record numbers when

many women were on the ballot in 1992, the aptly named "Year of the Woman." Therefore it is

not very surprising that so many women were donating to Cheri Beasley and that in the weekly

work leading up to the election, so many women were contacted and asked for their support.

Research shows that they could be counted on for support, and the campaigns desperately needed

it.

One of the internship's responsibilities was to double-check and confirm donors'

occupations, so comparing the results of previous research to the internship experiences was
 13

straightforward. One thing from the research that made sense with the internship experience was

that lawyers donated large numbers to the Democratic party. Though it is impossible to compare

to previous years or the Republican candidate, Ted Budd, it was interesting to see the number of

lawyers who donated to the Beasley campaign. They were not donating chump change; they

were sending in substantial money. Lawyers were also among those who were being invited to

campaign events. This makes sense: invite the people known for donating and donating a lot.

Interestingly enough, there was a surprising lack of scientists. Employment was always

self-reported; many people left that section blank when donating. However, a hypothesis for this

lack of scientists has come up. According to the journal article, scientists are not necessarily

highly liberal; many are, in fact, just regular liberals or even moderates. They donate to

Democrats because Democrats are the ones who back up scientific facts with policy ideas. Given

this, they may not be as enthusiastic about voting or just showing their support for the

Democratic party. Therefore, they may be less likely to put their occupation down and less

willing to attend donor events. The theory would be that they do not have a strong affiliation

with the party; they appreciate that the Democratic party supports their research and findings.

Though it was impossible to question donors on their political beliefs to determine if they

were extreme, it is interesting to see how ideologically different Democrat Cheri Beasley and

Republican Ted Budd are as candidates. Just a glance through their campaign websites showed

how different they are. They have almost none of the same issues on their pages, and the ones

they do have, they are very opposed to the solutions they have for the problems they identify. For

example, Ted Budd has a large section on cutting taxes for people, whereas Cheri Beasley does

not even mention them. Moreover, they differ in significant ways on issues where they both have

sections, like abortion. For example, the Beasley campaign website is all about protecting
 14

women's rights and bodies (Beasley, 2022). On the opposite side of the spectrum, the Budd

campaign website is all about defunding Planned Parenthood and restricting abortion access

(Budd, 2022). Again, though it is impossible to see how extreme donors are, the research does

state that political candidates have felt the need to be more beholden to their donors, who are

becoming more extreme. Beasley and Budd do not agree on much at all, and according to

previous research, a significant reason would be the pressures of large and small extremist

donors who donate to them. If they did not take the positions of those who donate to them, they

would risk losing their support and future donations. Though they were not House candidates,

the same rules still apply to a lesser extent.

One of the researchers' main concerns was that political donations feel like bribes.

Political donations are bribes or payments to get into events and gain audiences with the Beasley

campaign and sometimes Cheri Beasley herself. By donating a certain amount of money to the

campaign, people ensured that they ended up on the invite list for the next campaign football

watch party or another event. Though these other events were often just more fundraising events,

participants could still get into the same room as an essential congressional candidate whose

election would have had significant consequences for the nation. Additionally, it was interesting

to hear political donations described as bribes because it was a big deal to the people contacted

over the phone. People would often answer the phone, and some would offer money or say they

had already donated money. They assumed that it was what the campaign was calling for, so it

was a way to get off the phone. Though this is not how bribes were talked about in the book, it

was interesting to see how middle and lower-class people attempted to offer money in exchange

for being left alone.

 15

Much of the focus in the later stages of finding donors was on identifying wealthy

donors. The Kujala journal article points out how many are concerned about the influence of

wealthy donors, seeing how they could push the concerns of middle and lower-class people out

of politicians' focus simply through donations. This concern is valid, as wealthy people were the

ones for whom the finance interns and volunteers were trying to find contact information. These

people were being offered the chance to interact with Chief Justice Beasley and her campaign,

the chance to donate more money, but, perhaps most importantly, also the chance to gain

influence through the opportunity of meeting her and other essential campaign staffers who

would have become necessary staff of Cheri Beasley if she had won the election. It seems unfair

that those people would have their concerns attended to by the campaign while others with more

pressing needs might be lost because they cannot afford to donate to a political campaign as a

wealthy person can.

Though wealthy people were the targets of donor emails and the target of much of the

day-to-day work that interns did, it was fascinating to see whose doors were being targeted for

door-knocking to get out to vote. The interns in Boone were not sent into affluent neighborhoods

to find wealthy people and convince them to get out to the polls. Instead, the canvassed

neighborhoods were apartments full of young people, trailer parks, and run-down-looking houses

in the middle of nowhere. The campaign needs the money of the wealthy, and they may pay

attention to the issues that the wealthy pressure them into paying attention to. However, when it

comes to getting people out to vote, the campaign needs a lot more people to get candidates in

office, and there are many more poor and middle-class people than there are wealthy people.

Corporate finances and donations are particularly interesting. The internship work only

required a little looking into donations from corporations. However, nothing stops executives
 16

from donating to political campaigns to support their own companies. While many donations

came into the campaign that was not individuals from big companies, there were also a

surprising amount of donations from executives of prominent corporations and companies, both

in North Carolina and beyond. The running theory would be that these executives saw the

Beasley campaign as a means to an end and decided that they should donate in the hopes that the

Beasley campaign would be more responsive to their requests and needs because their companies

had executives who donated to the campaign in the past. This did not come to pass with Cheri

Beasley losing the election, but it might have had she won. Alternatively, the results align with

the Aggarwal et al. study, where the executives only donated for personal gain rather than

corporate gain.

Though banning donations to political campaigns might be the best course of action for

the good of American democracy, based on where we are as a nation, it does not seem likely to

happen anytime soon. A more reasonable solution in the immediate future might be for there to

be limits on the amount of money spent. Though the Beasley campaign would have less money,

they would still have more money than the Budd campaign, which raised only about a third of

the amount that the Beasley campaign raised through small donor donations (Norwood, 2022).

Money is almost seen as all-important in political campaigns. Over the years, the amount of

money poured into elections has steadily increased rapidly, with millions being spent on each

race. However, the Cheri Beasley campaign raised over $33 million, almost triple that of her

Republican opponent (Norwood, 2022). The election was also very close, although Chief Justice

Beasley did lose her race. This should speak to people who see money as all important. It might

not be as vital as one thinks, as a highly close race was decided in favor of the candidate who

spent significantly less money. In addition, all that money has been a waste at the end of the day.
 17

Though it was important for the campaign, no one who donated that money gets to see the fruits

of it because Chief Justice Beasley lost the election. Therefore her policy plans are most likely

all lost, never to be implemented. A limitation on how much money can be donated to the

campaign is not to waste as much money on each campaign.

In addition, giving a financial incentive to people to donate to political candidates would

be a great way to get people involved. By giving people a tax break for at least $200, we could

offset the cost of donating to a political candidate. This would encourage people to donate to the

candidates they cared for and allow people who might not usually be able to afford a donation

like that. If donors or potential donors were being invited to events like the ones that the finance

team organized for the Cheri Beasley campaign, there would be more people who could donate

to her invited. The potential donors would also not be very wealthy, and the campaign would

almost be forced to court voters who are in the lower and middle class in order to get money

from them. This could be an excellent way to diversify who is donating to campaigns and avoid

accusations of favoring the wants of the rich over the needs of the poor.

Another proposed solution was to amend the Constitution to invalidate the Citizens

United decision. This is unlikely to happen anytime soon. With states and federal government so

divided, it is unlikely that the United States will see a Constitutional amendment anytime soon,

as they require relatively high levels of cooperation across the board. Even if Cheri Beasley had

won her election, the solution of making a Constitutional amendment would have been hard to

get past. The Senate would have only had a slight majority at best, with fifty-one or fifty-two

Democratic Senators. The House elections would have also been close, with Republicans having

a slight majority. Republicans seem to favor the Citizens United ruling more than Democrats, so

there is probably not a good chance of that happening anytime soon.

 18

Reflection

The research done here focuses on a few main points. First, individuals are motivated to

donate by their ideology and outside influences like the media. People do not decide whom to

donate to in a vacuum. They take from their motivations and the information they take and then

decide to donate based on that. Secondly, campaign finances are dominated by both the wealthy

and the polarized. Middle and lower-class people cannot break into that upper tier and make a

difference, as politicians only pay attention to those who donate the most money. In order to

retain those donors and that money, they have to bow to those people.

Moreover, finally, there are people out there who are interested in campaign finance

reform and have ideas. However, the ideas rely on many different people working together to get

things done. Based on these ideas, it seems unlikely that these things will come about because,

with the polarization of politics, it is doubtful that the two parties will work together to achieve a

mutually agreeable outcome. Furthermore, this issue is more likely to compound itself, as some

of the donation issues are causing an increase in polarization. The issues can be solved by

working together, but the issues themselves drive people apart. This needs to be better for

solving the problems.

Having worked for the North Carolina Democratic Party and the Biden campaign back in

2019-2020, before I came to graduate school, I was interested to see how this new experience as

a volunteer intern differed from those experiences in the past. This internship taught me many

things about myself, the professional and political world, and what I want to do in the future.

One takeaway from working for the North Carolina Democratic Party was that I do not want to

work on campaigns as a career. Before, as an undergraduate and then a recent graduate of the

college, I had been intrigued by political campaigns. However, after doing it back during the
 19

2020 election, I decided it was not for me. This year, I wanted to do my part and contribute to

helping elect Democrats in North Carolina, fulfill my internship requirements, and also see if I

might change my mind about campaigns. Though I did not have a negative experience with the

campaign, it solidified that I did not want to work on campaigns.

However, it did help me learn some things about the professional and political world. I

learned how to use Google Sheets more than I have used it in the past. I learned how to make

new commands and formulas that I can surely take into a professional career. In addition, I

learned how to utilize websites like Truthfinder and TruePeopleSearch. Though these might not

be something many people use outside the political world, it seems very useful in identifying

people. It is an invaluable resource in the future, as I plan on getting a Ph.D. or doing some

political work after graduation.

I also put into practice some qualities that will be invaluable as I continue into my

professional career and hopefully do more research—finding many of the people I was tasked

with finding contact information for too much work. It is always necessary to push through

adversity to finish a task in almost any situation. Especially in the beginning, when I needed help

with how to use the search engines, my supervisor or other campaign workers would give us

interns. However, I persevered and found a way to use the tools I was given to accomplish the

task. Whether through trial and error, reviewing instructions, or sometimes just asking for help, I

could figure out how to do what my supervisor had asked me to do. This seems an invaluable

quality for future research as a Ph.D. student or even as a full-time employee somewhere else.

Additionally, I learned a lot while knocking on doors in the last few days before the

election. Learning how to talk to the different people who answered the door was very engaging.

Though I could see the name and sometimes the age of the person who was supposed to live in
 20

the House, it was often not that person who answered the door. In one circumstance, it was an

elderly guy who opened the door and came to sit outside to chat with me for a few minutes, but

the next door, a shirtless man holding a crying baby, opened the door and stood behind the

screen. My approach to both of those people was drastically different. For the older man, after

asking the standard questions about voting, we chatted about his son, who was in college. For the

young dad, I quickly said goodbye after giving him his voting location. This helped me develop

quick thinking skills to think on my feet.

It was also great to experience some of the things I have read about or learned from in my

education here at Appalachian State. In many of my reports, I have talked about my Applied

Politics class from the Spring of 2022 with Dr. Ardoin. That was an excellent class, and it was

fantastic to talk to many of the people who do political work that I could be interested in doing in

the future. Many of the people we talked with in that class were involved in the finance areas of

the political arena. Some of them were political candidates or staff who had been involved in

fundraising or managing a campaign's funds. Others were lawyers who had worked on campaign

finance reform or even prosecuted people who had broken the rules regarding campaign

finances. It was exciting to be involved in that process and see many things people talked about

in class meetings. In addition, the speakers who came to our class and talked about campaign

finance reform were speaking on some of the same things that I was able to research.

Specifically, they talked about the limits on donations and how people attempt to get around

them. In particular, the lawyers who came in talked about how they believed the limits might

need to be lowered so that people cannot donate more money to campaigns.

I learned skills I can use in more professional and political contexts. I also applied many

things from my Applied Politics class to this internship, and it kept me focused even when the
 21

day-to-day activities were not as enjoyable. Moreover, I learned that although this may not be

what I want to do for a living, it was a valuable experience that gave me a real insight into the

political process, a professional job in politics, and what elections look like on the ground.
 22

References

Aggarwal, R. K., Meschke, F., & Wang, T. Y. (2012). Corporate political donations: Investment

or agency?. Business and Politics, 14(1), 1-38.

Beasley, C. (2022). Issues - Cheri Beasley for North Carolina. Cheri Beasley for North Carolina.

Retrieved November 14, 2022, from https://cheribeasley.com/issues/

Budd, T. (2022). Protecting sanctity of life. Ted Budd. Retrieved November 13, 2022, from

https://tedbudd.com/issues/pro-life/

FILISKO, G. M. (2007). Paying Politics: When it comes to campaign donations, lawyers lead the

pack. ABA Journal, 93(11), 44–48. http://www.jstor.org/stable/27846602

Fowler, J. H. (2008). The Colbert Bump in Campaign Donations: More Truthful than Truthy. PS:

Political Science and Politics, 41(3), 533–539. http://www.jstor.org/stable/20452245

Heerwig, J. A., & Gordon, K. M. (2018). Buying a voice: Gendered contribution careers among

affluent political donors to federal elections, 1980–2008. Sociological Forum, 33(3),

805–825. http://www.jstor.org/stable/26625950

Kaurov, A. A., Cologna, V., Tyson, C., & Oreskes, N. (2022). Trends in American scientists’

political donations and implications for trust in science. Humanities and Social Sciences

Communications, 9(1), 1-8.

Kujala, J. (2020). Donors, primary elections, and polarization in the United States. American

Journal of Political Science, 64(3), 587–602. http://www.jstor.org/stable/45295335

Leong, S., Hazelton, J., & Townley, C. (2013). Managing the risks of corporate political

donations: A utlitarian perspective. Journal of Business Ethics, 118(2), 429–445.

http://www.jstor.org/stable/42922003
 23

Norwood, C. (2022, November 9). Cheri Beasley projected to lose North Carolina senate race to

Ted Budd. The 19th. Retrieved November 13, 2022, from

https://19thnews.org/2022/11/cheri-beasley-loses-north-carolina-senate-race-ted-budd/

PAINTER, R. W. (2022). A three-step approach to money in politics. In N. EISEN (Ed.),

Overcoming trumpery: how to restore ethics, the rule of law, and democracy (pp.

230–252). Brookings Institution Press.

http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.7864/j.ctv1x7k3j2.11

Rhodes, J. H., Schaffner, B. F., & La Raja, R. J. (2018). Detecting and understanding donor

strategies in midterm elections. Political Research Quarterly, 71(3), 503–516.

http://www.jstor.org/stable/45106678

THIMSEN, A. F. (2022). Bernie Sanders and authentically democratic donations. In the

democratic ethos: Authenticity and instrumentalism in US movement rhetoric after

occupy (pp. 80–104). University of South Carolina Press.

https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv23hcf10.8

White, J. K., & Kerbel, M. R. (2022). Campaign finance and transitional political parties. In

American political parties: Why they formed, how they function, and where they’re

headed (pp. 119–137). University Press of Kansas.

https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv2k88td2.12