We analyzed every FEC disbursement from the 2020 cycle to identify consultants who repeatedly
took on unwinnable races — collecting fees and commissions while competitive races went
underfunded. All data is sourced directly from FEC public filings.
Donor $ in hopeless races
—
Senate + House, 2020
Hopeless Dem races
—
PVI R+8 or worse with incumbent
Est. consultant commissions
—
From hopeless races only
ActBlue fees (hopeless)
—
Processing fees on losing races
Hall of shame — biggest dollar extraction from hopeless races
Consultants ranked by total dollars managed in races that were structurally unwinnable
before a single dollar was raised. A "hopeless" race has a Cook PVI of R+8 or worse
with an incumbent opponent present. Commissions are estimated at standard industry rates
(15% media/digital, 18% mail) applied to FEC-reported disbursements.
Filter by type:
#
Consultant / firm
Type
Hopeless races
$ in hopeless races ↓
Est. commission
Hopeless rate
Worst offenders — highest hopeless race rate
Ranked by the percentage of Democratic races they worked that were hopeless before they
were hired. A high rate is not bad luck — it is a pattern of choosing easy fees over
competitive impact. Minimum 2 scored races and $500K managed to qualify.
The money pits — biggest hopeless Senate races
The individual campaigns where donor money was most concentrated in structurally unwinnable
races. Every consultant on these campaigns knew the district lean before signing their contract.
Platform accountability — ActBlue and WinRed
Both platforms collect a 3.95% fee on every dollar processed. Neither platform shows donors
any warning when a race has a low win probability. They have a direct financial incentive
to maximize donation volume regardless of electoral impact.
Methodology
Data source
All financial data is drawn from FEC bulk download files for the 2020 election cycle
(oppexp20.zip, cn20.zip, cm20.zip). These are public records available at fec.gov.
All dollar figures reflect FEC-reported disbursements from principal campaign committees.
Hopeless race definition
A race is classified as HOPELESS if it meets all three conditions as they existed
before the election: (1) Cook Partisan Voting Index of R+8 or worse for a Democratic
candidate, or D+8 or worse for a Republican candidate; (2) an incumbent opponent is
present (candidate is coded as a challenger in FEC data); (3) the challenging party
has not won that seat in the prior three election cycles. The cutoff of R+8 was chosen
because an entrenched incumbent in an R+8 district has never been defeated by a
Democratic challenger in the modern era.
Commission estimates
Commission estimates are calculated by applying standard industry rates to FEC-reported
disbursements by category: 15% for broadcast media placements; 15% for digital and
online advertising; 18% for direct mail (reflecting higher production markups); 0% for
polling, canvassing, and strategy fees (which are direct fee arrangements). These are
estimates based on documented industry norms — actual commission rates may vary.
All commission figures are clearly labeled as estimates throughout this site.
Vendor deduplication
FEC data contains multiple name variants for the same firm (e.g. "GMMB INC",
"GMMB, INC.", "GMMB"). We applied a canonical name mapping and fuzzy matching
algorithm to consolidate variants. The canonical mapping is publicly available
in our GitHub repository.
What this data does not show
This analysis does not make allegations of fraud or illegal conduct. Consultants
are entitled to take any legal contract. This analysis shows patterns in public
data and allows donors to make more informed decisions. Win/loss records for
individual consultants are not yet included in this version — that feature is
in development for the next release.