Democratic campaigns flooded voters with 725 fundraising texts in a year, data brokers blamed

How the spam wave unfolded

In 2026, a WIRED journalist received 725 political fundraising texts, including 190 in the first 20 days of October. On a single day, October 14, the journalist received 21 messages. Most were intended for a family member, referred to as John, who had donated small amounts to Democratic campaigns since 2017.

Federal Election Commission records show John donated roughly $1,700 over 160 contributions, with a median gift of $6. Despite giving only $51 in 2026, John’s contact details appeared in donor lists sold by data brokers to Democratic campaigns and political action committees (PACs).

Role of data brokers in targeting voters

Tracking codes in the text messages revealed that Sterling Data Company, a firm specializing in AI-driven donor targeting, was frequently involved. A Biden joint fundraising committee paid Sterling $1.87 million for donor lists over four months starting in November 2023. The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC) also paid Sterling roughly $250,000 in the summer of 2026.

Sterling’s CEO, Martin Kurucz, acknowledged that no contact database is error-free and advised recipients to ignore misdirected texts. The company’s website describes its "Tier 1 contact data intelligence" as a tool to refine campaign outreach.

Legal and practical fallout

At least two lawsuits have been settled over misdirected campaign texts, though the root cause of the data mixups remains unresolved. While campaigns and PACs rely on brokers like Sterling to identify potential donors, errors in voter profiles have led to unintended recipients receiving hundreds of messages.

The flood of texts has raised questions about the effectiveness of AI-driven targeting, especially when donor records are outdated or incorrectly linked to multiple contacts.

What this means

Lazyfounder analysis — our interpretation, not reported fact.

For founders and operators in adtech, martech, or political campaign tools, this story exposes two systemic risks: data quality decay and regulatory exposure. AI-driven targeting is only as good as the underlying data, and when brokers sell inaccurate or stale contact lists, the reputational harm lands on the campaign—not the data provider. The settlements cited in the investigation signal that courts may hold campaigns liable for unsolicited messages, regardless of who supplied the faulty data. Companies selling voter or donor profiles should expect tighter audits, while campaigns may demand clawback clauses in vendor contracts. Operators in this space should weigh short-term reach against long-term brand erosion and legal costs.

Related on Lazyfounder

• More policy news