The New Robocall: Why Campaigns Are Sending So Many Texts Now

As Election Day approaches, you may have noticed an increase in text messages from political campaigns. A few years ago, you probably got one or two, if that. Now, it is almost constant. Why the flash flood?

Because of three main factors: access, cost and momentum. With voters increasingly recording mobile phone numbers in their records, campaigns now have direct access to contact them via text. Text messaging is also cheaper than other methods, allowing campaigns to stretch limited budgets. Finally, there’s a feedback loop at play—campaigns see others doing it, so they feel compelled to follow suit. Together, these factors create a perfect storm, making textured messaging seem not only practical, but, for some campaigns, almost necessary.

Campaigns have access to a surprising amount of voter information, much of it drawn from public voter registration lists that can be purchased from the county Register of Voters.

These lists usually include details such as your name, address, party affiliation, voting history and, increasingly, your mobile phone number. In the past, voters typically provided a home phone number, making robocalls the primary method for campaigns to reach supporters. But as mobile phones replaced landlines, the contact landscape changed.

Today, cell phone numbers are more common in voter files, and many voters no longer have a landline. Because FCC regulations prohibit campaigns from using robocalls to cell phones, campaigns had to find another way to reach these voters. Text messaging has filled this void: while it is automatically automated, it technically requires human initiation through peer-to-peer platforms to comply with regulations.

As a result, peer-to-peer messaging has become one of the most accessible ways for campaigns to reach voters directly. In fact, texting has filled the void that robocalls once filled, giving campaigns a way to reach voters directly despite the decline of landline lists.

Another important factor driving the increase in the number of texts is simple economics. For most campaigns, the ideal is to saturate voters’ screens, mailboxes, and airwaves using TV ads, mailers, and digital advertising.

Mailers, TV commercials, and Instagram videos leave lasting impressions, create visibility, and create name recognition—the goals of every campaign. However, these tools come at a high price. Television ads can easily cost six figures, and email 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 citywide text message 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. Direct mail to this audience would probably cost between $170,000 and $200,000. A text for the same audience would cost about $15,000 – $20,000.

But it’s not just cashless campaigns turning to text. Well-funded campaigns have also embraced texting, especially as Election Day nears. Partly because it’s one of the best ways to spend money fast. Budgetary pressures for candidates intensify toward the end of a campaign, creating a unique dilemma: Candidates don’t want to end a campaign owing money to people. But having a surplus raises eyebrows among supporters too. They may wonder why these funds have not been fully utilized.

If they end up with money in the bank, candidates will be haunted by the question of 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 buy and produce TV or social media ads, candidates and independent groups can spend their remaining funds on text messages. The beauty of text messaging is that it’s an easy way to push last-minute voter contact with minimal change. Unlike television or mail, text messages require no advance bookings or production time and can be sent almost immediately, giving campaigns an easy way to spend any remaining funds without delay.

It’s worth noting that despite some limitations, text messaging offers unique advantages for certain campaign goals. For example, messages targeted at grassroots supporters can be highly effective for event mobilization, fundraising appeals, and get-out-the-vote efforts. In fundraising, for example, campaigns only need a small percentage of beneficiaries to donate for the tactic to be worthwhile. This low conversion threshold makes texting especially useful for direct fundraising, where even a modest response can cover the cost of the effort and then some.

Finally, there is a third factor that is 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 text messaging, it reinforces the perception that everyone should be doing it, creating a feedback loop. This dynamic has turned text from a supplemental tactic to almost standard practice, whether campaigns consider it a strategic ideal or not.

So the next time your phone rings with another campaign message, remember: the flurry of texts is less about a carefully crafted strategy and more a product of budget constraints, changes in voter contact norms, and of the contagious impulse of campaigns that mirror each other’s tactics.

In an age where campaigns will seize any available opportunity to connect with voters, texting has become just one more tool—strategic in its own right, but also deeply shaped by the realities of today’s campaign.