Executive Summary: The Nexus of Policy and Technology
The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has initiated a new wave of regulatory scrutiny against a major technology company following allegations of political bias. The catalyst for this action was a letter from FTC Chairman Andrew Ferguson to Alphabet Inc. CEO Sundar Pichai, which questioned why Gmail's spam filters appeared to disproportionately block messages from Republican senders, particularly those from the fundraising platform WinRed, while allegedly affording favorable treatment to similar missives from the Democratic platform ActBlue.1 This formal communication from a federal agency elevates a long-standing political complaint—that technology platforms censor conservative voices—into a matter of potential regulatory enforcement under the FTC Act.
This report conducts a detailed analysis of the central conflict, reconciling the political narrative with the technical and operational realities of modern email communication. A review of the available evidence indicates that the observed disparity in email filtering is not the result of politically motivated censorship but is a direct and predictable consequence of disparate sender behavior. Experts who track email deliverability metrics worldwide have concluded that WinRed's affiliated campaigns employ methods that are demonstrably more aggressive and less compliant with industry standards than those of their counterparts at ActBlue.1
The FTC's letter, while framed as a consumer protection measure, is a politically motivated response that misinterprets a technical issue as a partisan one.1 The filtering of non-compliant emails protects consumers from unwanted and often deceptive communication, which aligns with the FTC's mission to prevent "unfair or deceptive acts or practices".4 The core problem is not a biased algorithm but the failure of certain political campaigns to adapt to evolving, content-neutral email deliverability standards. The evidence overwhelmingly suggests that the filtering of WinRed emails is the logical outcome of poor sender hygiene and disregard for established technical protocols, rather than a systematic effort to silence a political movement.
1. The Political Catalyst—FTC Allegations and Consumer Harm
1.1 The FTC Chairman’s Letter and its Foundation
On August 28, 2025, FTC Chairman Andrew Ferguson sent a formal letter to Sundar Pichai, CEO of Google's parent company, Alphabet, Inc., to address concerns about alleged political bias in Gmail's spam filters.1 This letter was prompted by recent media reports, including an "exclusive" story by The New York Post published on August 13, 2025, which claimed that Google was flagging GOP fundraiser emails as "suspicious" and sending them directly to the spam folder.1 The media story, in turn, was based on a memo from the Republican-affiliated political consulting firm, Targeted Victory. The memo contended that Gmail's practice of "quietly suppress[ing] WinRed links while giving ActBlue a free pass" would "tilt the playing field in ways that voters never see".1
Citing these external reports, Ferguson's letter warned that Alphabet's "alleged partisan treatment of comparable messages or messengers in Gmail to achieve political objectives may violate both of these prohibitions under the FTC Act".1 The FTC Act prohibits "unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce".4 According to the FTC's enforcement authority, an act is "deceptive" if it involves a material representation, omission, or practice that is likely to mislead a consumer acting reasonably under the circumstances.4 A practice is deemed "unfair" if it "causes or is likely to cause substantial injury to consumers which is not reasonably avoidable by consumers themselves and not outweighed by countervailing benefits to consumers or to competition".4 The Chairman's argument is that if Gmail's filters prevent "Americans from receiving speech they expect, or donating as they see fit," this may cause harm to consumers and thus violate the FTC Act.2
The chain of events leading to the FTC's letter illustrates a clear causal relationship between political discontent and regulatory action. The letter was not a product of an independent, months-long technical investigation by the FTC. Instead, it was issued directly in response to a public relations campaign and media reporting that stemmed from a political memo.1 This sequence suggests that the letter is the result of a political complaint being channeled through a regulatory body, rather than a genuine technical inquiry by the agency itself.
Furthermore, the FTC's letter references a "debunked 2022 study".1 This study, authored by political consultants, found that while Gmail flagged more Republican emails as spam, other major email providers like Outlook and Yahoo were more likely to flag Democratic emails.6 The fact that the FTC's letter mentions this study while a key commentator notes that "Republicans laser-focused on Gmail because it fit their victimization narrative better" indicates a selective use of data.1 This approach allows for the creation of a predetermined narrative of political victimization, disregarding the broader context and the fact that similar filtering issues exist across the political spectrum on other platforms.6
1.2 The Broader "Censorship" Debate and Legal Precedent
The FTC's move to scrutinize Gmail's spam filters has reignited a broader debate about the role of technology platforms and the limits of government authority. Legal commentators argue that the FTC has historically refrained from policing "political bias" in private companies' editorial decisions for good reason: the First Amendment prohibits this kind of government interference.1 The principle of a free press and the right of private platforms to exercise discretion over content, even if that discretion is exercised through automated systems, is a critical component of American constitutional law. By attempting to regulate how a private company filters emails, the FTC is venturing into an area with significant constitutional implications.
The political grievances cited in the FTC's letter are not new. In 2022, the Republican National Committee (RNC) filed a lawsuit against Google on similar grounds, alleging that Republican emails were being systematically filtered to spam folders during critical fundraising periods.7 This lawsuit was dismissed by a federal judge in 2023 for "lack of evidence" and for failing to demonstrate that Google "acted in bad faith".7 While the RNC has since revived the case, the prior dismissal indicates a lack of legal precedent for the FTC's position.7 The repeated legal and regulatory challenges suggest a calculated effort by political actors to address a technical problem by portraying it as a form of politically motivated suppression. This strategy leverages agencies with legal enforcement authority, such as the FTC, to pursue what are essentially political objectives, blurring the lines between legitimate consumer protection and partisan maneuvering.
2. The Technical Infrastructure of Inbox Placement
2.1 How Modern Email Filters Function: Beyond the Keywords
Modern email filtering systems, particularly those operated by major providers like Gmail, are highly sophisticated and do not rely on simple keyword matching to identify spam.10 Google's filters are powered by advanced machine learning (ML) and artificial intelligence (AI) that constantly learn from the vast volume of emails processed daily.10 A Gmail spokesperson has stated that the company's spam filters look at a "variety of objective signals" and that these protections are "in place to keep our users safe" and "apply equally to all senders, regardless of political ideology".2
These objective signals form the basis of an email sender's reputation, a critical metric that determines whether an email reaches the inbox or the spam folder. Key signals include:
Sender Reputation and History: A score that Internet Service Providers (ISPs) and Email Service Providers (ESPs) use to gauge a sender's trustworthiness, much like a credit score.12 This score is based on a sender's history, including their sending volume and consistency.12
User Feedback and Engagement: This is a core component of the filtering algorithm. When a user manually marks an email as "spam," this action is a powerful signal that teaches the filter to classify similar messages as junk in the future.10 Conversely, a high volume of positive interactions, such as opening and clicking on messages, reinforces a sender's reputation.12 The most important signal that the filtering systems receive is the collective behavior of millions of users. The system's behavior is a direct reflection of user preferences, not a predetermined political agenda.
Authentication Protocols: The presence of authentication protocols like Sender Policy Framework (SPF), DomainKeys Identified Mail (DKIM), and Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting, and Conformance (DMARC) is essential for proving a sender's legitimacy.10 These protocols prevent email spoofing and are a major factor in establishing a sender's credibility.15
Spam Trap Hits: Spam traps are email addresses that are intentionally set up to catch unsolicited emails.1 These addresses are not used for normal communication, so any email sent to them indicates that the sender is using a purchased, scraped, or old, unmanaged list.1 Blasting emails to spam traps is considered the fastest way to ruin a domain's reputation.1
2.2 The Technical Foundation: Sender Reputation and Google's 2024 Requirements
In an effort to further combat spam and phishing, Google and other major email providers implemented stricter guidelines for bulk senders, which took effect in February 2024.17 These guidelines apply to anyone who sends more than 5,000 emails per day to Gmail accounts and are now considered non-negotiable for deliverability.17 The new requirements, which are a culmination of standard industry best practices, include:
Mandatory Authentication: Senders must implement SPF, DKIM, and DMARC authentication for their sending domains. DMARC, in particular, builds on SPF and DKIM to provide domain-level protection and tells receiving servers what to do with messages that fail authentication.15
One-Click Unsubscribe: Bulk senders are now required to provide a clear, "one-click unsubscribe" option in their emails.17 This feature makes it simple for recipients to opt out of future messages and helps senders avoid spam complaints, which are more damaging to a sender's reputation than an unsubscribe click.12
Spam Rate Threshold: Senders must keep their spam complaint rate, as reported in Google's Postmaster Tools, below 0.3%.17 Failure to do so will result in a progressive percentage of a sender's email traffic being rejected or routed directly to spam.21
These new requirements create a clear and direct link between a sender's technical compliance and their email deliverability. The systems are designed to detect and block behaviors associated with low-quality, unsolicited, and potentially malicious email. Failure to comply with these universally applied, content-neutral rules would predictably lead to poor inbox placement, irrespective of the message's political content. This technical framework establishes the objective standards against which the email sending practices of both WinRed and ActBlue must be judged.
3. A Comparative Analysis of Political Fundraising Platforms
3.1 WinRed’s Model and Aggressive Tactics
WinRed, endorsed by the Republican National Committee and the Trump campaign, positions itself as a centralized online fundraising platform designed to rival ActBlue.22 A key aspect of its business model is the partnership with Data Trust, a Republican data warehouse that allows for the sharing of voter and donor information across the entire "Republican and conservative ecosystem".23 While WinRed's help center clarifies that the platform itself does not send most fundraising emails or text messages, its role in facilitating the data-sharing process is crucial.25
The centralized data-sharing model creates a systemic risk for sender reputation. A single bad actor or a campaign with poor list hygiene can "spam-bomb" deprecated lists, which are then shared more broadly throughout the network via Data Trust.1 This means the negative signals—high spam complaints, low engagement, and hits on spam traps—can disproportionately and rapidly damage the sender reputation for the entire ecosystem, leading to widespread deliverability problems for all affiliated senders.1
Reports and lawsuits against WinRed-affiliated campaigns demonstrate aggressive and non-compliant tactics that directly correlate with a poor sender reputation. A Utah family filed a lawsuit against the RNC and WinRed, alleging they received dozens of text messages even after sending multiple "STOP" requests. The plaintiffs claim the campaigns "knowingly disregard stop requests and purposefully use different phone numbers to make it impossible to block new messages".1 This behavior is a textbook violation of email and text messaging best practices and is the fastest way to trigger filters and blocklists. Furthermore, WinRed-affiliated campaigns have faced consumer complaints and lawsuits over the use of pre-checked boxes for recurring donations, a deceptive practice that has been widely criticized.28 WinRed has also offered an option for campaigns to make the email field optional on donation forms, which can lead to the creation of auto-generated email addresses that further pollute mailing lists and degrade their quality.29
3.2 ActBlue’s Model and Stated Practices
ActBlue, the fundraising platform for Democrats and progressive causes, operates in a similar fashion to WinRed as a donation processor.30 While individual campaigns that use ActBlue may engage in aggressive tactics, leading some users to complain of a "tornado of unwanted email" 1, the platform itself has a more stringent, self-enforced policy framework. ActBlue has a stated policy of never selling donor information.33 While it acknowledges that campaigns using its platform may share or sell donor information, this is a practice among decentralized entities rather than a central, ecosystem-wide data-sharing model.33
ActBlue has also explicitly taken action against aggressive fundraising tactics, stating that it cracks down on organizations that engage in impersonation, make "false claims," or send "misleading messages".33 The platform also promotes email marketing best practices, providing guides that encourage campaigns to build relationships with donors, segment their audiences, and test their messaging.34 This focus on education and self-regulation, while not perfect, stands in contrast to the tactics that have been attributed to WinRed's affiliates.
3.3 Expert Analysis and Comparative Metrics
An analysis by cybersecurity experts and email intelligence companies directly addresses the claims of political bias. Atro Tossavainen and Pekka Jalonen of Koli-Lõks OÜ, an email intelligence company, found that WinRed's emails hit their spam traps "far more frequently" than those from ActBlue.1 They published a graph showing a "nearly fourfold increase" in spamtrap hits from WinRed emails in a single week in July 2025, a month before the FTC letter was sent.1 This data is mirrored by Raymond Dijkxhoorn, CEO of SURBL, a widely used blocklist provider, who noted that WinRed has been "far more aggressive in sending email than ActBlue".1
These experts are unambiguous about the source of the problem. As Dijkxhoorn plainly stated, "On our end we don't really care if the content is political or trying to sell viagra or penis enlargements. It's the mechanics".1 The problem, in their view, is purely technical. The tactics employed by a sender—such as using poor-quality lists that hit spam traps—are what negatively impact a domain's sender reputation and lead to messages being correctly flagged as spam.
The following table provides a comparative summary of the two platforms based on their stated practices and publicly reported data, demonstrating the fundamental differences in their approach to email communications:
4. Reconciling the Censorship vs. Compliance Debate
4.1 The Causal Link: Poor Sender Hygiene as the Root Cause
The debate over political bias in email filtering is not a binary choice between censorship and a perfect system. It is a debate about the difference between political and technical language. The evidence presented in this report establishes a clear and logical causal chain for why WinRed-affiliated emails are filtered at a higher rate. The problem is not a biased algorithm; it is a direct result of aggressive and non-compliant sender behavior.
The causal chain of events can be summarized as follows:
Political Goal: Campaigns and political organizations, under pressure to raise funds, aim for maximum reach and fundraising efficiency.1
Tactics: To achieve this, they employ aggressive, high-volume email and text message campaigns, often using lists that include unverified or non-consensual contacts. This is evidenced by lawsuits alleging disregard for unsubscribe requests and the use of different phone numbers to circumvent blocking.1 Such tactics are a form of "spam-bombing" against "deprecated lists that spam-bomb the existing and voluminous spam traps".1
Technical Consequence: These tactics generate objective technical signals of spam. The emails hit spam traps, a key indicator of poor list quality.1 They also likely lead to a high volume of users manually marking them as spam, a signal that actively trains Gmail's algorithm.10
Platform Response: Gmail’s machine learning algorithm, designed to protect users from unwanted and potentially fraudulent messages, correctly identifies these technical signals and filters the messages to the spam folder.10 This response is not based on the sender's political ideology but on the objective characteristics of their sending practices.
Political Interpretation: The filtered emails are interpreted by the affected campaigns and their political allies as evidence of "partisan treatment" and "censorship," rather than as a predictable consequence of their own non-compliant behavior.1
The core issue is that WinRed-affiliated campaigns have failed to adapt to the new, stricter standards for email deliverability. They operate on a model of "blasting" and a reliance on a centralized data-sharing system that is fundamentally at odds with modern email best practices, which prioritize list quality, explicit consent, and high engagement.1
4.2 The Disconnect: A Failure to Meet Technical Standards
The public discourse on this issue is characterized by a fundamental disconnect between political and technical language. The political complaint uses emotionally charged terms like "partisan treatment" and "censorship" to describe a phenomenon that is, in reality, a technical consequence of non-compliance.1 Conversely, cybersecurity and email deliverability experts speak in terms of "domain reputation," "spamtrap hits," and "mechanics".1 The political narrative portrays a deliberate and nefarious act of suppression, while the technical reality points to an automated system performing its intended function.
This disconnect highlights a deeper problem: certain political actors are demanding a "free pass" from the very rules that govern all other high-volume email senders. The argument that political speech should be exempt from technical standards designed to combat spam, phishing, and fraud is increasingly untenable in a digital environment where user trust and data security are paramount.15
4.3 Legal and Constitutional Defense of Google's Position
Google's position is that its filters apply "equally to all senders, regardless of political ideology," and that the filtering is based on "objective signals".2 The FTC Act prohibits "unfair or deceptive" practices.4 Google can and will argue that its use of content-neutral filters that enforce widely accepted industry best practices is not only fair but is a service that protects its consumers from an undeniable form of harm: a deluge of unsolicited, deceptive, and often difficult-to-unsubscribe-from messages.1 By a high-volume sender disregarding industry standards and consumer preferences, they are the party causing the "substantial injury to consumers," and the action of Gmail's filter is a countervailing benefit.4
The constitutional argument is also a strong defense. The FTC's attempt to force a private platform to change its filtering policies based on the political content of the emails could be viewed as an unconstitutional infringement on Google's First Amendment rights as a private entity.1 A platform's decision to enforce content-neutral rules to maintain the quality of its service is a form of editorial discretion, and a government mandate to abandon those rules to benefit a specific political viewpoint could be seen as a violation of the First Amendment.
5. Strategic Outlook and Recommendations
5.1 Recommendations for Political Campaigns and Platforms
The controversy surrounding Gmail's spam filters should serve as a wake-up call for political campaigns and their fundraising platforms. The era of mass-volume, low-quality email blasting is over.1 The new regulatory environment, driven not by government mandates but by email service providers like Google and Yahoo, requires a fundamental shift in strategy. The solution is not to demand exemptions but to embrace and master modern email deliverability best practices.
Recommendations for political campaigns and platforms include:
Prioritize List Hygiene and Quality: Campaigns must move away from using purchased or scraped lists and instead focus on building permission-based lists, preferably with a double opt-in process.12 Regularly cleaning lists to remove inactive or bounced addresses is also critical for maintaining a high sender reputation.12
Embrace Authentication Protocols: Implementing all of the 2024 bulk sender requirements, including SPF, DKIM, and DMARC, is no longer optional for high-volume senders.15 These protocols build trust and credibility with ISPs and protect against spoofing and phishing.15
Make Unsubscribing Easy: Providing a clear, one-click unsubscribe option is now a requirement for bulk senders and is a critical step in reducing spam complaints and protecting sender reputation.17 It is far better for a campaign to lose a disengaged subscriber than to have that person file a spam complaint.
Adopt Audience Segmentation and Personalization: Instead of sending generic, high-volume blasts, campaigns should use data to segment their audience and send more relevant, personalized messages.34 This increases engagement, which is a key signal of a healthy mailing list, and leads to higher open and click rates.14
The problem facing WinRed-affiliated campaigns is a self-inflicted wound, not an external act of censorship. Their operational model, which relies on aggressive tactics and a centralized, inter-campaign data-sharing network, is fundamentally misaligned with the technical standards of the modern email ecosystem. The only path forward is to adapt and prioritize quality, consent, and technical compliance.
5.2 The Future of Digital Political Communication
The implications of this controversy extend beyond email. Other digital communication channels, most notably text messaging, are also seeing a rise in technical filtering. Apple's upcoming iOS 26 update is set to introduce new spam filters for text messages, which will automatically place texts from unknown senders into a separate folder, creating a "headache for campaigns".38 The legal exemptions that political speech enjoys under laws like the CAN-SPAM Act do not stop private platforms from enforcing their own content-neutral, user-driven rules.35
As technology evolves, so too will the methods of digital campaigning. The increasing use of AI in political messaging presents new challenges. While AI can personalize messages and create content at scale, it also carries the risk of "hallucinating" or generating inaccurate or inconsistent information, which could lead to further legal and reputational issues for campaigns.39 The future of political communication belongs to those who can master both the art of persuasion and the technical mechanics of deliverability across all channels.
5.3 Broader Policy and Regulatory Implications
Regardless of the outcome of the FTC's inquiry, this event is a signal of a new era of increased government scrutiny on technology platforms. The FTC's letter, even if viewed as politically motivated, establishes a precedent for a federal agency to formally weigh in on platform governance under the broad umbrella of consumer protection. This could lead to further, and more complex, legal and regulatory challenges in the future, particularly as political actors continue to push the boundaries of what constitutes "unfair or deceptive" practices in the digital realm.
This controversy also reveals a profound policy contradiction: certain political campaigns are simultaneously demanding unrestricted access to voters' inboxes while also lobbying for more protection against unwanted and aggressive political texts.32 This contradictory stance—demanding a "free pass" from the rules that govern everyone else—is becoming increasingly difficult to maintain in a digital landscape where user expectations for privacy, control, and a spam-free experience are growing. Policymakers will be challenged to reconcile the First Amendment's protections for political speech with the clear need to protect consumers from aggressive and deceptive communication tactics.
Works cited
GOP Cries Censorship Over Spam Filters That Work - Krebs on Security, accessed September 12, 2025, https://krebsonsecurity.com/2025/09/gop-cries-censorship-over-spam-filters-that-work/
Google accused of “partisan” spam filters in Gmail - Cybernews, accessed September 12, 2025, https://cybernews.com/security/google-accused-of-partisan-spam-filters-in-gmail/
Federal Trade Commission Chairman Andrew N. Ferguson Issues ..., accessed September 12, 2025, https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2025/08/federal-trade-commission-chairman-andrew-n-ferguson-issues-letter-gmail-using-partisan-filtering
A Brief Overview of the Federal Trade Commission's Investigative, Law Enforcement, and Rulemaking Authority, accessed September 12, 2025, https://www.ftc.gov/about-ftc/mission/enforcement-authority
Federal Trade Commission Act Section 5: Unfair or Deceptive Acts or Practices - Federal Reserve Board, accessed September 12, 2025, https://www.federalreserve.gov/boarddocs/supmanual/cch/200806/ftca.pdf
Gmail more likely to flag Republican fundraising emails as spam, study finds - Carolina Journal, accessed September 12, 2025, https://www.carolinajournal.com/gmail-more-likely-to-flag-republican-fundraising-emails-as-spam-study-finds/
Company Check : Google Accused of Political Filtering in Gmail | PANDR Computing, accessed September 12, 2025, https://www.pandr.uk/company-check-google-accused-of-political-filtering-in-gmail/
Google receives a Gmail spam warning from FTC chief Andrew Ferguson; company says: This applies equally to all - The Times of India, accessed September 12, 2025, https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/technology/tech-news/google-receives-a-gmail-spam-warning-from-ftc-chief-andrew-ferguson-company-says-this-applies-equally-to-all/articleshow/123590236.cms
FTC chair alleges partisan filtering by Gmail; Google says spam filters not ideological, accessed September 12, 2025, https://m.economictimes.com/tech/technology/ftc-chair-alleges-partisan-filtering-by-gmail-google-says-spam-filters-not-ideological/articleshow/123574423.cms
Gmail Phishing Spam Filter [What Is It and How to Customize?] - Trustifi, accessed September 12, 2025, https://trustifi.com/blog/gmail-phishing-spam-filter/
Gmail Spam Filter Explained: Triggers, Settings, and More - Mailtrap, accessed September 12, 2025, https://mailtrap.io/blog/gmail-spam-filter/
8 Ways to Check Your Email Sending Reputation - Twilio, accessed September 12, 2025, https://www.twilio.com/en-us/blog/insights/5-ways-check-sending-reputation
5 Steps to Repair a Bad Domain Reputation With Gmail | MailMonitor, accessed September 12, 2025, https://www.mailmonitor.com/repair-a-bad-domain-reputation-with-gmail/
Email Deliverability Best Practices: Reach the Inbox. Deliver the Experience., accessed September 12, 2025, https://www.dynamicyield.com/article/email-deliverability-best-practices/
DMARC Policy & Setup Requirements for Google & Yahoo Email | Proofpoint US, accessed September 12, 2025, https://www.proofpoint.com/us/blog/email-and-cloud-threats/google-and-yahoo-set-new-email-authentication-requirements
2025 Bulk Sender Requirements. How to Stay Compliant - Data Axle, accessed September 12, 2025, https://www.data-axle.com/resources/blog/bulk-sender-requirements-how-to-stay-compliant/
Email sender guidelines - Google Workspace Admin Help, accessed September 12, 2025, https://support.google.com/a/answer/81126?hl=en
Google's New Bulk Sender Guidelines Explained For Political Campaigns [2024], accessed September 12, 2025, https://campaigntrend.com/posts/googles-new-bulk-sender-guidelines-explained-for-political-campaigns-2024
Complying with DMARC authentication protocol in Amazon SES - AWS Documentation, accessed September 12, 2025, https://docs.aws.amazon.com/ses/latest/dg/send-email-authentication-dmarc.html
SPF, DKIM, and DMARC Authentication - ActiveCampaign Help Center, accessed September 12, 2025, https://help.activecampaign.com/hc/en-us/articles/206903370-SPF-DKIM-and-DMARC-Authentication
Feb. 2024 update for Cold Email Marketing - What to look out for : r/Emailmarketing - Reddit, accessed September 12, 2025, https://www.reddit.com/r/Emailmarketing/comments/1adu60j/feb_2024_update_for_cold_email_marketing_what_to/
Keep Winning with WinRed? Online Fundraising Platform as the Party's Public Good | American Government and Politics | APSA Preprints | Cambridge Open Engage, accessed September 12, 2025, https://preprints.apsanet.org/engage/apsa/article-details/64272b24db1a20696e50b372
FAQ - WinRed Help Center, accessed September 12, 2025, https://support.winred.com/en/articles/9824817-faq
Republicans Launch WinRed to Compete with ActBlue - Data Trust, accessed September 12, 2025, https://thedatatrust.com/republicans-launch-winred-to-compete-with-actblue/
Who Is Emailing or Texting Me? - WinRed Help Center, accessed September 12, 2025, https://support.winred.com/en/articles/9205169-who-is-emailing-or-texting-me
Unsubscribing from Texts or Emails - Donor Support Help Center - WinRed, accessed September 12, 2025, https://donors.winred.com/en/articles/3773576-unsubscribing-from-texts-or-emails
How Do I Unsubscribe From Texts or Emails? - WinRed Help Center, accessed September 12, 2025, https://support.winred.com/en/articles/3218288-how-do-i-unsubscribe-from-texts-or-emails
Republican PAC WinRed misleads US consumers into recurring donations - Al Jazeera, accessed September 12, 2025, https://www.aljazeera.com/economy/2024/7/31/republican-pac-winred-misleads-us-consumers-into-recurring-donations
Make the Email Field Optional | WinRed Help Center, accessed September 12, 2025, https://support.winred.com/en/articles/8104097-make-the-email-field-optional
'Suspicious' donations to political campaigns might have another explanation, 9NEWS finds, accessed September 12, 2025, https://www.9news.com/article/news/investigations/suspicious-donations-to-political-campaigns-explanation/73-dbe58f6b-f7e4-4c97-886f-57d52f055e38
Donorbox vs. ActBlue: Comparing Fundraising Solutions, accessed September 12, 2025, https://donorbox.org/nonprofit-blog/actblue-alternatives
GOP Cries Censorship Over Spam Filters That Work : r/cybersecurity - Reddit, accessed September 12, 2025, https://www.reddit.com/r/cybersecurity/comments/1naanav/gop_cries_censorship_over_spam_filters_that_work/
ActBlue Takes Action: How We're Protecting Donors from Deceptive Practices, accessed September 12, 2025, https://www.actblue.com/posts/actblue-takes-action-how-were-protecting-donors-from-deceptive-practices/
Email 101: Getting Started with Fundraising Emails - ActBlue Support, accessed September 12, 2025, https://support.actblue.com/campaigns/strategy/email-101-getting-started-with-fundraising-emails/
Political Spam Emails and Texts | You Can't Unsubscribe - Michigan Election Law Blog, accessed September 12, 2025, https://www.michiganelectionlaw.com/political-spam-text-email-messages
9 Political Email Marketing Strategies That Drive Voter Action | Campaign Monitor, accessed September 12, 2025, https://www.campaignmonitor.com/resources/guides/email-marketing-for-political-campaigns/
Stay Relevant: Reach Voters' Email Marketing Guide for Politicians, accessed September 12, 2025, https://reachvoters.com/email-marketing-specialist/
Campaigners See Relational Organizing as Workaround for iOS 26, accessed September 12, 2025, https://campaignsandelections.com/industry-news/campaigners-look-at-relational-organizing-ahead-of-apple-update/
Generative AI in Political Advertising | Brennan Center for Justice, accessed September 12, 2025, https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/generative-ai-political-advertising