The acquisition of AI platform Quiller by Grassroots Analytics signals a major bet that data-driven personalization can solve the donor fatigue crisis plaguing Democrats.
The small-dollar fundraising boom has given way to a massive burnout crisis. Voters, particularly on the left, are exhausted by the constant, high-urgency, and often "spammy" texts and emails that flood their inboxes. Now, one D.C. tech firm is betting that the solution to this very human problem is artificial intelligence.
Screenshot of logo taken from website
Quiller, an AI content creation platform best known as a tool for drafting fundraising emails, was acquired this month by Grassroots Analytics (GA). Executives from both companies are framing the deal as a way to turbocharge Quiller’s development.
They are laying out an ambitious goal: to transform political fundraising from a high-volume, low-engagement model into one defined by less frequent and more personalized appeals. This idea, however, presents a central paradox. In an era defined by deepfakes and misinformation, can a technology seen as inherently inhuman be used to create deeper human connections?
Campaign professionals already face significant challenges with AI, including compliance risks and the spread of deepfakes. This makes the idea of AI cultivating intimacy seem like a contradiction. But Quiller’s leadership argues that this view misunderstands AI's true potential.
Hillary Lehr; screenshot from website
The idea is to use advanced data segmentation, powered by AI, to generate specific insights on the outreach methods and issues that resonate most with individuals. Hillary Lehr, Quiller’s co-founder and CEO, said it is a way to use “tech to understand people at a more intimate and personal level.”
“Everybody talks about AI as less human, but the best use case is going to be to strengthen human relationships and human bonds in a more thoughtful way,” Lehr said.
This is not just about swapping a name into a template. It is about understanding why a donor gives. Does a specific person only donate in response to healthcare issues? Do they prefer to give on a weekend? Do they only respond to messages from a specific surrogate? AI, Lehr argues, offers a faster and more comprehensive way for campaigns to understand the people they rely on for support.
This push for a new model is born from necessity. Democrats and progressives are analyzing the hard lessons of a painful 2024 election cycle. The consensus is that the old fundraising playbook is broken. Lehr mentions:
“With all of the postmortems, the regrets that we’re kind of wallowing in on the left after last year, it’s more important than ever that we start to create real movement in a direction that responds to the feedback, responds to the analysis of what didn’t work.”
What did not work was the high-frequency, aggressive outreach that has become standard practice. In response, the industry is already experimenting with new tactics. Groups like EMILY’s List are pioneering subscription-style fundraising models. These programs allow supporters to commit to a recurring monthly investment. In exchange, they receive less-frequent outreach and access to exclusive content.
Simultaneously, ActBlue, the Democratic online fundraising clearinghouse, has rolled out new policies. These rules are a direct effort to crack down on the most egregious and misleading fundraising tactics, such as fake matching deadlines and impersonating public figures. The Quiller acquisition is the latest and most technologically advanced move in this industry-wide correction.
The new strategy challenges a long-held belief in digital fundraising: that reaching out to more people yields more donations. Grassroots Analytics CIO Meghan McAnespie said AI can help fundraisers better understand what practices actually work.
“Something we’ve really encountered at the grassroots level is sending less to raise more,” McAnespie said.
By using hypertargeting, she argued, campaigns and organizations can run “a more effective program” even while “reaching out to fewer people.”
This is the core strategic shift. The old model was a volume play. The new model is a precision play.
“In a perfect world, we would only ever be reaching out to the exact person that’s going to donate at that exact moment," McAnespie said. "We haven’t gotten it down to that, but technology is allowing us to do a lot more with the data.”
This approach also reframes the donor experience. McAnespie noted that not all fundraising outreach is unwelcome. The burnout comes from a constant stream of irrelevant asks.
“The thing with fundraising appeals and all that outreach, I think we talk a lot about how people are annoyed…but people also want to help,” she said. “People want to support candidates that they believe in. When something terrible happens, people want to know that they have a place where they can channel their dollars into action.”
AI, in this view, is the tool that can separate a meaningful opportunity to help from a spammy, tone-deaf email.
The primary risk in this pivot is not the technology itself, but donor trust. For AI personalization to work, it requires vast amounts of donor data. Voters are already wary of how their data is used. If an appeal feels too personal, it risks crossing a line from effective to "creepy," which could drive donors away for good.
Image by DALL-E
Furthermore, there are significant compliance and ethical questions. AI models can replicate biases found in their training data. They can also be used to generate misleading content far faster than any human team. While GA and Quiller are focused on personalization, the industry remains wary of AI’s potential for misuse.
The acquisition of Quiller by Grassroots Analytics marks a clear turning point. It signals that Democratic strategists finally recognize the limits of mass emails and one-size-fits-all appeals. The old model of chasing clicks and quick cash has left donors exhausted. This new approach aims to rebuild trust by replacing constant pressure with smarter, data-informed outreach.
The strategy is risky but necessary. Using AI to tailor messages could make fundraising more personal and effective, but it could just as easily feel invasive if handled poorly. If supporters start to feel watched instead of understood, the effort could backfire and deepen the very burnout it hopes to solve.
Heading into 2026, the stakes are high. If this experiment works, it could reshape how campaigns connect with donors and set a new standard for digital engagement. If it fails, it will serve as another reminder that no technology can fix what authenticity once delivered.