Campaigns believe a lot of things count as permission to text someone. Most of them are wrong, and the gap between what campaigns assume and what voters actually agreed to is where spam reports and carrier trouble begin.
The wireless industry surveyed consumers on exactly this question, and the results are clear. Here are the three consent myths worth unlearning.
Myth 1: "They voted for my candidate, so I can text them"
No. Voting for a candidate is not consent to receive that candidate's texts. Two-thirds of consumers say so directly, and it makes intuitive sense, casting a ballot is a civic act, not an invitation into your inbox. A vote is not a phone-number opt-in, and treating your supporters' votes as a mailing list is exactly the kind of assumption that generates complaints.
Myth 2: "They donated, so I can text them"
Also no. Donating to a candidate is not consent to receive that candidate's texts either, and again, consumers say so by the same two-thirds margin. A contribution is a financial transaction. Unless the donation form clearly and conspicuously asked for text consent, with an honest description of what they'd receive, the gift didn't come with a texting permission slip attached. The donation platform's checkbox has to actually be there, and actually be checked.
Myth 3: "They opted in to one campaign, so any campaign can text them"
No a third time. Consent to texts from one candidate is not consent to texts from another, per the same research. A voter who signed up for Candidate A's updates did not sign up for the party committee, the allied PAC, or Candidate B down the ballot. Each sender needs its own consent, because from the voter's side, a text from someone they never agreed to hear from is a stranger in the most personal space on their phone.
Why the myths are expensive
These aren't academic distinctions. When a campaign texts on the strength of a vote, a donation, or someone else's opt-in, the recipient experiences an unsolicited message, and a growing share of them report it. More than four in five consumers are frustrated by unsolicited political texts, a number up twenty percent since 2020. Those frustrated recipients hit STOP, report to 7726, and file complaints, and every one of those signals tells the carriers your program looks like spam. The cost of getting this wrong is measured in filtering, blocking, and TCPA exposure.
What actually counts
Real consent is an affirmative, informed opt-in: a person who checked a box, texted a keyword, or entered their number knowing they'd receive your messages, described honestly. Not a vote. Not a donation. Not somebody else's list. Get that, keep the record of it, and you're texting people who want to hear from you, which is the only kind of texting that works anyway.
Frequently asked questions
Is voting for a candidate consent to receive their texts?
No. Two-thirds of consumers agree that voting for a candidate does not mean consenting to that candidate's texts. Consent requires an affirmative opt-in, not a civic action.
Is donating consent to text?
No, not by itself. Unless the donation form clearly asked for and obtained text consent with an honest description of the messages, a contribution is not a texting opt-in.
Does opting in to one campaign let another campaign text me?
No. Consent to one candidate is not consent to another. Each sender needs its own opt-in.
Informational, not legal advice.
Keep reading: One campaign, one consent and do campaigns need consent to text voters.