I just received this letter in the mail and find it somewhat disturbing. It does appear to be from Harvard University – I googled some of the names. What does everyone think of this letter? I find it hard to believe that this is research, when they ask no questions and do not intend to contact me. Doesn’t this seem more like an attempt at intimidating non-majority views than “research”? Yojimbo
Dear _______,
This letter is part of an effort to disseminate information about political campaign contributions made by individuals from your neighborhood:
[It goes on to list my name in full, others names with their last name initial only and their first name, amount donated, and to either Rep or Dem party.]
YOUR HOUSEHOLD AND OTHER HOUSEHOLDS IN YOUR AREA WERE RANDOMLY CHOSEN TO RECEIVE A LETTER OF THIS TYPE.
The above table contains a list of the total campaign contributions to presidential candidates made by 6 individuals from your neighborhood in the period from April 1, 2011 to April 1, 2012, according to the public records published by the Federal Election Commission.
Your full name, address and details about your campaign contributions are freely available to anyone with internet access. You can search for individual contributions by first and last name, or by zip code, using the following tool from the website of the Federal Election Commission.
www.fec.gov/finance/disclosure/norindsea.shtml
You can use this website to see which candidates or political parties your neighbors, friends, family, and co-workers are contributing to. Access to the data is anonymous.
This letter is part of a study of political campaign contributions made by individuals which is being conducted by researchers at Harvard University. We will not send any more letters about past or future contributions or to your neighbors. You can find more information about this project, including contact information, on our website:
Information Dissemination of Campaign Contributions
www.campaign-information.info
Here is what the website says – This is the entirety of the website:
Welcome to our website. We are a group of researchers at Harvard University studying political campaign contributions made by individuals.
With that goal, we are sending out personalized mailings about campaign contributions in the US. If you receive a letter and have any questions about the information provided to you, please feel free to email us at admin@campaign-information.info and we will get back to you as soon as possible.
If you are interested in receiving information about the results of the studies we are conducting, just send us a blank email to debriefing@campaign-information.info and we will send you a brochure detailing our work as soon as our studies are finished. This research is being carried out at Harvard University by Ricardo Perez-Truglia (rtruglia@campaign-information.info) and Dr. Guillermo Cruces (gcruces@campaign-information.info). You may also contact Ricardo Perez-Truglia’s thesis project supervisor by emailing Belynda Bady (bbady@fas.harvard.edu).
This project has been approved by Harvard’s Committee on the Use of Human Subjects in Research. Complaints or problems concerning any research project may, and should, be reported if they arise. You can contact the Committee via Committee Officer Jane Calhoun by phone (617-495-5459) or by email (jcalhoun@fas.harvard.edu).
Individuals receiving letters were randomly selected from the public records of the Federal Election Commission (FEC). Receipt of one of these letters means nothing more than that the recipient was chosen by an automated computer program to receive information about campaign donations in his or her neighborhood. The FEC explicitly allows the use of information about individual campaign contributions for academic research such as ours. The specific activities identified as permissible by the Federal Election Commission include the use of individual contributor information for bona fide academic research projects that do not involve the sale or use of that information for a commercial purpose or for soliciting contributions (see FEC Advisory Opinion No. 1986-25). Our research project has no commercial or political objective and thus complies with the rules regulating the use of contribution information. For more information, please see the FEC’s “sale and use brochure” (available online at http://www.fec.gov/pages/brochures/sale_and_use_brochure.pdf).
Thank you again for your visit to this website. With best regards,
Ricardo Perez-Truglia and Guillermo Cruces (the research team)
PO BOX 380429, Cambridge, MA 02238
Here is my emailed response:
Dear “Researchers”,
I received one of your letters about my campaign contributions, and I am highly skeptical of your “research”.
Why are you “disseminating information about political campaign contributions made by individuals from my neighborhood”? What the fuck do I care about to whom other individuals contribute?
I resent your “efforts” to get people to actively look online to find out to whom their neighbors have contributed. Are you trying to Balkanize our neighborhood? Are you trying to use intimidation to suppress contributions to non-majority groups (i.e. non-Democrat)?
I think your “research” is bullshit, and I doubt you can defend it. So, tell me, what is the fucking point of your “research”? What do you hope to “understand”. I think your “research” falls into the realm of East German watch-and-report-on-your-neighbor tactics.
I dare you to defend your research.
[Cue the sound of crickets.]
Sincerely,
My Name
Donation: $215 to Ron Paul
Hope@ZeroKelvin says:
“If you see someting, say something!!!”
Just gotta luv Haaarrvvaaard. It has given us so much:
The Kennedy boys, one a murderer, the others serial philanderers.
Obama the mystery man, only head of Law Review not to author a single scholarly article, whose admission to Harvard is still a matter of Eyes Only security.
Laurence Tribe of voodoo constitutional theory and of course, Larry Summers whose economic planning for Harvard lost it about 1/3 of its endowment. Plus Summers thinks that women’s brains are not as good as a man’s.
Cornell West of fantastical African history, then there is Derick Bell of Critical Race Theory.
Cass Sustein of the bizillion regulations and is wife Samantha Power whose policies have li the MENA on fire.
Now you have these two proto-Stazis trying to “out” citizen’s political contibutions!!!
Harvard: A more wretched hive of scum and villiany you will never find.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
25 
19
13th May 2012 at 10:42 am
Administrator says:
A true black mark on the Ivy League. They certainly aren’t a fine upstanding institution like Penn.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
15 
3
13th May 2012 at 11:08 am
Hope@ZeroKelvin says:
You mean Penn of child molestation fame??
Those Penn guys just messed up a few kids: The Harvard pukes are about to mess up the entire PLANET.
Hot debate. What do you think?
7 
5
13th May 2012 at 11:13 am
Administrator says:
Wrong Penn!!!
That was Penn State. Just some naked horseplay in the shower between a 50 year old man and 12 year old boys. Geez, you’re such a prude.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
10 
2
13th May 2012 at 11:21 am
Hope@ZeroKelvin says:
Oh, well, can’t keep all the sex freak east of the Mississippi straight.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
8 
3
13th May 2012 at 11:38 am
Administrator says:
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
17 
5
13th May 2012 at 11:44 am
Yojimbo says:
Does this seem as reprehensible to everyone as it seems to me? Could I possibly be reading this wrong? How could their thesis project supervisor approve this?
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
18 
2
13th May 2012 at 5:10 pm
Zarathustra says:
I used to have a Golden Retreiver and I used to live in a neighborhood of crazy lawn nazis. I trained him to shit on them during our nightly walk. That harvard study would have come in handy then.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
11 
2
13th May 2012 at 5:20 pm
TeresaE says:
Yojimbo, yes it smells.
No it isn’t shocking.
Michigan enacted a law a few years back that tracks individuals by votes, then gives that info to the Repuke and Democrap parties in the state. No other parties are allowed to access the info and yes, it can be, and is, used for targeted fund raising and the like.
So, if you have the right connections you get to find out how anyone voted. Sweet smell of freedom, no?
Just as reprehensible as the purple thumbs in Iraq that allowed voters to be more-easily targeted.
We are officially going to hell in a handbasket at warp speed.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
12 
4
13th May 2012 at 10:57 am
Yojimbo says:
This was their response to my email:
Thank you very much for contacting us and letting us know about your concerns. You are providing valuable feedback that will allow us to make adjustments to our research design. This design was the product of several months of careful planning, which drew from related studies and from conversations with academic staff at several universities. We anticipated several issues that could arise and we strived to accommodate our study to minimize these potential concerns. We apologize for any inconvenience we might have caused you. We would like to use this message to clarify some aspects of our research, and to ensure you that we will not attempt to contact you again.
The starting point of this project is the open nature of information about campaign contributions in the United States, specifically the level of awareness about this openness among campaign contributors and the public in general. As stated in our website, all the information we use is publicly accessible through the website of the Federal Election Commission (FEC). For instance, using the search tool in the FEC’s website, anyone can access information about individual contributions by full name and exact address, as well as other individual characteristics (e.g. occupation) and the candidate supported. In fact, the FEC database has been used by third parties to produce a series of search engines with much greater detail than we provide through our mailing. For example, the popular website “The Huffington Post” developed a tool called “Fundrace” (available at http://fundrace.huffingtonpost.com/) which lets visitors search donations by full name and address, and furthermore, allows the identification of individual donors on a map.
The main purpose of our mailing is to study the implications of the public’s awareness about the open nature of campaign contributions, and not to inform you about contributions from specific individuals in your area. Contrary to other sources of information available on the Internet, we only provide other individual’s last name initials. Moreover, anticipating and understanding the concerns that some might have, we specifically refrained from specifying addresses or any other relevant information that would facilitate the identification of specific individuals, even though this information is public and readily available on the Internet. The main reason for this limitation is that we understand the concerns this may rise, and this seemed unnecessarily intrusive for the purposes of our research. Finally, we want to emphasize that we only contacted a random sample of individuals who made donations to presidential committees in the last year – we did not and will not contact non contributors.
We would like to stress that this is part of a strictly academic project, and we are not affiliated to any candidate or political party. The households that received letters were randomly chosen by a computer. This includes individuals that donated to both parties, and it is not biased in any way. The randomization is the gold standard of scientific research, and we guarantee that this study is no exception.
If you are interested in receiving information about the goals, methodology and results of the study, just send us a blank email to debriefing@campaign-information.info and we will send you a brochure with details about our research as soon as the study is over.
Once again, we want to apologize if our mailing has inconvenienced you at all. We want to ensure you that we will not attempt to contact you again.
Please let us know if we have addressed satisfactorily your concerns. We are happy to provide further information and clarifications.
With best regards,
The research team
Hot debate. What do you think?
7 
9
13th May 2012 at 1:53 pm
Wyoming Mike says:
“The research team” I think you scared them. Oh yeah, Fuck Harvard!!
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
11 
5
13th May 2012 at 2:36 pm
Not Administrator says:
Received the same today in Annapolis, MD, dated April 25, 2012.
Identified 10 people and the dollar amounts of their contributions, listing 9 as contributing to Democrats and 1 to Republicans (me). My impression is that this is an effort to intimidate me from contributing again / more to the Republican party. Shameful tactics – reminiscent more of Stalin than anything else.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
17 
3
13th May 2012 at 8:40 pm
Zarathustra says:
Admin doppelganger, you are weird.
Like or Dislike:
0 
2
13th May 2012 at 10:42 pm
Liz says:
Dear “Not administrator”….I too received a letter dated 4/25/12 citing ten contributors . I was the only democrat. Not surprising to me, I live in WASPville, USA. But I am equally appalled byt this “study” and would have to agree….Harvard sucks.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
12 
2
13th May 2012 at 1:50 pm
Virginia Bill says:
Received the same today in Northern Virginia, dated April 25th
Regarding “Not Administrator’”s theory, I don’t believe you are correct. My letter had 4 Democrats (including me) and 6 Republicans. I think the distribution has more to do with the voting pattern in the recipient’s ZIP code. My ZIP code votes about 60% R and 40% D.
Like or Dislike:
2 
1
13th May 2012 at 2:04 pm
dsm says:
Received the letter citing 10 contributors in NY today. 90% D, which is appropriate for my ZIP code. Agree with others that it’s an attempt to intimidate me and prevent future contributions. I’m appalled and feel that this study has potential to influence contributions, and therefore, the election.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
10 
0
13th May 2012 at 8:22 pm
RP supporter says:
I too got a letter. I agree it is a source of concern, but I found it both distorting and comforting. It is distorting in that the Republicrate Sheeple se my contributions to Ron Paul, Rand Paul, and sundry assortment of libertarians/constitutionalists as donations to the Repulsivecan party. It both shames and saddens me to have my neighbors think I believe in the 1 party 2 faction corrupt political system.
On a lighter note, I found it heart warming to see that I had contributed more money to my candidates than all the Demacraps combined, and more than the 4 closest Repulsivecans combined. Come to think about it, I may be to harsh here. I may be jumping to the conclusions Harvard wants us to jump to. My hard work and use of clear laser like logic has converted my neighbors. All but those listed as Democarps have contributed to libertarians/constitutionalists, but is mis reported by the letter.
Shush, don’t say a word, let me keep my illustion that there is hope!!
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
7 
1
13th May 2012 at 9:14 pm
podsnap says:
Paranoia
Hot debate. What do you think?
1 
10
13th May 2012 at 5:23 pm
grandma says:
who cares. vote.
Like or Dislike:
1 
3
13th May 2012 at 11:09 pm
megagrandma says:
I received the letter today. I assumed it was an attempt to keep people from supporting anyone but Obama .
I heard of the use of a website entitled something like “keep the GOP honest”. That website lists major donors of Romney and disparrages their character- in an attempt to keep people from supporting him.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
8 
1
13th May 2012 at 12:17 pm
Knowledge_is_Power says:
Please apply the information given in the letters – to this abstract from one of Ricardo Perez-Truglia’s previous work in regards to the economic & social implications of our political roles within our communities. Perhaps what effect the knowledge of others of our campaign donations has on the amount of money individuals end up donating… Unfortunately, Mr. Perez-Truglias along with others working on this project dont seem to mind the strain this is putting on those they “randomly choose” to participate in their study.
Individual perceptions of income distribution play a vital role in political economy and public finance models, yet there is little evidence regarding their origins or accuracy. This study examines how individuals form these perceptions and posits that systematic biases arise from the extrapolation of information extracted from reference groups. A tailored household survey provides original evidence on the significant biases in individuals’ evaluations of their own relative position in the distribution. Furthermore, the data supports the hypothesis that the selection process into the reference groups is the source of those biases. Finally, this study also assesses the practical relevance of these biases by examining their impact on attitudes towards redistributive policies. An experimental design incorporated into the survey provides consistent information on the own ranking within the income distribution to a randomly selected group of respondents. Confronting agents’ biased perceptions with this information has a significant effect on their stated preferences for redistribution. Those who had overestimated their relative position and thought of themselves relatively richer than they were demand higher levels of redistribution when informed of their true ranking. This relationship between biased perceptions and political attitudes provides an alternative explanation for the relatively low degree of redistribution observed in modern democracies.
Like or Dislike:
2 
3
13th May 2012 at 2:15 pm
Knowledge_is_Power says:
Income Distribution Distortion…
One article that decently summarizes the past work by Guillermo Cruces & Ricardo Pérez Truglia (who are both Argentine)
http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/04/27/everyone-is-middle-class-right/
Also, their thesis supervisor, Belynda Bady, was the Regional Director for The Clinton Foundation for 6 years. So I am taking a stab in the dark to say that she is left leaning.I have a soft spot for Willy, purely for his charisma. But I certainly hope that political bias and the views of these researchers and their supervisor does not have any effect on the decisions made in the ways to set up this project.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
13th May 2012 at 2:57 pm
Connie says:
Belynda Bady is not an economist; she is the Director of Administration for the Economics Dept. at harvard, and as such, is not qualified to direct a PhD dissertation in Economics–her expertise is totally other than economics.
I got this letter yesterday, 5/16/12, and as a 40-year faculty member at a research institution who’s read tons of research proposals, I looked at this anonymous mailing that said it was done by Harvard researchers and tried to see the point–the research point–of “disseminating” the information on what I and five neighbors (in my zip code they’re down from the ten people whose information they provided some weeks ago to you others!) had given in 12 months to presidential candidates. They didn’t ask me to respond, they asked me nothing about my socioeconomic circumstances or voting patterns, they didn’t ask me why I contributed to Obama, why I contributed that amount, or what I think about anything concerning my neighbors or what socioeconomic ranking I think I have and how that might have influenced my political giving–the guy above who tries to explain the research, probably Pérez-T, says this is all somehow related to my self-concept of how I “fit” in the world–best laugh I had all week!. How they intend to draw any conclusions about my self-perception and motivations from not asking me anything is not apparent. They don’t intend to contact me again. They just wanted me to know that my information is out there on the web.
Shoddy research. Anonymous letter? No Harvard email or web address with it? Listing a Harvard staffer, rather than an Economics professor, as thesis supervisor in the on-line précis (I took a breath and went to the anonymous website they listed, and there was Belynda Bady), saying they’ll tell us later what they’re doing with our information. Incredibly bad.
Oh, yeah. And one of them is not connected with Harvard; Google tells me he teaches Economics in Argentina. I doubt that in Argentina anything like our campaign contribution transparency laws and FEC exist; maybe that transparency intrigues them and they wonder how in heaven’s name our social status can stand that everyone KNOWS what we do politically..
But here’s my theory about this shoddy research material: I think they do mean to intimidate us, to make the randomly-selected individual small contributor so outraged that his/her information is out there so all can see, that we join the Big Money Boys and corporations out there who have mounted an intense national campaign to suppress transparency in political campaign money. They want the Little People to do the Big Money’s dirty work for them. The Koch brothers, the PAC folks who are “non-profit” but political absolutely resent even the Citizens United case opinion because it relies so heavily on transparency to prevent total corruption of our system by Big Money. These Harvard guys are focused on the little donors. Ergo, to my mind, they’re protecting the Big Donors, those who would buy our democratic system.
These guys have a dubious, badly-drawn research project that does not get any “response” from their erstwhile “respondents.” This is worse than the worst research proposals I ever saw before Graduate School grant and fellowship committees at my university. Awful.
I wrote to Harvard’s Provost and to Ms. Bady, requesting information about this anonymous mailing, and protesting that someone is out there fraudulently using Harvard’s good name.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
21 
1
13th May 2012 at 7:10 pm
Catastrophic Levels of Preparation says:
Just sent this to Ms. Bady:
___________________________________________________________________
I received the letter on political campaign contributions on May 17, in XXXXXXXX, Texas.
I have several questions:
1.What was the nature of the IMPORTANT INFORMATION that was referenced on the outside of the letter but never mentioned either directly nor indirectly within the body of the letter?
2.What was the total sample size of letter recipients?
3.What was the methodology of the process you used to randomize the sample?
4.Is this research concluded or are you continuing to send similar letters out?
Thank you. I would appreciate a brief, but prompt, response to these questions.
Sincerely,
CLoP
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
7 
0
13th May 2012 at 9:47 pm
Andy N says:
I got one of these letters. I donated to Obama. 5 others were listed, 4 donated to Dem, 1 donated to Rep.
Is this research or an attempt to suppress donations?
Well, frankly, there’s little need to suppress donations to Ron Paul, at this point his impact on the election will be minimal. My question is, has anyone who donated to Romney been mailed one of these?
The point of the research, if legitimate? I can only hazard that they attempt to discover what the effect of being informed of the public nature of donations has on future donations. In such a case they need no response from the participants. The response will be whether or not we give again, as often or less often than those who have given but were not mailed a letter. Not obnly do they not need us to respond, there’s no way for us to refuse to participate!
It sure is creepy though.
Like or Dislike:
4 
0
13th May 2012 at 3:11 am
Administrator says:
There is something funny going on with this thread. It isn’t on the front page but it keeps getting comments from new people. I think it is the same person logging on under different IP addresses.
Like or Dislike:
3 
4
13th May 2012 at 9:33 am
Eric Ayers says:
This study is not an intrusion – the intrusion is already there – when you contribution they tell you they need your name and number because of campaign financing laws.
Anyway, there is no point getting mad at Harvard, this information has been on the public record for a very long time. The topic of whether big donors should have their names disclosed is very topical and many see anonymity as a important issue for American democracy.
What the study must be about is to study people’s behavior when they are actually given concrete evidence of this. Judging from the posts here, many people aren’t aware of the state of things and the act of seeing their name published might *CHANGE THEIR BEHAVIOR*. They are probably comparing future campaign contributions of those who have been sent the letter compared to those who have not been, or maybe it is something about comparing yourself to your neighbors.
Like or Dislike:
1 
2
13th May 2012 at 10:56 am
Connie says:
There does seem to be somebody on this thread who is attempting to defend this research project, against all our protests that the anonymous letter seemed intended for nothing else than to intimidate ALL of us from further contributing to whatever campaigns, any campaign.
The letter we all got provides no information beyond the fact that anyone can access what we contributed to specific presidential candidates. It does nothing else. WHY does the letter want to inform us of that? No reason is given. But we can only conclude that they’re tracking us, and are going to use data about our past and future contributions to campaigns. Tracking us BY NAME. That’s the creepy part.
They’ll aggregate the data, of course, because they’re numbers crunchers, macro-economists who are only comfortable with theory and mathematical formulas. They are not comfortable with people at the micro level, even though here, they are manipulating individuals. I’m not sure they even understand that.
That two Argentines, neither of whom is listed on the on-line Harvard Directory, are tracking the active political behavior of Americans whom they attempt to frighten with “information” they scare us about–look at the caps, the bold, large font, with our first names, of the message framed in black, on the outside of the flier!–that’s the creepy part. Don’t worry, they seem to say, we already have you in our sights, and you don’t need to–nor can you–do anything about it. We hope we’re upsetting you (especially those of you who don’t follow the FEC or campaign laws closely and are shocked at the information we presented to you in a format that intends to shock you). We’re tracking your particular political behavior, via the money you give to campaigns.
They didn’t ask our permission, and don’t need our responses, they apparently think, because they’re only using public data. But they salivate at the thought that their anonymous letter will cause a measurable effect on us. They’re sitting in wait for us to move, or not move–doesn’t matter to them, they’ve done their work with the scary letters.
We should all contact the head of Harvard’s committee on Research on Human Subjects–she’s listed at the web site the letter mentions. Is such manipulation of the American electoral system, through manipulation of individuals, permissible under Harvard standards?
Incidentally, I’m in Minnesota. Three-digit zip code 554.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
7 
0
13th May 2012 at 11:04 am
Yojimbo says:
I’m surprised this thread is still active, but since it is – if people want to contact the “researchers”, here is their info:
gcruces@campaign-information.info, rtruglia@campaign-information.info, bbady@fas.harvard.edu, jcalhoun@fas.harvard.edu
and
admin@campaign-information.info
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
13th May 2012 at 11:26 am
Yojimbo says:
If anyone wants to contact the “researchers”:
gcruces@campaign-information.info, rtruglia@campaign-information.info, bbady@fas.harvard.edu, jcalhoun@fas.harvard.edu
admin@campaign-information.info
Like or Dislike:
2 
0
13th May 2012 at 11:36 am
Anna Terhune says:
I don’t believe this came from Harvard researchers at al since they do not give any information on who is running a study and where they can be contacted. It makes no sense to me.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
13th May 2012 at 1:13 pm
Anna Terhune says:
I wonder if this might be some sort of ploy to get people to give to superpacs that are anonymous so that people won’t know your name, or perhaps see if subtle pressure based on what one’s neighbors are doing will influences what you will give. University researchers are not allowed to behave like this–the people sponsoring the research are supposed to be given and a place they can be contacted. Thiis is some sort of scam, but I don’t know the purpose. Maybe a second letter will follow that suggests we give to an anonymous PAC. I really doubt this came from Harvard.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
13th May 2012 at 1:19 pm
Anna Terhune says:
Well, I was wrong. The person sponsoring this studyt is Ricardo Perez-Truglia who is in the economics department at Harvard. This is a student’s thesis. Frankly, I believe the letter as sent violates accepted research standards in that it did not indicate who the researchers are, the purpose of the study, and contact information. This is very shoddy. I imagine they will follow up with a second mailing askig if knowing that people will know about your giving will affect future donations.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
6 
0
13th May 2012 at 1:40 pm
David G says:
I got the letter and certainly found it disturbing, as I guess just about everyone did. It feels like an attempt to intimidate people who contribute to campaigns. I wasn’t going to make another contribution, but now I probably will just to prove to myself that I wasn’t intimidated, or perhaps to poke my thumb in their eye (metaphorically). My respect for Harvard has gone down, and my feeling that the FEC is a form of “big brother” (in the bad way) is that much stronger.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
8 
0
13th May 2012 at 8:04 pm
AConsumer says:
I too checked on the people and found that they are real. However, the “research” study seems to be just lame..Base on the wording and content of the letter, it is hard to believe that this student is a PhD candidate at Harvard.
If you contribute more than $250 at a time it shows up on the Fed site and anyone can find it. So what? I already new this. I am really not sure what they are trying to accomplish with this study.
I don’t see a conspiracy either though. I did some research on the Fed site and the information appears to be accurate.
Harvard does a lot of valuable legitimate research….If this is a genuine Harvard study though, I would not count this study amongst them.
Like or Dislike:
2 
0
13th May 2012 at 8:07 pm
John B says:
I got the same letter just today. In my case the letter listed 5 first name last initial donors in addition to my listing. In my case all six of us contributed to “REP”.
Based on the wording of the letter I can see no conceivable way this could be used for “research”.
The letter states its purpose in the very first sentence- “This letter is part of an effort to disseminate information about political campaign contributions made by individuals from your neighborhood”.
Research generally tries to collect information. Disseminating information is more the work of propaganda organizations.
John
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
10 
0
13th May 2012 at 9:03 pm
Yojimbo says:
To all:
I’m confused. How is everyone finding this thread and commenting on it on The Burning Platform when it is no longer showing up on the front page? Are people searching for information on this letter and finding this site?
Please enlighten me.
Like or Dislike:
2 
0
13th May 2012 at 9:28 pm
Major Domo says:
Searching Google gets you to this page. Not a lot of chat about this letter. Doesn’t sound like anyone is getting the letter in which the numbers quoted place them in a majority position within their community — whether the actual data is true or not. It the purpose of the study is to observe what people who recieve the letter do, compared with a control group of the same profile who do not recieve the letter, then it doesn’t make any sense to me that the full context and purpose of the letter could not be divulged. The fact of revealing the data alone, regardless, of context should produce equally valid results, because whether you tell them a little or a lot, the fanciful conclusions that people will jump to in addition to what you say to them will be about equal. I’m just going to go ahead and call this stupid and moronic and know that whoever’s behind it clearly deserves no degree for anything remotely considered “academic.”
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
6 
1
13th May 2012 at 12:09 am
efarmer says:
I just received the same letter.
I’m just making the first part up.
EF
Like or Dislike:
2 
1
13th May 2012 at 8:40 am
Hey, Here's Who Your Neighbors Gave Money to--Sincerely, Harvard - Percolator - The Chronicle of Higher Education says:
[...] letter that the researchers sent out was posted on this blog and, in the comments, a number of people who say they also received the letter let their feelings [...]
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
13th May 2012 at 12:04 pm
Harvard Study: Bullying Political Contributors? | Freedom Report says:
[...] listed on the website, Argentine nationals Ricardo Perez-Trugli and Dr. Guillermo Cruces, previously teamed on a study on redistributive tax policy essentially explaining how to use class warfare to promote [...]
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
13th May 2012 at 7:19 am
Harvard Study: Bullying Political Contributors? | News says:
[...] listed on the website, Argentine nationals Ricardo Perez-Trugli and Dr. Guillermo Cruces, previously teamed on a study on redistributive tax policy essentially explaining how to use class warfare to promote [...]
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
13th May 2012 at 7:43 am
Harvard Study: Bullying Political Contributors? « News « @griffinrc says:
[...] listed on the website, Argentine nationals Ricardo Perez-Trugli and Dr. Guillermo Cruces, previously teamed on a study on redistributive tax policy essentially explaining how to use class warfare to promote [...]
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
13th May 2012 at 9:16 am