We built this because
the political tech
landscape was broken.
Campaign managers shouldn't need five vendors and six integrations to run a modern campaign. Political operatives deserve better. We built Political Leverage to be the platform they deserve.
The political tech landscape was optimized for vendors, not campaigns.
Every vendor solved one problem. L2 solved voter data. TargetSmart solved modeling. NGP VAN solved CRM. Hustle solved texting. Separate digital firms solved ads. Separate email vendors solved email. Each one was optimized for their narrow slice. None of them talked to each other. None of them understood the full campaign workflow.
The result: campaigns were spending 15-20 hours a week on data integration instead of voter contact. They were losing 4-6 weeks of the race to vendor procurement. They were paying 5-6 vendor invoices instead of one. And they had no unified view of what was actually working.
The vendors weren't evil. They were just optimized for a fragmented market. But the market didn't have to stay fragmented. Someone needed to build the platform that campaigns actually needed.
Three principles guide everything we build.
Intelligence + Execution in One System
The best insight in the world is worthless if it takes three weeks and four vendors to act on it. We built Political Leverage so that intelligence and execution live in the same platform. You see a persuadable voter and reach them in the same interface.
Campaigns First, Vendors Second
We're not optimizing for vendor economics. We're optimizing for campaign outcomes. If a feature makes campaigns win races, we build it. If it makes our invoicing cleaner but doesn't help campaigns, we don't build it.
Transparency Over Mystery Sauce
Campaign managers don't trust black boxes. Every persuadability score shows its work. Every targeting decision is explainable. If you can't defend it in a strategy meeting, the model has failed. Ours never does.
Built by people who've run campaigns. Who've managed data. Who know the pain.
David Rothstein
Ran data operations for three U.S. House campaigns and a gubernatorial race. Spent 8 years managing voter files, coordinating with modeling firms, and integrating disparate systems. Built Political Leverage because he got tired of fixing the same integration problems every cycle.
Sarah Chen
Former data scientist at TargetSmart. Spent 6 years building predictive models for political campaigns. Left because she believed voter intelligence should be accessible to every campaign, not just the ones that could afford $50K models.
James Whitfield
Former attorney at the Federal Election Commission. Spent 5 years interpreting campaign finance law. Joined Political Leverage to ensure every feature is legally defensible and every data source is a matter of public record.
Rachel Kim
Former digital director for three congressional campaigns. Managed email, digital ads, and voter contact strategies. Built Political Leverage because she knew exactly what campaign managers needed and what existing platforms were missing.
We serve campaigns across the political spectrum. Our intelligence is based on behavior, not partisan assumptions.
Political Leverage is bipartisan by design. Our persuadability scoring is based on behavioral signals — donation history, petition signatures, voting patterns — not partisan assumptions. A Republican who donated to a Democratic governor's race is persuadable regardless of party. A Democrat who signed a gun rights petition is persuadable on that issue. Our intelligence works for any campaign, any party, any message.
We're building the platform political campaigns deserve.
If you're running a campaign and want to see what intelligence advantage looks like, let's talk. If you're building something in political tech and want to partner, let's talk.