I received a campaign fundraising email this week regarding a heated Republican primary involving Senator Marie Alvarado-Gil.

At first, I thought the email was mostly fair game by modern political standards.

It criticized a negative campaign mailer. It accused the opposing campaign of using ugly tactics. It defended an ally. None of that is unusual anymore in American politics.

But then the tone changed.

Suddenly the email invoked political assassinations and attempted killings. And immediately after that came the fundraising pitch:

“If you can help by pitching in just $10 today…”

That was the moment where the email stopped feeling like political communication and started feeling like emotional extraction.

This is not unique to Republicans. Democrats do it too. Constantly.

Every election is presented as the most important election of our lifetime. Every opponent becomes an existential threat. Every policy disagreement becomes democracy hanging by a thread. Every tragedy becomes an opportunity for another urgent fundraising appeal before midnight.

And thanks to modern analytics, campaigns know exactly which emotional triggers generate clicks, donations, and engagement.

The result is a political culture trapped in a permanent state of emergency.

Citizens are no longer treated primarily as thoughtful participants in self-government. Increasingly, they are treated as audiences to emotionally stimulate and donors to repeatedly monetize.

What bothered me about this particular email was not necessarily the criticism of the opposing mailer. If a campaign crosses a line, criticize it.

What bothered me was the blending of real political violence and national trauma into a routine donation appeal for a state senate race.

There is a difference between condemning violence and using the emotional shockwave of violence as fundraising fuel.

And unfortunately, modern politics rewards exactly that behavior.

The incentives are broken.

A calm, nuanced email about policy probably performs terribly. A measured discussion about governing challenges likely gets ignored. But an emotionally charged message warning supporters that civilization itself is on the brink? That drives donations.

So campaigns escalate.

Then the media escalates.

Then social media escalates.

And eventually the public begins to view every political disagreement through the lens of existential conflict.

From a libertarian perspective, this should concern everyone regardless of party.

A free society depends on people being able to disagree without believing the other side represents imminent destruction. It depends on lowering the temperature, not permanently raising it for fundraising purposes.

“Click here to donate $10 before midnight.”