But take it from me, someone who has volunteered for civic tech organizations and have participated in ground work for political campaigns. The most positive impact you could possibly make is money.
Political campaigns need thousands of volunteers. But someone who has no skills or education can volunteer. The supply pool is giant! But campaigns need millions of dollars in order to survive. It’s way harder to raise a dollar because in order to donate to campaigns the person usually needs to have discretionary income. And to move the needle financially for a campaign, you need to be fairly wealthy.
At the end of the day, maximizing your salary and donating, say 10k (2.8k direct + 7.2k via PAC) to a political candidate that you believe will make a way bigger positive impact than working for minimum wage or free for that candidate. Because your skills aren’t being used optimally. If you take a paycut from 300k to 60k, are you still comfortable making that donation?
Anyways, my personal mantra is to maximize income at impact neutral companies or positive adjacent. And then commit to donate a significant chunk of income to positive impact organizations. Don’t know if this helps or not.
It's a little different if the volunteering is something low impact or something you're way out of your depth in, or if the cause wanting money has a way of getting very tangible rewards (which are quantifiably greater than whatever free time you can spare on it)
And this is for congressional-level. For state senate, state house, local gov, etc. I imagine this could go even further. City councils and mayors have lots of impact but little donations.
10k is not a lot at the presidential election sure, and maybe not for Senate either, but it is a lot of money even in House races. And for many state races.