The radical right continues to make electoral progress. While the general and, by large, continuous increase in support has been going on for at least two decades it is only recently that we can regard the radical right party family as one of the large ones. Despite this, there are reasons to believe that its full potential has yet to be revealed. Previous research suggest that parties of the radical right might suffer from a stigmatization effect, that is, voters are reluctant to vote for them since supporting them is regarded as less socially acceptable. Similarly, it has been suggested that due to the lack of a reputational shield some segments of the electorate will find proposals from the radical right less compelling compared to a situation where the exact same proposal is presented by one of the mainstream parties. While this seems like a convincing hypothesis, we are not aware of any systematic Large-N studies testing this claim. Against this background, this study employs an experimental survey design to empirically test whether political proposals are assessed differently dependent on who the sender is. Specifically we have conducted a survey experiment, in a panel with Swedish voters, randomizing the sender in order to measure whether political proposals are less favored if they are presented by the radical right Sweden Democrats instead of one of the mainstream parties the Social Democrats and the Moderates.