Archive

Case Studies

On August 24, the AK-Sen primary was a forgone conclusion. Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R), a 1.5 term incumbent–in 2002 her father appointed her to his Senate seat when he won the governorship, the very definition of nepotism–would win her primary battle against Joe Miller and cruise to victory in the general.

By August 25, 2010, the race had completely changed. Murkowski trailed the insurgent Miller by several thousand votes, and a recount looked imminent. There was talk of a libertarian ticket run for Murkowski, and then a write-in campaign. And while the GOP fumbled and fulminated, Scott McAdams, the Democratic nominee, quietly started fundraising. Two weeks later, McAdams has raised over $150k on ActBlue, and is halfway to Sen. Begich's 2008 total. Several members of Sen. Begich's staff have also joined the McAdams campaign, and the Senator told TPM he isn't bashful about helping McAdams raise money.

The point being, infrastructure matters, and it matters most when the calendar is compressed and the difference between victory and defeat lies in how quickly candidates adapt to unexpected events (See: Allen, George). Sen. Begich was considered a long shot to win as late as November 5, 2008–the day after election day–and today he's helping another dark horse make a competitive run at Alaska's other senate seat.

In short, ActBlue performs two crucial functions in the political world. First, we allow candidates to demonstrate their fundraising prowess to the powers-that-be in real time, helping them build legitimacy both inside and outside the Democratic Party.

But arguably more important in a world of 24-hour news cycles, we help candidates "win the morning," as it were. ActBlue enables candidates to capitalize on missteps by their opponents or changes in the political terrain at unmatched speed (Rob Miller's $800k+ "You Lie" haul, a year ago today). We do that by minimizing one of the less-covered aspects of political fundraising: transit time. Getting money from the donor to the campaign takes time, be it direct mail or online fundraising. Then, since political campaigns can rarely get anything on credit, it takes yet more time to pay the media buyers and film the advertisements. Cumulatively, that adds up to a significant delay between the donation and the realization of its political potential.

At ActBlue, we've reduced that delay to almost nothing by wiring major federal campaigns–McAdams among them–their ActBlue money. With ActBlue wires, the money that a campaign raises on ActBlue today is in their bank account and ready to be spent tomorrow. They can translate late money–or any money, for that matter–into media and ground presence almost instantaneously. That leads to more agile campaigns, timely advertisements, and eventually victory. It's another Democratic advantage that the GOP can't replicate, and in today's political climate we can use each and every one.

Guest post by Steve Gold, General Counsel, ActBlue

Commenting in a post on Facebook recently about Target shareholders' demands for a review of the company's political contributions policy, CREDO wrote:

This is really promising. If we can bring BOTH shareholder and consumer pressure on corporations that use their deep pockets to support right wing candidates, there is a chance to limit the damage of corporate influence in elections. And then we can pass a constitutional amendment making it clear that corporations do not have the rights of persons.

This is a great story, and there has been plenty of great work done on this issue, by CREDO as well as MoveOn.org and others. As everyone interested in politics knows by now, Target's contribution to an anti-gay Republican candidate for governor of Minnesota was made possible by the Supreme Court's decision in Citizen's United v. FEC. The Brennan Center in particular has done amazing work on the issue of corporate political speech and warned specifically about the dangers of corporations spending political money without shareholder approval.

CREDO is right on the money when they call for shareholder pressure
on top of the consumer pressure that has been making Target pay the
price for supporting an anti-gay right-wing candidate. There is a
divergence of opinion, however, with regard to the feasibility of
pushing for a constitutional amendment.* Drafting the right
constitutional amendment to address this problem and then getting it
passed in three quarters of the states is a monumental task.

Thankfully, it's not the only tool we have to fight back with.

We–individuals–can
speak out, too, and raise money for candidates and committees that are
speaking out. You raised over $18,000 on ActBlue to help elect Annise Parker the
first openly gay mayor of any U.S. city in 2009. And although the fight
continues, your contributions totaling over $1 million to Equality for
All
were a major factor in the battle for marriage equality in
California, just as they were in Maine and Kalamazoo, MI and
elsewhere. The scale of the fundraising around these issues on ActBlue
made the intangible quantifiable; because of those efforts, there is now
a national conversation taking place about gay rights.

We can do something similar about Target. Reducing Target's effect on elections—if it's possible—would no doubt
improve our democracy. Just as effective (and arguably more satisfying)
would be to make sure the pile of cash they're spending in Minnesota
not only gets them into hot water, but is entirely wasted to boot.
ActBlue makes it possible for every one of us to be a part of that.
Together, our voices are louder than Target's. The attention we've
brought to Target's donation, and a similar donation by News Corp., the
parent company of Fox News, has re-focused attention on Citizens United
and the effects it has on our political system. In short, we've already
beaten them on the airwaves; all that remains is to defeat the
candidates they're propping up.

More speech. More money. The right money. It's an imperfect
system our Founders created for us—as are all human institutions—but as
we at ActBlue have been showing for six years, it's a pretty good system
for fighting back against entrenched interests until we have a more
perfect system. We just have to be willing to use the rules to our
advantage.

*On a personal note, as a longtime CREDO member—from over a decade ago
when it was just Working Assets and they only sold long distance
service—I worry about curtailing the free speech rights of corporations.
CREDO is a corporation, and for years I've been signing their citizen
letters to protect the environment, stop the war, hold Dick Cheney
accountable, and myriad other public policy concerns that matter to me.
It would be a tragedy if the goverment could tell CREDO that it has no
first amendment right to free speech or to petition the government for a
redress of greivances.

Yesterday, Nancy Scola asked whether the Netroots could affect the legislative process, and I pointed out that transparent, online fundraising is critical to, in her words, "[pushing] Democrats out in favor of a progressive priority, and then make
the experience a pleasant one for the senator or representative." On the heels of that conversation comes Brian Beutler's TPMDC piece, How Outside Groups And Vulnerable Dems Gave The Public Option A New Pulse. Read it. The story is aptly summarized by a Senate aide, who said:

I would credit a lot the Netroots and then working with members who
had already been previously supportive, and members who have been in
tough positions for re-election.

According to Beutler's sources, the public option was revived by organizations like the Progressive Change Campaign Committee (PCCC) and Democracy for America (DfA), in concert with with Sen. Bennet and Sen. Gillibrand, and Reps. Pingree and Polis.

ActBlue has helped knit that diverse coalition together. The PCCC, DfA, and Sens. Gillibrand and Bennet are at the top of ActBlue's hot candidates and committees list, with Bennet banking nearly 1.5M on ActBlue. The PCCC and DfA were #1 and 3 on ActBlue's list of top 10 committees of 2009, separated only by the overnight (literally) success of Rob Miller. Rep. Pingree raised $730,000 on ActBlue for her 2008 election, while Rep. Polis came in at $510,000.

Now, I don't mean to shortchange the tremendous work that PCCC and DfA have done around this issue. But their ability to convince vulnerable legislators to work the inside game has a lot to do with their demonstrated fundraising power. In other words, their persuasive power is rooted in the idea that there is a cash constituency out there for progressive ideas, an idea that ActBlue has helped make clear, time and time again.

On TPM's editor's blog, Josh Marshall mused

Just a couple weeks ago, not only did reform seem pretty much dead but
any thought that a public option would be included in a deal seemed
pretty much crazy. And yet, out of the blue, through a pretty organic
and somewhat fortuitous process, it's back.

I think you have to give ActBlue credit for helping make that process possible.

The 2008 elections offer us a chance to elect a governing Democratic majority and crucial to that task is increasing our numbers in the U.S. Senate. While the number of potential targets for Democrats to challenge incumbent Republicans keeps growing, we can work to limit our own losses- preferably to zero for a second cycle in a row. This past week saw a online fundraising campaign launched towards that very effort.

Enter www.welcomebacktim.com

To celebrate Senator Johnson’s return to the U.S. Senate, his Senate colleagues have united to raise funds for him in a virtual fundraiser to aid his re-election efforts. Launched this week as Sen. Johnson returned back to Washington to rejoin Senate business, Senators Harry Reid, Dick Durbin, Barbara Boxer, Ted Kennedy, Amy Klobuchar, Patrick Leahy, Carl Levin, Bill Nelson, Barack Obama, Jon Tester, and Jim Webb have solicited contributions via e-mail from their separate lists through www.welcomebacktim.com.

What’s really cool is that ActBlue is at the heart of this effort which has raised over $70,000 so far.

If you click through to donate, you’ll see that ActBlue is the engine running to make this effort possible. Each Senator was given a single link with their own unique referral code to direct their donors to and as a result they have each been credited with how much they’ve raised for Sen. Johnson. Since various Senators are sending emails through separate systems, they can take advantage of the flexibility, simplicity, and transparency offered by ActBlue handling the technical component. That takes the most troublesome burden off of the shoulders of any one Senate staff and allows them to focus on refining the content of their message rather than the delivery of it or the processing of funds.

The www.welcomebacktim.com effort is more than just multiple incumbent US Senators coming together to raise funds for a colleague through their own email lists. It’s about a shared community and a shared investment in our success in 2008. It’s about bringing together colleagues in support of one another and bringing together their separate supporters in a common cause that is irrespective of their states. They (and the donors) are invested in making the protection and expansion of the Senate majority a nationalized priority. That benefits all Democrats if we hope to build a governing majority in 2008.

One of the fundraising methods that I have explored before here on the ActBlue Blog is integrating online video into your fundraising appeals. This works best with a pre-existing community with whom you have a relationship, but is by no means the only way in which the medium can be used to leverage an appeal for campaign contributions.

Today, I’d like to promote the work of Hank and John Green who have quite the following on the Internet with their Brotherhood 2.0 website in which John and Hank swore off all textual communication with each other for 2007. Instead, they are making public video blogs back and forth every weekday for the entire year. You can read their FAQ to learn more but to really get a flavor of their style and their devoted community of viewers I’d suggest viewing a few shows.

Below, I’ve provided a condensed 2 minute version of one of the shows where John makes his pitch for their friend Daniel Biss who is running for the 17th State House District in Illinois. It’s quite humorous so watch it below.

Pretty cool right? Here are some things this video ask does right.

 

  1. Present the Problem- John introduces the segment talking about the current state of affairs in Illinois and certain problems that exist which need fixing.
  2. Present a Solution- He then goes on to talk about how supporting Daniel Biss will help solve this problem. Electing him will install someone with progressive values which would improve Illinois.
  3. Be Specific- John focuses on one candidate to support as part of this effort. By narrowing the focus, he’s able to increase the power of his ask. The more direct the solution to the problem, the more effective the fundraising effort will be. (This is not to say that multi-candidate asks are bad- some of them are highly effective- but the slate of candidates must have a specific point of commonality to encourage donors to give to an entire slate.)
  4. Make it Personal- John is asking his own readers to donate as part of a very humorous challenge. There is an existing relationship and a degree of trust built up. Potential donors are more likely to give when asked by someone they know.
  5. Make it a Narrative- Through the week, John followed up on this initial post with this spot and this one where he carried through some of the actions as a result of the number of donors.

This is a perfect case of leveraging existing personal connections to make a fundraising ask and because the medium of communication for the ask (video) is the same medium through which readers are used to being entertained, it’s that much more effective.

By the way, the brothers have raised $3,273 from 213 donors which puts John in the "find a cat, lick it, wax two limbs of your choice, while drinking a throughly blenderized happy meal from McDonald’s category" level.

One of the initiatives we’re most proud to have been part of in 2006 was the Secretary of State Project, which used ActBlue to raise $415,000 for seven Democratic candidates for Secretary of State in 2008 presidential battlegrounds.

sos_homepage
The result: Democratic victories in Ohio, Minnesota, New Mexico, Nevada, and Iowa, and with them hope for fair 2008 presidential elections in these states.  (One of the project’s common refrains was “No more Ken Blackwells!”)

The Secretary of State Project is a great example of how you can use ActBlue to bring national attention to local candidates.
Normally, raising money for a down-ballot candidate in another state is
a hard sell.  But by simultaneously fundraising for candidates across
the country around a related theme, you create a national cause whose
importance will be readily apparent to your prospective donors.

The SoS project is also a great case study because it
exemplifies one of the most important concepts for using ActBlue effectively:

Make a single, simple pitch

In any fundraising situation, it’s important to keep your pitch simple:
you need one overarching, compelling reason why the person you’re
asking should support your cause.  If you’re just fundraising for a
single campaign this is comparatively straightforward, but when you’re
fundraising for multiple campaigns at once it’s all too easy to fall
into the trap of just talking about each of the different candidates as
if they were unrelated (other than your belief that they are each
worthy of support).
In the case of the SoS project, their pitch was simple: “Support
Secretaries of State in 2006 who will protect voter rights in 2008″.
This one statement made the argument for supporting all of the
candidates all at once.  Of course they had details about each
candidate on the SoS project home page (the big banner at the top rotates through each of the candidates) and also on the main SoS ActBlue page) but think of this as “supporting evidence” that these are actually good folks rather than the main argument.

So what does this mean in practice for your own fundraising effort on ActBlue?

Read More

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.