website statistics

Archive for the 'Fundraising' Category

More of Romney, Less of You

We’re now in the final thirty days of an election cycle that began nearly two years ago, and while many think they already know how it will end, no partisan operative can afford to think that way. What happens in the next four weeks will determine the outcome of the next four years, so everyone on each side is pulling as hard as they can in the direction of their party’s candidate… right?

I thought so, until this dropped into my inbox a few hours ago:

Wow, Limited Edition Fleece Blanket? This must be my lucky day!

Seriously, what on Earth is Mitt Romney doing asking Republicans, who could give money to John McCain’s campaign the RNC, to give it to himself instead? If you’re a committed Republican, what’s the most responsible thing to do in the next few weeks: Give money to put television ads on the air in Michigan Iowa, or add this comfy blanket with snazzy carrying straps to your collection of campaign-branded political paraphernalia?

But wait, it gets better. Did you see the last line of the e-mail in the image above? Here it is again, for those of you who dislike squinting:

It is more essential than ever that conservative candidates and organizations have the resources they need to get their message out to voters, and that is why I am writing to you today.

I think we can safely consider this Romney’s retaliation against McCain for picking Sarah Palin as his running mate.

Updated, minutes later: Wow, what timing — as I was writing this very post, another e-mail landed in my Gmail account. And it looks like someone else had the same idea:

What’s her excuse? Romney did it first?

P.S. At least Romney got a crummy, non-prime time speaking slot at the RNC. Hillary can’t say that.

Cerf’s Up: When Bipartisanship Really Isn’t

At last week’s Personal Democracy Forum, one of the events I missed was the launch of a coalition called InternetforEveryone.org. I’m skeptical of the organization, and while I admit I’m not really sure what it’s all about, therein lies part of my skepticism. It’s very easy to agree that Internet access should be as widely available as possible. However, the policy details are not so easily agreed upon. But as a market-oriented thinker, I’m inclined to agree with Erick Erickson that this is in fact a bad idea.

Supporters at the press conference included Stanford professor Larry Lessig, former FCC commissioner Jonathan Adelstein, environmental activist Van Jones, a venture capitalist from the firm which first funded Twitter, Google’s chief evangelist Vint Cerf and Josh Silver from Free Press. That’s the same Josh Silver I criticized back in May for claiming the only real news was his kind of news.

Also on the panel: Republican consultant David All, whom I count as a friend and whose work on Slatecard I admire but with whom I disagree on some matters of policy and partisanship. I’m not the first to note the incongruity of this panel; if you happened to check out the comments at All’s TechRepublican starting this weekend, Mike Turk initiated a very interesting debate with All on the merits of the group continuing through today.

David has called Internet for Everyone a “bipartisan” organization, which Turk has also called into question. All’s claim seems very hard to justify, based on the names above. For one thing, the only other reference to Internet for Everyone as “bi-partisan” comes from Brian Reich at Fast Company — who is, coincidentally, a former Gore campaign aide. Meanwhile Tim Karr of Free Press didn’t bother to include the word “bipartisan” in his announcement at Huffington Post.

But I was reminded of a tweet from @DavidAll the evening the conference ended:

David All tweet about Vint Cerf as a Republican

And in a post on Saturday, All did concede that the bipartisanship of the group was tenuous:

As one of the only Republicans in the coalition (Vint Cerf of Google is a registered Republican), I believe it’s crucial for Republicans to embrace a national broadband strategy.

Curious about Vint Cerf’s Republican bona fides, I decided to punch his name into OpenSecrets.org. For the sake of column width, I’ve removed his employers (principally MCI, MCI Worldcom, Worldcom and Google). Here’s what I found:

Vint Cerf’s political donations, via OpenSecrets.org

Finally! Proof that Vint Cerf is a Republican. Well, maybe he was once a Republican. And so, David’s claim that the Internet was Republican from the beginning has a fighting chance. But Cerf is clearly not a Republican now, in fact he has been quite an active Democrat since approximately the Reagan administration.

There are certainly times when cross-ideological partnerships are a good idea, such as when Redstate’s Mike Krempasky, Adam Bonin and Markos Moulitsas of Daily Kos came together to fend off campaign finance restrictions on bloggers. But it concerns me that David All — one of the C&E-recognized rising stars of GOP Washington — is giving ideological cover to an organization which is not just non-conservative and not just un-conservative, but whose basic idea treats limited government and market-based solutions as beneath discussion.

P.S. I hope this doesn’t dissuade him from watching the rest of The Wire.

Hillary Needs Me (And You)

My last post, written from an auditorium on the fifth floor of the AOL Time Warner Center, was a little on the snarky side about the fact that two weeks after the formal suspension of Hillary Clinton’s campaign, she is still sending e-mails to her massive list.

Hillary’s third e-mail since leaving the raceLater in the day, I attended a panel discussion with my colleague Soren Dayton and Peter Daou, who still remains Senator Clinton’s Internet advisor. Afterward I spoke with Daou briefly, and I mentioned the post and asked him about their e-mail plans. He confirmed that they indeed planned to continue sending e-mails to the list.

They didn’t wait long.

At right is the image from an e-mail I received late this morning. Not surprisingly, it’s an appeal for help paying down the campaign’s debt — about $22 million, $12 million of which she loaned herself. So I expect I’ll be getting more than a few of these over the coming weeks. But I promise I’ll only write about it again if it’s really interesting.

P.S. One more shout-out to Daou for helping me write Hillary in Blogistan: On Blogads, The Netroots and Peter Daou upon the campaign’s official launch January 2007. Yes it made him look good, but as a senior-level staffer of the front-running Democratic candidate, he was certainly under no obligation to speak with a right-of-center blogger about the campaign.

Let’s Just Admit Slatecard is the Republican ActBlue

In the past week or so, two online GOP operatives (neither of whom is David All) have separately suggested to me that the competition among the three Republican Internet fundraising websites is effectively over. Even I doubted the separation would happen this quickly, but as of now even a late push by one of the two laggards would have a hard time catching on.

Evidence that Slatecard, bootstrapped project of Republican consultant David All (and web developer Sendhil Panchadsaram), is “the Republican ActBlue” can be found throughout mainstream political coverage over the past six months. Here are just a few:

Campaigns and Elections:

Then why the development of small donor online vehicles, including the Democratic ActBlue and Republican Slatecard, that aim to raise small donations on the congressional level? Both tools are growing substantially, and several candidates for Congress are highlighted on those sites.

USA Today:

“Your average online donor is an impulse buyer,” said David All, a Washington, D.C.-based consultant who last year founded Slatecard.com, which he hopes to be a Republican answer to ActBlue. So far, the site’s donors have raised more than $5,000 for GOP presidential candidates.

Wall Street Journal [$]:

Mr. All, the Republican consultant, started a rival site last October called SlateCard.com. It has raised just $300,000. “What I’m finding is a lot of Republican campaigns are just hiring college kids or using their son who has a Facebook account,” said the 28-year-old Mr. All. “They don’t understand what this is all about.”

Human Events:

Slatecard aims to raise money for Republican candidates in the same way that ActBlue has for Democrats. Slatecard lets users create profiles (“slatecards”) for candidates they support and then raise money by donating to that candidate and passing it on to friends, family members, co workers — anyone — through blogs, emails, and social networking groups.

Wired:

“If you read the statute, the result is not surprising,” said Don McGahn, an attorney who advises Slatecard, the Republicans’ answer to ActBlue. “However, when they passed the statute, there wasn’t even the internet … what it really shows is that the way to fix this is to pass legislation to update the Matching Payment Act .”

While Slatecard is more elegant, interactive and transparent than its counterparts, it seems that All’s sometimes controversial self-promotion has made the lion’s share of difference, especially as he has succeeded in persuading local congressional campaigns to use his site, sometimes making it their exclusive online fundraising platform.

RedState, former backer of Big Red Tent, now supports SlatecardBut if you need further evidence that Slatecard is the take-all (no pun intended) winner of the online GOP fundraising tool primary, consider the image at right, taken from the sidebar of leading Republican activist site RedState. It’s a Slatecard widget encouraging contributions to the McCain camapign.

It’s noteworthy not just for being there but for what it replaces: Nearly a year ago, RedState announced it was backing one of the future also-rans, Big Red Tent:

Patrick Ruffini has said more than once that the right needs to stop building what the left already has and instead build the next big thing. As part of heading in that direction, please let me introduce you to the Big Red Tent. We didn’t build it, but we’re actively supporting it.

There is more irony here: Ruffini is chiefly responsible for the other runner-up, Rightroots, and RedState’s Erick Erickson was party to a minor internecine fight with All during the Republican primary season. To back All’s Slatecard over Big Red Tent may have been a difficult choice, but considering how the other two have languished, it may have been no choice at all.

Update: David writes to say that 48 candidates now have used Slatecard exclusively for online fundraising, though some have already lost their primary or special elections. That’s impressive, especially for a site not yet nine months old.

John Edwards Was Born to Run

Here’s an e-mail from the John Edwards campaign sent Tuesday morning:

John Edwards’ last e-mail pitch

And here is what AP is reporting within the last hour:

Democrat John Edwards is exiting the presidential race Wednesday, ending a scrappy underdog bid in which he steered his rivals toward progressive ideals while grappling with family hardship that roused voters’ sympathies but never diverted his campaign, The Associated Press has learned.

The two-time White House candidate notified a close circle of senior advisers that he planned to make the announcement at a 1 p.m. EST event in New Orleans that had been billed as a speech on poverty, according to two of his advisers. The decision came after Edwards lost the four states to hold nominating contests so far to rivals who stole the spotlight from the beginning—Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama.

The fundraising pitch bothered me plenty yesterday. Edwards presented himself throughout this campaign, as he did to some extent in 2003, as the populist reformer who would fight the big corporations on behalf of the little guy, whom only he represented. It’s not the kind of candidacy that attracts my interest, but it certainly has its place in Democratic politics.

That is, until several rounds of voting demonstrate that one does not in fact represent very many people. And yet here he was, the week following yet another epic fail, asking those same “little people” to throw their good, hard-earned money after his bad, weakening campaign. Today, he’s finally doing the right thing. But it bothers me even more that he was still trying to raise money less than 24 hours before throwing in the towel.

So why today? It is perhaps a clever partisan move to drop out on the same day Rudy Giuliani is withdrawing to back John McCain, and I respect the gamesmanship. But it also reminds me of Saturday evening, when his non-concession speech all but cut off Obama’s actual South Carolina victory speech. That’s John Edwards for you — a narcissist. So are most politicians, but he’s among the worst: He’s a narcissist who says he’s doing it all for you.

Blazers for President

As I noted in my semi-live blog on Iowa caucus night, my Portland Trail Blazers are on a roll. Despite #1 draft pick Greg Oden sitting out his rookie season after microfracture surgery, this relatively-inexperienced team (the youngest in the NBA) has won 16 of their last 17 games.

Indeed, they are no longer the Jail Blazers, although that rep did carry the upside of seeing more Blazer jerseys than Wizards jerseys in the District.

Meanwhile, Blazermania has gripped the Portland metropolitan area like it hasn’t in nearly a decade. For the first time since anyone can remember, home games are actually selling out. The team has encouraged this by offering package deals for tickets like the four-tickets-for-$88 that put me in a seat at Paul Allen’s allegedly-bankrupt Rose Garden this December for the first time since the 2000 Western Conference Finals (from which I may never fully recover).

And it’s not just special ticket packages — the Blazers are making concerted pitches meant to appeal to Blazer fans’ better basketball selves. Here’s one that’s currently on the official Blazers website, that I thought was worthy of noting here:

Blazers website appeal sure looks like a campaign fundraising appeal

Now, tell me that doesn’t sound like a last-minute campaign fundraising appeal. In fact, all they need now is a fundraising bat.

Just Because You’re Paranoid Doesn’t Mean They’re Not After You

Macsmind laments an imbalance in attention to non-Larry Craig imbroglios this week:

Now on the same day that this story broke two other stories broke which contained absolute bombshells to both Hillary Clinton and the Democrat Party in general. The first was the fact that George Soros’s defunked America Coming Together received the third largest fine in FEC history for voter fraud during the 2004 election. The other news of course - which hasn’t been told completely - is the growing campaign scandal involving several democratic candidate for president - including Hillary Clinton. Both stories were just about knocked off the page by the Craig story and the obvious question was who behind the witholding of the story - again for two months - as almost to emerge the minute anti Hillary Clinton or anti democratic stories unfold.

First I’d like to point out, these stories (plus the not-so-distant Vitter revelations) mark another example of a cliché that isn’t necessarily wrong: Republicans can’t have sex, and Democrats can’t have money.

Second, he’s not wrong — the Hsu story might have been observed as a sign for Democrats that a Hillary Clinton administration could be scandal-ridden like her husband’s (well, not exactly like). And the left accuses Republicans of election-stealing enough that the Soros group’s financial misdeeds could have been pundicized, and bore greater scrutiny. Instead it seems to have only bored.

In fact, this this IceRocket trend chart showing comparative mentions almost makes the above observations sound understated:

Larry Craig vs. Norman Hsu vs. George Soros

Indeed the GOP gay no-sex scandal carried the week, and while that may be unfair, it certainly isn’t surprising. While there may well be solid examples of liberal-leaning reportorial and editorial decisions to be found throughout all this coverage, one also cannot deny the human drama of Craig’s unraveling career is more compelling than improprieties by non-electeds. In a tabloidy way, of course. After all, sensationalism is a troubling media bias, too.

P.S. Less than a year ago, this blog defended Sen. Craig against rumors very similar to his Minneapolis bust. Whoops! But based on the evidence at the time, no apology is necessary. A whisper campaign that turns out to be right is still a whisper campaign. A named source would have been a different story.

P.P.S. Mickey Kaus has a point about what Soros did and didn’t do. What he didn’t do was anything that conservatives and libertarians think should be illegal. What he did do was run afoul of existing FEC regulations. But conservatives have lost those battles, at least for now. What should be done is to change those laws, not excuse Soros for breaking them.

Breaking: AP says Craig is out. And you know what I mean.

Fundraising Awareness

Earlier in the week Matthew Mosk, a political reporter for the Washington Post, posted to Post.com’s The Trail an arguably unhelpful and inarguably un-insightful post about the disparate fates of the best-known online fundraising apparatuses (apparati?) of Democrats and Republicans:

Democratic candidates for federal office have seen more than $25 million come through the web site ActBlue — some of which will eventually flow to the Democratic National Committee for use during the general election. Republicans, meanwhile, have seen just a tiny ripple of activity on the ABC PAC web site — $385 raised for the presidential candidates to date — which is supposed to be ActBlue’s direct competition.

Sure, at one time it was supposed to be. But as this blog and other blogs have pointed out, it’s never had the kind of support such that it should actually be spoken of in the same sentence. Not to mention that several journalists, including Mosk’s colleague Chris Cillizza, have (apparently ignorantly) misrepresented what ActBlue means to different Democratic candidates.

Mosk’s brief report is of a piece with this, not knowing or bothering to differentiate between the two websites. Is it fair to point out that Democrats are doing better with their independent online fundraising tools? Absolutely. Is it fair to compare ActBlue’s total fundraising figures over three cycles compared to ABC’s (admittedly underwhelming) year in existence? Not without explaining the situation, it’s not.

But it gets worse:

Now there is a new effort to change that. R. Rebecca Donatelli, a pioneer of Internet fundraising who help raise some of the nation’s first online dollars for John McCain in 2000, has revealed she and partner Michael Palmer are working on a new, and she hopes improved, version of ABC PAC to launch this fall. While she continues to work on behalf of McCain, she said she is optimistic the improvements to ABC PAC will help all of the Republican candidates. Given the numbers they are posting on the site right now, it would be tough to make things worse.

This “new effort,” as Mosk doesn’t adequately explain, is a second go at the same operation by the same person responsible for ABC’s ineffectiveness. Worse, though, Mosk is apparently unaware of other new ventures by GOP activists in the same space. Even before Mosk’s posting, there were two new efforts gearing up to do same thing:

Both sites have yet to prove themselves, sure. But considering that Mr. Mosk was moved to write a post about ABC PAC, isn’t this worth an correction? Or better yet — another post?

This is What Fear Looks Like

Campaign aides, fundraisers or whatever going after the new Big Dog:

A top Clinton fundraiser took a jab at the rival. Obama “doesn’t have the sustainability and doesn’t have the ability to raise what the Clintons are able to raise,” said John Catsimatidis. “Regardless of what he reports, at the end of the day, the Clintons get the nomination.”

Here’s why they’re doing it: the Clinton donors who got railroaded into Hillary’s with-us-or-against-us warning now realize that they’ve made a terrible mistake. Clinton’s people told them that they would blow the field away and that she would be the inevitable nominee.

Problem is, they were wrong.

Now, Clinton’s people need to keep the lid on the container. So, go after Obama, say he can’t win, keep your donors in line. If you don’t, donors will give to Obama and leak it to the press so they can get on Obama’s good side.

This is what fear looks like, when you pick the wrong horse. Whether you own the horse, or merely placed a bet.

Blue Harvest?

During the past holiday weekend, I came into the possession of some very interesting-looking computer screen captures. They were taken at ActBlue, the Democratic online fundraising tool and website that for 2008 has matured into a legitimate vendor for two mainstream presidential campaigns.

And the pictures? The screen caps depict a major lapse in network security — one exposing certain member and donor information. In layman’s terms, they left the back door open all weekend. Earlier this afternoon I communicated with ActBlue executive director Ben Rahn, verifying the incident and gathering more information. Here is what went down, based on my limited reporting:

On Friday afternoon, a software developer’s error inadvertantly changed the network security settings, granting administrative-level access to occasional users (i.e., not every account). For example, if you are a normal user and you log in at normal times, this is what the top right-hand corner of the page will look like:

Options for regular ActBlue user

But if you are an administrator — or a normal user this weekend — the top right-hand corner of your page would have looked like:

Options for ActBlue administrator

Anyone who knew enough to be dangerous could get in and change settings or make the site do unpleasant things. But perhaps more worrisome, anyone could now access the Treasury database and start downloading sensitive donor information, in the form of CSV files, showing who had given to whom and how much.

I have a few of these screen shots, just enough to give an idea of what’s there without actually compromising ActBlue further. So, to start, if you click on that Admin link, you would find yourself at the Admin page:

ActBlue Admin page

From there it’s one more click to the Treasury Dashboard showing the actual bank accounts (account numbers blurred, incomplete though they are) ActBlue uses to manage the funds it receives:

ActBlue Treasury Dashboard

And the candidates? Both John Edwards and Bill Richardson use ActBlue to collect their online donations. So here’s the Richardson page:

ActBlue Richardson page

Note the “CSV data” in the furthest-right column. Aside from a prankster turning the site’s color scheme red, that’s where the real trouble lies.

There are a few reasons why this breach is not what it could have been. For one, as Rahn emphasized to me, “To be clear, credit card data is never available from the web site, and thus was never at risk of compromise.” Additionally, CSV (that’s comma-separated values) files can be a bit of a pain, especially if you don’t really know what you’re doing. And of course there is one thing that may have occurred to you already: All of this information will eventually be released to the FEC.

That said, there’s no telling what a rival campaign or unaffiliated opportunist savvy enough to collect and and synthesize this data could do. In the fundraising business, gathering data is difficult. Names, addresses and e-mails would be worth a lot of money to other candidates, political associations or other interested parties. Those names could be cross-referenced against existing lists of donors, and e-mail addresses of known political donors would be a hot property (even if “hot”). Any Senate data would be a huge bonus, because Senate candidates aren’t required to file electronic records with the FEC (and nobody wants to search thousands of PDFs).

So you never know. Maybe it’s something. Maybe it’s nothing. As Rahn told me today:

As it happens, we identified and resolved the problem Sunday morning; it was caused by a developer’s error on Friday afternoon. Your source’s findings essentially describe the “worst case scenario” [that could be caused by this error] … After resolving the prolem we combed through the logs of reports accessed during the window, and the most likely case is that reports were only accessed by those who should have seen them and perhaps a few curious users (such as your source) who might have explored a link they hadn’t seen before and done nothing with the data. However, there is no way for us to completely rule out the contrary cases.

And he assures me that they are “taking steps to ensure that this does not recur,” as one might imagine.

We’ve come a long way since Sandra Bullock pressed Esc and wound up getting chased around “The Net” by a clichéd British villain, and by now most of us are comfortable buying things and donating money online — despite the risks. Security errors are a fact of life. They will be a fact of political life, too.