The ActBlue Blog

CQ: most top ActBlue candidates won their elections

2009-09-14T16:13:24-04:00

I don't understand Jonathan Allen's CQ article on ActBlue fundraising.

His initial point: candidates who raise a lot of money on ActBlue don't necessary win their elections. Well, no kidding. Adequate funding is a necessary but by no means sufficient condition for victory. Rob Miller isn't guaranteed anything, but what he does have now is a solid financial base 14 months out from the election that will allow his campaign to fund critical field and outreach efforts. The next time Joe Wilson screams at someone, chances are good it'll be from his own district trying to keep his job.

But the rest of the article starts to read like a snub on these candidates and their grassroots donors. He offers an incomplete list of eight losing efforts and two victors. In fact, 12 of our 20 top candidates won their races in 2008 (below).

The final paragraph is the most revealing:

Still, it's worth wondering whether some of the money could be better invested in candidates who are more likely to win.

Unfortunately, I don't have that crystal ball. In any case, we've long been proud of our diverse fundraising community, many who search out the highest-leverage opportunities for online giving and small dollar contributions, both to win races and to influence the national discussion. If all our candidates won every cycle, we'd be spending money on the wrong races. I'd hate to see that spirit change.

For the record, here is the complete top-20 list of funds raised by candidates on ActBlue during the 2007-2008 election cycle.

Candidate	Result	Amount
John Edwards (Pres)	Lost	$4,136,518.67
Kay Hagan (NC-Sen)	WON	$2,433,543.55
Rick Noriega (TX-Sen)	Lost	$1,798,743.98
Jim Martin (GA-Sen)	Lost	$1,708,812.78
Mark Warner (VA-Sen)	WON	$1,368,333.13
Dan Seals (IL-10)	Lost	$1,103,181.09
Barack Obama (Pres)	WON	$1,068,305.87
Joseph Sestak Jr (PA-7)	WON	$1,027,375.74
Darcy Burner (WA-8)	Lost	$764,796.65
Chellie Pingree (ME-1)	WON	$734,430.77
Scott Kleeb (NE-Sen)	Lost	$733,965.75
Eric Massa (NY-29)	WON	$726,732.32
Gary Peters (MI-9)	WON	$707,713.65
Martin Heinrich (NM-1)	WON	$663,681.31
Bob Lord (AZ-3)	Lost	$600,097.26
Steve Novick (OR-Sen)	Lost	$542,144.71
Jeff Merkley (OR-Sen)	WON	$536,619.52
Jared Polis (CO-2)	WON	$514,876.42
Al Franken (MN-Sen)	WON	$509,006.34
Mark Schauer (MI-7)	WON	$491,680.04

And the winner is... Monk Elmer

2009-08-28T20:01:19-04:00

What does Monk Elmer, a first time Democratic candidate running against a 32 year Republican incumbent in a state senate district in Wisconsin, have to do with ActBlue's landmark $100 Million fundraising milestone?

According to our records, it was a donation to Monk Elmer's campaign that pushed us past $100 million! A physician, Elmer just launched his campaign (and has raised over $1,000 on ActBlue). He was recently profiled by his local WI paper, the Post-Crescent where you can learn more information about his background, issues, and how he got the name "Monk".

It's not entirely surprising that such a landmark contribution comes from one of of the many state district level candidates that use ActBlue. In fact, it's candidates like Dr. Elmer which are why we work so hard to democratize fundraising and offer online fundraising tools to support thousands of Democratic campaigns.

Congratulations Monk Elmer- this graphic is all yours.

$100 Million Dollars! $100 Miiiiillion!

2009-08-27T09:00:00-04:00

When ActBlue was founded in the summer of 2004, it felt like the guy to the right was sneering at Democrats as he roamed around America, raising millions upon millions of dollars from big monied interests for his Republican Party friends. He probably laughed at ActBlue and the thought of Democrats challenging the way money was raised in politics.

It took time but we've done it.

$1 million raised by February of 2005.
$10 million by September of 2006.
$20 million by March of 2007.
$50 million by June of 2008.

And as of today, that last milestone has been doubled.

$100 Million has now been raised through ActBlue. Take that Dr. Evil!

It's thanks to our thousands of Democratic candidates, tens of thousands of grassroots fundraising pages, hundreds of thousands of donors, and millions of contributions from people like you that ActBlue has proved Republicans wrong.

And that's pretty groovy.

So Here's To You, Edward Kennedy

2009-08-26T10:54:37-04:00

For more than forty years, everyone who works in Massachusetts politics has done so in the shadow of Senator Edward Kennedy and his passing will do little to change that. ActBlue in particular owes him a profound debt of gratitude. When many in the Democratic Party had yet to see the potential of ActBlue, Senator Kennedy offered us his support and became an early champion of our goals.

We were proud to call him our senator and humbled to have his blessing. Today, we celebrate his accomplishments and mourn his loss with the rest of the country.

Follow us on Twitter

2009-08-24T12:22:26-04:00

We've been a lot more active on Twitter recently than over here. Come follow us for more frequent updates.

http://twitter.com/actblue

And many of us individually:

http://twitter.com/debergalis (me, Chairman)

http://twitter.com/erinhill (Executive Director)
http://twitter.com/KansasNate (Political Director)

http://twitter.com/a_nadir (Communications)

http://twitter.com/mrogers716 (Customer Service)

http://twitter.com/cluesque (Lead Engineer)

Testimony to the FEC on improving their website

2009-07-21T17:30:07-04:00

A bit different from the usual sort of post here. Below is the testimony I just submitted to the Federal Election Commission in response to their Internet Initiative. Essentially, they're considering a complete revamp of their website and disclosure tools. Turns out we have a lot to say about it! I hope to expand on these comments next week when the Commission holds their public hearing on the matter.

====

Dear Sir:

I applaud the Commission's effort to improve the FEC website and disclosure tools.

Much of the Commission's request for public comments revolves around the access to and presentation of disclosure information. This is my particular area of expertise: since 2004, ActBlue has reported over two million individual disclosure events to the FEC. A software engineer by training, I have been variously responsible for architecting ActBlue's novel use of earmarked contributions, designing and implementing the software that processes these individual transactions, and managing the task of integrating that activity into ActBlue's monthly disclosure filings. I have also worked with the equivalent disclosure systems in over 20 individual states, again both from a campaign finance perspective as well as a software engineer.

It is in this context that I submit the following testimony to the Commission. I would welcome the opportunity to expand on these comments by testifying to the Commission at its hearing on this matter next week.

I believe the Commission can use a technology refresh as an opportunity to establish the FEC database as the gold standard of Federal compliance data while fostering a thriving ecosystem of independent software tools designed to query the FEC master data for specific information or to conduit specialized analysis. The Commission has a unique ability to serve as a kind of "neutral data warehouse" for compliance information, establishing standard data formats and online protocols, providing canonical identifiers for individuals and vendors that appear in compliance filings, ensuring interoperability, and publishing reference implementations of its own software where appropriate.

A clear data model opens the door to third parties who can build their own independent tools for submitting, analyzing or visualizing committee disclosure data. Some tools may prove useful to many committees or other interested parties; indeed, the Commission should search for ways to encourage developers to publish these tools. Others will be developed privately, perhaps on behalf of a individual committee to answer strategically important questions, or a third-party watchdog searching for hidden trends or archetypes. These tools may potentially remain far from the public's eye.

While the Commission will almost certainly build its own analysis software on top of this new foundation, a rich and well-documented data model relieves the Commission of many of its own software burdens. With appropriate formats and protocols in place that leverage open industry standards and development tools – both free and proprietary – the Commission is no longer in the unenviable position of gating access to disclosure data behind its own software. In other words, while the Commission may continue to develop and support its own systems for uploading or analyzing disclosure data, these would no longer be required for other groups to develop their own systems.

From this perspective, the data itself reigns supreme and the toolkits are merely supporting players. The Commission is the only custodian of the data itself, and should focus its efforts on providing clear, complete, and well-documented data to its clients.

The Data Warehouse Model

An excellent starting point for defining a clear data model are standard techniques developed for data warehousing in the commercial world. The universe of disclosure data that the Commission intends to publish should be integrated into a comprehensive schema. Such a schema would revolve around "facts" such as contributions to a committee, and "dimensions," which might include committee information, individual donor information, election information, and other metadata relevant to the disclosure toolkit itself.

A successful data warehouse places the focus on individual facts and their supporting dimensions. The commission must target its greatest efforts here. If the data definitions capture the important meanings of each disclosure event, then there are numerous opportunities for a richer analysis framework, either developed in house by the Commission or by independent for-profit and non-profit groups. On the other hand, without a clear model and standards-based access to it, the Commission must carry the burden of developing and maintaining the toolkits used to upload compliance data (such as FECFile) and retrieve information (such as the custom search features of the current website).

In the language of data warehousing, one of the critical roles of the Commission is to canonicalize and aggregate incoming data into standard forms before publishing them in the warehouse. Canonicalization is the process of converting various similar representations into a single, standard value. A good example is converting postal addresses into a standard format with a ZIP+4 code. Once data is canonicalized, the commission may perform one or more aggregate calculations and provide those values to the warehouse alongside the individual disclosure database. In no case should aggregates replace the underlying facts in the warehouse, which are essential for third-party analysis that may be impossible when starting just with the aggregate information. The commission already does much of this canonicalization and aggregation today. The key is to precisely document the rules that are used, so that there is certainty about the final result and an opportunity for third party tools to align their own business logic.

Another critical role for the Commission is to develop standards for coding contributors, employers, industries, locations, purposes, and vendors with unique and consistent identifiers. Continuing with the language of a data warehouse, each of these attributes of a disclosure event is a dimension. Much of the challenge of a warehouse is in maintaining a comprehensive database of these dimensions, particularly as new values are added over time. This task is essential, though: these dimensions form the backbone of virtually all the sophisticated analyses one might wish to attempt. In contrast to the value of independently-developed front-end tools with distinct strengths and weaknesses, there is no value in competing techniques for identifying repeat contributors or common vendors across multiple disclosures. Indeed, disagreement over whether two donor records refer to the same individual is singularly unhelpful. The Commission's internal system is the natural place for such an effort.

Formats and Protocols

The Commission has a clear opportunity to define standard formats for disclosure data and standard protocols for the transmission of disclosure data. Naturally, these standards should build on modern software engineering best practices. Any new website and disclosure toolkit should accept incoming disclosure data in these formats, and provide canonical disclosure data to the public using them.

Two formatting standards would be particularly valuable: a standard XML representation of campaign finance events, committee records, and communications between the Commission and committees; and an XHTML microformat standard appropriate for use in an interactive website. Microformats are particularly well-suited for committee records and contribution and expenditure data. A successful microformat standard would allow both generic and purpose-built search engines to easily index disclosure data, offering an end-run around many of the search challenges the Commission raises in its RFP.

On the protocol side, it is critical that the Commission replace the closed software systems currently used to upload disclosure data with standard network protocols that third parties can easily tie into their existing systems. This work paves the way for more sophisticated reporting tools, real-time disclosure, and fewer translation errors caused when committees struggle to force disclosure data into FECFile.

Open Systems

Finally, I urge the Commission to publish the disclosure system itself.

The Commission has an opportunity to improve campaign finance disclosure not just at the Federal level, but in states and local municipalities. The improvements I've suggested Ð and indeed the challenges laid out by the Commission in the RFP Ð are as applicable to state and local election commissions, many of whom have far fewer resources than does this Commission. While not a formal part of your mission, I would suggest that offering a template for disclosure systems to others in need of these tools is not at all in opposition to the FEC's charter. Standardizing formats and protocols grows the market for tools built against these standards, and will inexorably lead to a greater variety of higher quality tools.

The process should begin with a public collaboration to ensure a robust standard that meets disparate needs. The software components that define the data warehouse schema, accept incoming data, canonicalize and aggregate records, house the disclosure warehouse, support client queries and downloads, and Commission-developed front end tools should all be made available to the public in source form, with clear documentation and change histories. Many of the search and analysis tools currently offered by the Commission, such as the widgets on the current website to view data by House and Senate Elections, can be re-implemented using the new warehouse tools and again be made available in source form for others to modify and build on. And the process by which these tools were developed, including internal deliberations over formats and techniques are all valuable material that also deserve to be made available to the public.

Thank you again for the opportunity to contribute to the Commission's request. I look forward to a productive conversation.

ActBlue Technical Services

2009-07-16T16:03:40-04:00

So, as you may know, we just celebrated our fifth birthday.

Over the past five years ActBlue has grown tremendously, with our total volume in the 2008 cycle exceeding 400% of the volume in 2004. Democrats have raised nearly $100 million through our system, and we have more fundraising pages, candidates and committees than ever before.

The summer after federal elections is a natural opportunity for political organizations to evaluate their needs for the next cycle, and we're doing exactly that. We constantly analyze our technical structures in order to provide the best performance, tools and services possible. As part of that process we've decided to start working with a new technology provider that works exclusively for us: ActBlue Technical Services (ATS).

Why the change?

Well, we've gotten really large. We're the only 50 state platform for online fundraising in the country and as such we have very specific needs. We've got to display 10,000 different committees and 16,000 individual fundraising pages. We've got to get all the information from those sources and make sure it gets to the appropriate people with each campaign and organization. And on top of that, we've got to innovate. We've got to make sure that Democrats have the very best tools available to them so that they can stay competitive across the country, whether they're running for a seat in their state legislature or the Oval Office.

We take on all that responsibility because we've got a commitment to increased transparency and participation. We want more people to run, more people to give, and more people to fundraise. That's the way we'll change politics.

Don't believe us? Judd Legum, founder of Think Progress and candidate for the MD legislature, had this to say:

It can be daunting for a candidate to pull back the curtain on their fundraising efforts and embrace ActBlue, but the rewards are worth it. The transparent, real-time numbers available on ActBlue have been instrumental in generating buzz and momentum for my campaign, and I'm excited to continue to growing with ActBlue as the election approaches. I've worked with ActBlue for months now, and I'm a firm believer in what they do. I just received my first contribution through ActBlue's Twitter application!

And now we've extended our commitment to transparency to our technical operations. ATS is a political nonprofit and will file with the IRS just like ActBlue files with the FEC. We practice what we preach.

We made the change at the end of Q2 so that campaigns wouldn't be inconvenienced at the reporting deadline. There won't be any change on the front end; everything is going work the same way it did before. ATS will continue to take a processing fee from each contribution and that fee gets the money from the plastic card in your wallet to the appropriate committee.

That said, all of the organizing and outreach we do is still supported exclusively by your tips and direct contributions to ActBlue. It's a wonderful model because it keeps us accountable to a broad swath of Democrats. When you call to ask about a donation you made or get your campaign set up, you're speaking to someone who is supported by your commitment to Democratic politics. That's not going to change; we'll still be by Democrats, for Democrats.

We're working with all ActBlue Democrats to keep them up to date on what this change means for them. If you have any questions, feel free to email us at info@actblue.com. We read every email.

Why we connected with Twitter

2009-07-01T19:37:14-04:00

Just a few words about our strategy behind last week's Twitter integration project.

Certainly, we hope it's a big benefit to campaigns. There's no doubt that Democratic candidates have jumped into Twitter. It got to a point where we were couldn't ignore the clamor. But let me highlight three specific motivations that go deeper than "serving candidates and fundraisers any way we can."

We are eager to drive adoption of our ActBlue Express donor accounts. Express donors can review their full contribution history at any time, track progress against a personal giving target or aggregate contribution limits, make new contributions with just a few clicks, and -- of course -- now have the option to contribute via Twitter as well. You'll see us doing more with these donor accounts over the next months, both in terms of their capabilities and how we promote them.

Twitter represents our first attempt at a mobile giving platform for Democratic fundraising. It's a challenge whose solution has thus far remained out of reach in politics. We can put a stake in the ground claiming the first honest mobile giving platform generally available to Democrats, but I also hope it is only the first of many innovations in that space.

Grassroots fundraising shines when donors become fundraisers, reaching other donors that candidates themselves can't reach. We've preached that gospel from our first days five years ago. What's so unique to Twitter is that the contribution tweet serves two roles: a contribution instruction to ActBlue and the fundraising ask itself. We'll watch that dynamic closely, and perhaps try to bake in support for retweets as a way for donors to augment a contribution with a few bucks of their own.

Ultimately, we're looking for a new culture of online giving, not driven solely by asks from candidates and their fundraisers, but a mesh of activity underlying each day's online political discourse. With ActBlue and Twitter, we can go beyond sending out "attaboys" when a Congressman votes the right way. Imagine instead if those votes drove a flurry of micro-contributions, or a matching pledge implemented as a Twitter bot that automatically responds to contributions with the matching donor's own gift.

Let us know what you think, and please do give it a whirl!

ActBlue supports online giving through Twitter

2009-06-29T09:55:39-04:00

Just a quick note, since I'm at the Personal Democracy Forum conference today and tomorrow.

Friday evening, we released new software that connects our fundraising platform with Twitter. We started with our popular ActBlue Express that allows contributors to save a profile, make contributions to candidates or fundraising pages with just a few clicks, and review their full giving history. What's new is connecting that profile to Twitter: now allowing donors to give by just tweeting the candidate's Twitter screen name and an amount. We'll respond with a thank you note and you'll see the usual email receipt in your inbox.

Lots of candidates have a strong Twitter presence, of course, so this is just another case of ActBlue's search for how we can best help campaigns and their supporters make deeper connections. We love how the contribution message serves not just as an instruction to our system, but a built in promotion of the candidate and a public celebration of contributing to the Democratic movement.

We've just started loading in campaigns and organizations, so if your campaign uses Twitter, please drop us a line at info@actblue.com and we'll get you set up right away.

Full details at our Twitter page. If you use Twitter, try it out this week and us know what you think!

The Virginia Primary & Supporting the Democratic Nominees

2009-06-10T21:38:57-04:00

Last night saw the conclusion of the 2009 Virginia Democratic primary. From the state assembly to the governor's race, there were many contested (and heated!) races. As in any state, there were passionate supporters doing everything they could to help their chosen candidate.

But as primary concludes, and a nominee chosen (such as Creigh Deeds for Governor or Jody Wagner for Lt. Governor) comes an expectation, and sometimes a challenge, for party unity. Candidates typically play a role in this phase with the phrasing of their concession speeches, but those words are only so effective in how quickly and widespread they are communicated to one's supporters.

In a good sign for Democrats in Virginia, the leading statewide campaigns made use of their websites and email lists to share their words and call for support of the nominee. In an even better sign, they made an immediate call of financial support for their (now) former opponents. Here at ActBlue, we're also proud to have been an immediate, accessible, transparent, and easy way for campaigns to start fundraising for the nominee while enabling the nominee to know and give credit to new donors.

Here are a couple of screenshots of that in action last night from the Virginia primary.

In the Lt. Gov. primary, Mikel Signer directed his supporters via email to give to Jody Wagner on ActBlue.

In the Gubernatorial primary, both Terry McCauliffe and Brian Moran are sporting front page banner asks on their websites, directing their supporters to consider giving to Democratic nominee Creigh Deeds (as shown below).

On the front page of his website, Brian Moran links to an ActBlue page specifically created for that purpose, allowing both campaigns to be able to track new donors.

ActBlue was able to help dozens of campaigns large and small this primary season in Virginia. We congratulate all the winners and look forward to a Democratic sweep in November.

ActBlue: Organizing for the Future

2009-05-29T01:53:01-04:00

Like many of you, I spent Tuesday morning waiting for the Prop 8 decision to come down. The result was a disappointment, but it got me thinking about where we go from here. I think that the biggest lesson I’ve taken away from this struggle is that organizing is crucial to success. You’ve got to get the money, then the people, and then the result. And you’ve got to start early.

With that in mind, I wanted to talk a little bit about what we’re interested in doing in ’09 and ’10, and the role that all of you can play in that process.

For starters, we’re very interested in ballot initiatives. While every cycle a few of these enter the national media consciousness, far too many slip through the cracks, their likely effects on the community obscured by confusing language. We’d like to become a place where Democrats can raise the money they need to support or oppose these often esoteric measures.

So what can you do as just one person?

It’s pretty simple: when you discover a ballot initiative that affects your community, shoot us an email about it. Let us know who's supporting/opposing it and suggest that they get set up on ActBlue.

In the same vein, we've also started up a pilot program for local races in Boston, San Francisco, Houston, Cleveland, Charlotte and Cook County (IL). We've gotten an enthusiastic response, but we'd like to reach every Democratic candidate we can. So if you know of someone running for office in those cities, please urge them to get listed with ActBlue. We're all familiar with the old saw that all politics is local, and we figured it's time someone started taking it seriously.

The next big issue we’re interested in is the coming round of redistricting. To make a long story short, in 2010 we’re going to take a census. In 2011, the states will begin the process of redrawing federal congressional districts based on the results of that census. As we all remember from the Tom DeLay shenanigans circa 2003, the GOP isn’t inclined to play fair on this issue. Democratic leaders in Washington are preparing for another round of protracted legal wrangling after the fact. We have a slightly different prescription:

Winning.

Redistricting is the next major strategic battlefield in Democratic politics, and your help is essential. In 36 states, redistricting plans are voted on by the state legislature. So figure out who your state representative is, and give them a call. Encourage them to get set up on ActBlue. Do the same for your state senator. If either of those people happen to be Republicans, find out who their Democratic challenger is and point them our way. Ditto for the gubernatorial race in your state.

This is a battle we’ll help you fight in all 50 states,* and we’re the only ones out there who can.

Best,
-Adrian

P.S. Among the many reasons I work at ActBlue is that I think what we do here is pretty cool. We’re expanding the pool of people engage in political activity, breaking down barriers to entry in Democratic politics, and helping Democrats organize support for the causes that matter most to them. We do what we do in all 50 states, and I like to think we do it well. Apparently, so does James-freakin’-Bond. It’s nice to know he feels the same way as I do.

*Okay, okay, it's only 43 if you want to get all technical. Seven states have only a single congressional representative, and therefore no need to redistrict.

We're Blue, ActBlue.

2009-05-27T16:29:58-04:00

Anyone can create a personal fundraising page at ActBlue. As a result, there are a lot of people who like to get the political system a little shaken up and bring new money into politics via a personalized ActBlue page. Others are stirred into action at the bequest of someone else's ask to donate through their page.

But whether you are shaken or stirred into political action, ActBlue is ready and waiting for everyone.

And that means everyone- including James Bond.

Those of you with a golden eye may have noticed that 1990's James Bond actor Pierce Brosnan and his wife are hosts of an ActBlue fundraising events page for a Democratic candidate in California's 35th State Assembly District. Fundraising for Democrats certainly has some similarities to film. You often pay a ticket for entry, hope that the candidate becomes a (ballot) box office hit, and you pull for the good guys to win.

Ten years ago, the state of our world was not enough for some voters to become engaged. But today, as he writes in his personal fundraising pitch, Brosnan understands that we can't wait to let the earth die another day.

Susan was critical in our fight to stop the construction of a dangerous Liquefied Natural Gas terminal off the coast of Malibu and Oxnard in 2007. In 2008, Susan stopped the construction of a massive Orange County toll road through San Onofre State Park, the birthplace of Trestles, a world renown surf spot. Currently, she is fighting to stop renewed offshore oil drilling off our California coast.

Over the last 15 years, Susan has been a tireless environmental leader who has taken on the toughest fights in California and won. To make sure our environment, our communities and our children are protected, we need her in the California legislature now more than ever.

Democratic candidates need support and they can get that through ActBlue. The idea of setting up your own event or personal fundraising page tomorrow never dies, but there's no reason to delay- click here and get started today!

-----

ActBlue does not take sides in Democratic primaries. All examples are for illustrative purposes only.