Online Organizing 101

Naturally, at an online politics conference studying the most recent presidential election is a focus of many panels and discussions.

Jeremy Bird, Deputy Director for the DNC, Chuck DeFeo, General Manager for Interactive and Social Media at the Washington Times, Gina Glantz, Senior Advisor to President Andrew Stern of the Service Employees International Union, and Michael Silberman, founding partner of EchoDitto offered their insights into online organizing:

• You need to use technology to get out the message and to mobilize people. The message always needs to be connected to the online initiatives.
• Online organizing is a tactic, not a strategy. I.e. online organizing is a tool to achieve something specific, not the way you win an election.
• There’s a difference between online organizing and field organizing, although the two are becoming dependent on each other.
• The more successful campaigns integrate new media, field organizing, and technology, and have the departments work together.
• Online Organizing only works if you have metrics that you can use to measure the success of your online campaigns.
• The new media folks are not the people who fix your computer

Law, Politics and the Internet

This past election was a prime example of candidates and ballot-initiative groups using the Internet to further a political agenda.

The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (aka the McCain-Feingold Act) restricts campaigning within “public communication” spheres, including television and radio. Yet, campaign finance laws have not been adequately updated to reflect the Internet and the adaptation of new technologies.

The FEC has issued regulations on the use of the Internet in relation to campaigns, but with over 600 pages worth of regulations the rules are still unclear.

For example, the press is traditionally exempt from FEC regulations, so long as they engage in “real” news. However, the law becomes fuzzy when dealing with websites and blogs that partake in “real” reporting, but also engage in advocacy and fundraising.

Furthermore, should FEC laws extend to social networking sites? Should individuals with thousands of followers/friends be regulated if they tweet/update asking people to donate to a specific candidate? What about multiple candidates? What if this individual belongs to particular organization or works for a specific company?

Over the next few years reformers and free speech activists will be participating in a heated debate over the regulation of individual political speech online.

Where do you stand on this issue? Should individual political Internet activity be regulated?

Governance 2.0

In the opening panel, Secretary of States Jennifer Brunner (Ohio) and Debra Bowen (California) discussed how they used new media to disseminate information and engage with constituents.



Goals of 2.0 Governance

• Using 2.0 solutions to increase democracy
• Answering questions in a simple manner

Examples of 2.0 Governance

• Google Voting- In a Partnership with Google, Secretaries of States gave Google polling information to streamline the voting process. Via Google Maps, anyone would be able to find out generically if they were registered to vote and where they were registered to vote.
• Judicial Voter Guides- It’s often very difficult to learn about judicial candidates, yet these potential judges have some of the most impact on voters. Some states, including Ohio, created an online judicial voter guide where judicial candidates could upload basic information online so voters could compare and contrast the people they are voting for.
• Specialized Websites- Some states create specialized websites that target specific constituents for particular issues.
• Widgets- States have created widgets that allow people to register to vote. The Secretary of State’s office would then help them register to vote, and also sent election-related e-mail reminders.
• Transparency- using the Internet to publish relevant documents and guides.

The Caveats

• Web 2.0 activities are tied to budgets. With most states cutting costs, states wont be able to invest in new projects.
• Neither facebook nor twitter can be used to discuss complex issues
• Not every agency wants to engage in 2.0 solutions. Aside from having the infrastructure, the agency needs to have the right attitude.

Do your home states use 2.0 solutions for policy and voting engagement? Were they helpful?