Twitter’s Political Index: The Newest Frontier in Democracy

Gone are the days of soapbox politics, trucks equipped with megaphones, and cardboard signs littering every intersection. Now the best way for a candidate to get their name out and reach voters is through mobile technology. From assessing voter sentiment to online political fundraising, the internet continues to become a staple in the modern day electoral process.

On the cusp of social media trends is the ever-increasing presence of Twitter. With the introduction of Twitter’s Political Index, up to the minute sentiments and public opinions are only a mouse click away. “Twitter teamed with data analysis firm Topsy and polling companies The Mellman Group and North Star Opinion Research in order to evaluate and weigh the sentiment of each day’s tweets regarding Barack Obama or Mitt Romney as compared to the 400 million tweets sent on other topics,” explains PCMag.com writer Stephanie Mlot. “Twitter doesn’t intend for the Index to replace traditional polling, but instead reinforce it, providing a better-rounded picture of the general public’s feelings toward the election.”
Adam Sharp, Twitter’s head of government, news, and social innovation commented on Twitter’s blog, “Just as new technologies like radar and satellite joined the thermometer and barometer to give forecasters a more complete picture of the weather, so too can the Index join traditional methods like surveys and focus groups to tell a fuller story of political forecasts.”
But really, how reliable is the information that is being posted concerning voter opinions on this new electoral resource? The first concern that comes to mind is that users of social media are probably in a younger demographic therefore skewing an accurate slice of what the voter demographic looks like. However, pingdom.com reports that the largest age bracket of Twitter users fall into the 35-44 year old category making up 25% of their audience and 64% of Twitter users are over the age of 35. (Just in case you’re interested, 61% of Facebook users are 35 and older.) Another question regarding reliability concerns whether or not the opinions voiced provide an accurate view of a slice of public opinion. Techland.Time.com shares that “the average Twitter user is a female, age 18-24, with a split between people making less than $30,000 and people making $50,000 – $74,999 a year. Most have a college degree or higher and live in an urban setting. The survey asked a random sample of 2,257 adults. Hispanic (18 percent) and African Americans (13 percent) are twice as likely to use Twitter than Whites (5 percent).”
So how does this political index actually work? BuzzFeed staff reporter Matt Buchanan has a great summary: “Topsy pores through every single tweet in real time, determines which ones are about Obama or Romney, and then assigns a sentiment score to each tweet based on its content. That is, whether it’s positive or negative toward Obama or Romney, and just how positive or negative it is. Add all the data up together and you have something like a real-time approval score for Obama and Romney, determined by what tens of millions of people are saying, which Twitter is going to release daily at election.twitter.com.”
Can you truly put your finger on the pulse of the nation just by logging on to Twitter’s Political Index? Sharp replies that the social media view often mirrors worldwide feelings regarding a candidate and that the last two years’ Political Index scores for President Obama often parallel his Gallup approval ratings, sometimes even foreshadowing future polling numbers.
The advantages to this new resource can be integral for future elections. Damage control, online fundraising, voter communication, streamlining hot topics, and political strategizing can enter into a whole new level with such a vast audience with information accessible in real time. The potential for this frontier is incredible and I am excited to see what happens next!

You Ask, We Answer! Getting Donors Involved with Social Media

We are getting asked some great questions from nonprofit leaders pertaining to online fundraising during our weekly Tweet Ups. Here are the expanded answers that will hopefully help with your social media fundraising goals.

Q: When sharing my story with potential donors, which works better: videos or pictures?
 
A: Both are great tools. Video can often captivate donors with a greater connection through music, voices, images, and words. It can give more depth to a story, show your personality, and create a stronger emotional pull. While having a professionally made video is great, it is also costly and time consuming. Depending on your cause and the size of the organization, an amateur piece that is interesting and sincere can be just as effective. (Consider the immense number of videos on YouTube.) On Fundly we have a broad spectrum of videos that are uploaded to fundraising pages which range from kids raising money for their schools to large organizations raising tens of thousands of dollars for their cause. While not every visitor to the page clicks on the play button, I’ve never known of a promotional video that hinders donations.

With that said, pictures are also extremely important for that reason: not everyone has the time or interest to watch a promo video. I believe that having some images are a must to grab attention and create a stronger emotional tie. Fundraising is about creating relationships and knowing who you are giving to, both the organization and the patron of the charity, which allows the donor to form a touchstone of who they are helping. In this fast paced and visual society, you need to grab attention and get your point across the fastest way you can.

Q: What is the best avenue to get people involved with my cause? Social networks, email, or street teams?
 
A: Email is definitely one of the most effective ways to communicate with supporters and has the capacity for the most information. Think about how you compiled your e-mail list in the first place; it was probably through an interest that a person had in your cause and gave a donation, volunteered, or filled out an information card at an event. With e-mails, you are communicating with people who care about your mission which is half the battle!

Social networks are also valuable for getting people involved with your cause. It casts a broader net than e-mails alone. While e-mails are reaching specific people you know, networking sites can advertise your cause to friends of your supporters therefore attracting potential donors.

Q: I have recently decided to run for office, what is the best way to jump start my fundraising campaign?

A: Tell your story, why you’re running, reach out to everyone you know, and encourage them to create personal fundraising pages. The best way for a candidate to get support is word of mouth. Generate interest on social networking sites and have your voters “Like” you on Facebook or tweet about your campaign. Advertise events, where to get signage, or how to volunteer using Facebook, Twitter, and e-mail.

Q: What do you find more effective: suggested giving levels or open donation forms?

A: Utilize both! Suggested levels help donors determine need and make the process easier, open forms give more freedom. Generically speaking, I would take the average donation amount and start a giving level at 50% of that amount then work up accordingly. For example, if the average gift was $50 I would increment the giving levels at $25, $50, $100, $150, and $200. I would also certainly leave a space for whatever the person could give emphasizing that no gift is too small. I would also consider the project that the donations are being used for and the supporters which you are including in your campaign. If you are raising money for school supplies for 100 kids, you wouldn’t necessarily ask for $200. If you are sending letters to your top donors to sponsor a new wing to your building, $200 is a miniscule amount. You may also want to use the formula that if 10% of your donors give to your project, how much would that average out per person and work from there.

Q: We are throwing a school fundraiser, is there a way to get students involved?
 
A: Getting students involved is always a good idea.  Encourage them to create personal fundraising pages and set goals! What grandparent could resist little Johnny in a video asking in a squeaky voice “Could you please donate to my school’s library so we can have some new books?”  (Check out this post for a great example used on Fundly.) Also, what kid doesn’t love a little friendly competition? You could have a contest and give a prize to the kid with the best video. You could have each class create a webpage and post how much each has raised. You could send e-mails to the parents to get them on board. Take a ton of pictures and post them online to keep the momentum going and to have inspiration for next year’s fundraiser. The possibilities are endless!

Due to the Fourth of July we will not be having our Tweet up this week. However, if you have a question about online fundraising that you want to ask one of our Fundly professionals, we would love to hear from you for our next Tweet Up! Please leave a question in the comment section below or follow #fundraisingtips on Twitter every Wednesday at 11:00 a.m. Pacific time.

Twitter is the Testing Ground for Presidential Election

The fact that social media is being used in political elections is not news; the way that it is being incorporated is. While Facebook may be the most popular social networking site, Twitter has become a valuable testing ground for politicians to experiment with their political fundraising skills and their methods to improve their image. While this medium is certainly a double-edged sword, it is still one to be wielded.

Although only 13% of American adults are on Twitter, its influence has shown to be widespread. Many campaigns have begun focusing efforts on this site in an effort to secure the Oval Office. Heather LaMarre, a University of Minnesota communications professor who studies social media, discussed the shift in The Washington Post, “The subset of people on Twitter may be relatively small, but it’s a politically engaged audience whose influence extends both online and off. It’s not the direct message that has the biggest influence on people — it’s the indirect message.”

One amazing aspect of social media is its ability to enable public interaction with candidates like never before. In the past, the “average Joe” could voice his opinions in an article published in the editorial section of a newspaper or person-to-person in social settings with limited results. Now, he can freely write feedback on a politician’s Facebook page or Tweet a comment about a recent speech for thousands to read. This obviously could have positive and negative aspects that might impact a candidate’s image and therefore causing a need for new strategies of damage control.

“Our team understands that the most important issues in this campaign are jobs and the economy, not the Twitter controversy of the day,” Mitt Romney’s spokesman Ryan Williams said. “But we need to be on top of everything and monitor every aspect of this race. Twitter helps us keep our finger on the pulse of the fast moving pace of new media.”

Twitter has become a new sounding board, battleground, and public forum for the new era of politics. It has also helped with fundraising by guiding supporters to websites, garnering funds to further a candidate’s mission, such as a Fundly donation page. Sharing your opinions is one thing; sharing the fact that you put your dollars behind your beliefs certainly has more power. Plus, the ease of online giving has made campaign contributions more convenient than ever.

Sharing opinions, researching candidates’ stances on the issues, and political fundraising have never been easier because of the social media revolution that we are currently experiencing. While the presidential war may not be won on Twitter, it certainly is a battleground to contend with.

Candidates Still Getting Used to Social Media

I admit that I’m still getting used to the whole social media world. It almost feels like a marketing science experiment: if I post at this time on this day of the week while highlight a specific topic, will my results be higher or lower than my previous one? I know I’m hardly alone; many presidential candidates are also testing the waters of political fundraising using online resources.

I came across an interesting article on IndyStar.com that discusses some intriguing issues that the candidates are facing using the medium of internet communication. In the past politicians could debate on TV, send out flyers heralding their accomplishments and pay for ads in the newspaper declaring their stand on pertinent issues. However, many are turning to Facebook and Twitter to garner support with various results; now the voters can instantly respond which is causing both positive and negative effects.

So why would candidates risk having negative comments written on their Facebook pages? “It’s as much an issue about campaign and candidate identity as anything else,” states Kristina Sheeler, who studies political communication as chairwoman of the Department of Communication Studies at Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis. “If you’re not using Facebook and Twitter, you risk being labeled an old-fashioned candidate.”

Twitter hashtags are getting impressive results in many campaign strategies by drawing in followers who otherwise might never have looked at a candidate’s tweets. One example is when President Obama in a speech in Chapel Hill, N.C. urged students to tweet to lawmakers using the hashtag #dontdoublemyrate to oppose an increase in student loan interest rates. Many politicians are also using Twitter to post stances and opinions to their followers and are even responding to voter comments and questions to create a two-way dialogue that was previously unheard of. This added attention is creating a new platform to reach additional voters with amazing success.

Furthermore, social media has been a recent method for the people to police political claims. There are tens if not hundreds of websites out there that rebuttal arguments and verify facts. If knowledge is power, than our society got a whole lot stronger in the political realm with the implementation of the internet.

Finally, with politicians connecting and communicating online, donations have also seen a dramatic increase due to internet fundraising. Personal and political websites, Facebook pages and online donation sites such as Fundly are making giving that much easier while also connecting to social media outlets.

Social media is certainly making an impact on politics, both locally and nationally. In this new era, it is important for candidates to experiment in this cyber realm to garner voter attention, support and dollars.

Will the Money Keep Pouring in for the Presidential Candidates?

Is it just me or does the road to the Oval Office keep getting longer? It seems like the presidential candidates have been battling it out for an immense amount of time and slowly but surely the field has been narrowed down to a few frontrunners. Will the fundraising dollars to support these monumental campaigns still pour in?

There are several reasons why this election is a landmark in our country’s recent history: first of all, this is the first time in the post Watergate era that neither candidate is choosing to accept public funds. Secondly, a large portion of the monies collected has come from Super PAC’s which were deemed acceptable by the Supreme Court in 2010. Finally, the use of social media to gain supporters and donor dollars has never been used to this extent in any previous election. These factors alone will cause a huge impact pertaining to the results in this November’s election.

Paul Blumenthal of The Huffington Post explains that, “The public matching-funds system began in 1976 in response to the campaign finance abuses of the Nixon administration, uncovered during Congress’ investigation of the Watergate scandal. Presidential candidates who can show broad support through fundraising across the various states become eligible to receive matching funds from the government so long as they abide by strict spending limits. These funds are available for both primary and general election campaigns.” In this election both candidates have declined this option in favor of garnering unlimited funds from individuals and are able to avoid spending limits.

Super PAC’s have been rather controversial but influential, nonetheless. “Super PACs and political nonprofits have already poured more than $100 million into the 2012 elections, much of that on negative ads. Independent group spending this time is expected to easily eclipse the record $304 million spent in the 2010 cycle,” comments Blumenthal.

Social media has been the third major influence on this year’s presidential election. Online ads with Yahoo, thousands of Tweets, the implementation of Facebook pages and countless text messages have become the norm concerning modern campaigning. Not only is this appealing to a newer generation of voters, but it is making politicians more accessible to the public. Online fundraising has also increased creating a whirlwind of support like never before.

The times are changing and so are the ways that the politicians are attempting to climb up Capitol Hill. The winner will be the one who incorporates all three avenues brilliantly.

Online Fundraising Gives a Vote of Confidence to Political Campaigns

It’s impossible to watch the news these days and not see a report about the upcoming 2012 Presidential Election. Regardless of your candidate of choice or party affiliation, you have to admit the contenders are giving it all they’ve got to win the office at hand.  From kissing babies to Google ads, this election is an interesting blend of old and new fundraising tactics.

While television debates, benefit dinners, and rallies are tried and true methods of gaining voter approval, what has truly sparked my interest is how these candidates are connecting with people that can now have their voices heard using social media. By the end of this election, the unchartered waters of online political fundraising will be vastly explored by these electoral pioneers.

In a recent report published by Fundly, we found that online political fundraising is being utilized like never before. We have had three of the presidential hopefuls as clients, plus one thousand other political figures petitioning for various offices. Due to our political clientele on both party lines, we are able to accumulate facts and figures pertaining to online fundraising in a way that has not been possible in previous years. As such, we have found that by the end of January 2012 political online fundraising had increased 53 percent as compared to the previous year. Furthermore, we saw that the daily social fundraising volume in January exceeded December’s average volume by more than 350 percent.

There is a good question that arises amid all of the controversies surrounding the use of PAC’s: will even more focus be placed on social media fundraising as candidates strive to gain public approval? The time, energy and finances invested into procuring funds can be vastly diminished with the launch of a simple Facebook page, some daily tweets on Twitter and taking a few minutes to start a campaign donation page on Fundly.

So why should you use Fundly as part of your campaign strategy? When a stranger asks for money, it’s easy and probable for people to answer “no, thanks.” When a friend asks for money, there is a foundation and level of trust in the relationship which usually produces a positive response like, “sure, I’d love to!”  Friends are also more open to supporting a candidate and hearing their positions when recommended by a friend.

This is the basic idea of social fundraising and Fundly helps your campaign reap the benefits. When a donor contributes to your candidate through Fundly, that action can be posted to their Facebook and Twitter profiles to share with their network of friends, family, and colleagues. Not only are they bringing attention to your campaign, but a call of support to their entire social network. The average person has well over 100 friends on Facebook and now you have over 100 potential donors.

While the focus of political fundraising has mainly been on the presidential race, what we are learning from this election can be applied to campaigns for smaller offices, such as mayor, school board advisor, and the like. With Fundly, it’s easy for candidates to set up a website, gather supporter information, and start collecting donations. Regardless of the political position, the methods of fundraising are the same; it’s just a different scale.

The PAC Powerhouse of Political Campaign Fundraising

As I think back to the Constitution and the original form of our government in its essence of democratic purity, I can’t help but wonder what our forefathers would think of the current electoral process.

Would they be aghast at the immense amount of cash raised and spent? Would they be flabbergasted at political fundraising mixed with the advancement of technology? How would they feel about Super PACs? However, I also ponder if these questions are fair to pose in an apples-to-oranges comparison. In a world in which powdered wigs, wooden teeth and only male voters existed, do the same principles apply?

In a new Washington Post-ABC News poll, it was found that 69% of voters believe that PACs should be banned. Furthermore, 78% of independent voters believe that they should be eliminated. Do PACs really deserve such a bad rap?

Restore Our Future, the super PAC supporting former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney, has already spent nearly $34 million in early presidential primary states on his behalf. Winning Our Future, a super PAC associated with former House speaker Newt Gingrich, has already gone through $16 million. President Obama is also gaining momentum using a PAC; Priorities USA Action is in effect and is run by two former White House aides.

The Washington Post reports that, “All told, super PACs have raised more than $130 million and spent $75 million in the 2012 election cycle, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. Given that the 2012 election isn’t for another eight months or so and that super PACs focused on House races have already begun to crop up, it’s easy to see that number cresting $500 million or even nearing $1 billion before the election is over.

What does the future hold for political fundraising? Online fundraising through sites like Fundly are at an all time high and the candidates are spending time, money and strategic planning on optimizing social networking. We’ll just have to wait and see how technology and major donor giving influences the outcome of the presidential election in November.

The Obama Fundraising Machine

In the early 1980’s when I was about 6 years old my dad ran for County Supervisor. I remember wearing frilly dresses and going to political parties. We ordered hundreds of bright blue and neon orange signs that said “Leadership for the 80’s” and put them up in friends’ yards and on busy street corners.  We canvassed neighborhoods knocking on voter’s doors and had a phone call list a mile long with friends and family members spreading the word. He lost that race and ten years later we repeated the cycle when he ran for School Board (and unfortunately lost that election, too.) He’s not planning to pursue any more of his political ambitions; however, I’m still glad political fundraising methods have changed.
There was an article in The New York Times last week written by Jim Rutenberg and Jeff Zeleny which discussed how President Obama has created an almost corporate-like atmosphere as he pursues a second term as president. Like a well-oiled Silicon Valley techno-machine, his workers are busily scouting out past donors who gave in the beginning and are currently missing in action. “Mr. Obama’s re-election team is sifting through reams of data available through the Internet or fed to it by its hundreds of staff members on the ground in all 50 states, identifying past or potential supporters and donors and testing e-mail and Web-based messages that can entice them back into the fold” reports Rutenger and Zeleny.

President Obama, along with his Republican competitors, realizes that much of the campaigning to win the race will be done on the internet. “With the help of Web developers recruited from the private sector, [the campaign] has dedicated considerable hours creating technology that can make its Web site,
barackobama.com, fit perfectly onto any screen, be it an iPhone, Blackberry or Droid — a seemingly small detail that campaign officials say can make a huge difference when it comes to enticing donors or volunteers to stay connected or click a ‘donate’ button” observes Rutenger and Zeleny.

Not by chance or trial and error, but through tangible reports, facts and figures is science being applied to the partnership of politics and social media. No longer are politicians from City Hall to the White House relying on knocking on doors to shake hands with the voters or passing out leaflets boasting of their past accomplishments and future goals. Today’s campaign trail is littered with crisp mailers, a path of Tweets and Facebook fodder to reach the masses and Fundly is proud to be a part of the future of political fundraising.

Republican Candidate Romney Looking for Individual Donors

Can $3 make an impact on determining the future President of the United States? According to Mitt Romney, it can!

“Donate $3 today to be automatically entered to be Mitt’s special guest for Election Night on Super Tuesday,” reads an email appeal from the Romney campaign to supporters. A video was also put on the web petitioning donors to give $20 to battle the “Obama Attack Machine.” With the power of the Super PAC’s and Romney’s own personal bank account rivaling that of a small nation, why would these miniscule gifts tip the scales in Romney’s favor?

Reporters Matea Gold and Melanie Mason from the Chicago Tribune wrote that, “Although he has outstripped his Republican rivals in fundraising, he also is burning through cash. Romney spent money nearly three times faster than he raised it in January, leaving him with $7.7 million. Since then, his campaign has shelled out at least $2.7 million for television advertising alone, according to sources familiar with the ad buys.”

Furthermore, Romney’s donor numbers are vastly different than his political rivals. Just 9 percent of the nearly $63 million Romney raised through the end of January came from supporters who gave $200 or less. The Campaign Finance Institute found that two-thirds of the money he has raised so far has come from donors who have given $2,500. However, Rick Santorum, Newt Gingrich, as well as President Barack Obama, have had about half of their funding come in from small donors.

Online political fundraising is definitely proving to be the favored choice for candidates to reach the masses. “Romney’s campaign is trying to reverse that imbalance by soliciting single-digit donations via the Web. 

That’s a tactic regularly used by the Obama campaign to gather new email addresses for future fundraising,” reports Gold and Mason.

So which is more important: investing more time into smaller donations to gain voter support or investing less time into major donors to garner more money? With democracy, I would have to say it’s both.

Do High Numbers of Facebook Fans Equal High Numbers of Voters?

The other day on TechPresident.com, Micah L. Sirfry discussed the interesting argument on whether or not the media is inflating the impact that social media is having on the upcoming presidential election.

From followers “liking” candidates on Facebook to online fundraising contributions, is the action on the web really influencing the race to the Oval Office? Does every person on Twitter equate to a ballot submitted on Election Day?

Sirfy states that, “Politics isn’t only about voting; it’s more deeply about organizing to get and keep power. And the evidence that social media is helping organized groups get more power–sometimes more than their raw numbers might get them at the ballot box–is staring us in the face.”

At Fundly, we would have to agree with Sirfy. At the end of the 2010 election cycle, 120 political customers were using Fundly to raise money and currently our numbers show 10 times that amount. The campaigns have ranged from local races to the presidential efforts of Rick Santorum, Mitt Romney and a Newt Gingrich PAC. Candidates also successfully raised $71 million for the 2010 midterm elections.

Now let’s move beyond dollars. Sirfy brings up the interesting point that the nomination for the Republican presidential candidate is still up in the air in large part because of the role that social media is playing in creating factions among the conservative party. There are dozens of groups on Facebook that are backing the politician of their choice and there is even a social network that has more than 168,000 users who are largely beyond the control of any Republican organization.

In an ironic turn of the internet, not only is technology bringing more people of like-mindedness together, it is dividing the GOP. While the Republican Party is getting a ton of press for the Super PACs that are changing the landscape of political fundraising, an arsenal of small donors are also equipping the candidates with the funds to pursue the office of Commander in Chief. “On Fundly, a social fundraising site, the Rick Santorum page has nearly 3,000 donors who have built personal fundraising pages generating an average of about $80 each. By contrast, Romney has two donors who have created personal fundraising pages on the site, one of whom is his son Tagg” sites Sirfry.

So let’s get back to the original question at hand: do high numbers on Facebook equal high numbers of voters at the polls?

When so many people have invested their time, finances and opinions concerning the political scene, I can’t imagine them abandoning the cause at the apex of the battle.

Read the TechPresident.com article here: How Social Media is Keeping the GOP Primary Going

Wealthy Donors Rudder to 2012 Presidential Election

Oh, to be able to pull out the old checkbook and give one million dollars to any organization of my choice. That’s what about two dozen extremely wealthy donors have recently done to promote the presidential candidate of their choice through one of the new political action committees.

According to an Associated Press review of financial reports filed by the various campaigns, it was revealed that more than half of the $60 million generated by the PACs was donated by only 24 very wealthy supporters. “The super-sized checks amount to $33 million, and in some cases, the contributions of $1 million or more represent most of the money that several super PACs have collected” states the AP.

“Freed by the Citizens United case and other rulings that allowed unlimited donations with minimal disclosure, the mega-donors are pumping unprecedented amounts of cash to favored candidates. The lavish gifts are stoking negative campaign ad wars and making mega-donors essential to the tactics and operations of the super PACs,” explains the report.

So who are these big wigs that are supplying these immense amounts of funding? According to the Associated Press, the top five donors are as follows: Las Vegas casino billionaire Sheldon Adelson and his family have given $11 million to Winning Our Future, the group supporting former House Speaker Gingrich. Texas billionaire Harold Simmons so far has donated $12 million — both personally and through his firm, Contran — to American Crossroads, the Republican-leaning super PAC co-founded by Republican strategist Karl Rove.

The co-founder of PayPal and an early investor in Facebook, Peter Thiel, has given $2.6 million to Endorse Liberty, the group supporting Texas Rep. Paul. The chief executive at DreamWorks Animation, Jeffrey Katzenberg, has given $2 million to the group supporting Obama’s re-election, Priorities USA Action, which accounts for nearly half the group’s $4.5 million total. To round out the top five, hotel magnates and brothers Bill and Richard Marriott have given $1.5 million to Restore Our Future, the group supporting former Massachusetts Gov. Romney.

These are numbers that would make any nonprofit CEO’s head spin and I can’t help but wonder what effect this new system of political fundraising is going to have on the election. On one hand, you need money to reach the masses on the election trail. On the other hand, are these PACs garnering more support or alienating the average voter? Finally, is it better to have a large group of individual supporters via social media with a huge Facebook following, or just one big conglomerate donor? I guess we’ll find out soon enough come November.

Online Technology Key to Obama’s Fundraising Success

President Obama always seems to be on the cusp of innovative and new ideas whether it concerns health care, aiding homeowners with their mortgages or addressing unemployment. Regardless if you approve or disapprove of his policies, you have to admit that he always seems to be on the cutting edge. It is obvious that in this race to return to the Oval Office for a second term, he is treading new ground in the realm of online political fundraising.

Like the majority of Americans, the president seems to be glued to his mobile phone. Always with Blackberry in hand, he is constantly abreast of impending news and connected to his various contacts. He is also taking this same approach in his fundraising efforts.

NPR.com reports that the president’s campaign committee, Obama for America, took contributions from more than half a million people in the final three months of 2011 in which 200,000 of them were brand-new donors to his campaign. One reason is due to the immense effort his campaign is focusing on social media fundraising. “You know, they spent a million bucks in the quarter, basically, on technology,” says Clay Johnson, author of The Information Diet: A Case For Conscious Consumption. He says he’s not surprised to see that the Obama campaign spent about as much on Internet ads as it did on postage — more than $2 million.

“Now, the online advertising and the postage, that’s about either getting new people into the campaign or convincing people to donate. But the million dollars in a quarter on technology is about creating infrastructure,” Johnson says.

According to this same article, it appears that this is just the beginning of Obama’s efforts to dominate the online world to gain more donor support. It was reported that his campaign spent close to $400,000 on software and Web hosting, more than $600,000 on computer equipment and more than $43,000 at Apple stores just in a three-month period starting from last October. It is interesting to note that last quarter, Obama also invested $65,000 in text messaging.

In this fast paced world where everyone is connected to the internet, it seems rather obvious that this is the best way for politicians to gain support and financial backing. With the new strategies that are being formed in this election and the innovative devises that are continually being advertised by computer companies, who knows what the 2016 presidential elections will look like?

The Emerging Role of Social Media in Politics

Technology has played a major role in politics for the past seven decades. From FDR’s Fireside Chats to the Kennedy –Nixon televised debate in 1960, media has swayed public opinion vastly. Not only do candidates have to be strong on issues pertaining to foreign policy and unemployment, but the ability to charm the public like an actor on the Red Carpet is also a vital asset on the campaign trail. Now candidates in the 2012 presidential election have the social media world to address. Granted, this technology has been around for about a decade, but now more than ever is this advancement being used across the globe.

Bizreport.com states that, “According to Digitas 82% of US adults use social media, and 88% of those are registered voters… Furthermore, almost two-thirds (61%) expect candidates to have a presence on social media sites such as Twitter and Facebook.”

“In at least the last two election cycles, digital media has taken a profound a role in determining our next president as TV did in earlier generations,” said Jordan Bitterman, SVP and Social Marketing Practice Director, Digitas. “But the results of this new research show that the extraordinary power of social networks to connect us and build relationships may have even greater impact on who wins in 2012.”

Another interesting fact is that the average age of a voter in 2008 was 44 years old. That means that when most of these voters were growing up, they probably owned one of the first Apple or IBM personal computers, played Atari on their TV and have come to use Facebook and e-mail as part of their personal and professional adult lives. This generation has grown up with technology like no other and continues to thrive in this market. Of course this would play into political decisions and social responsibility.

If the median age of voters plays into the technology aspect of politics, then just think about the younger voters starting at age 18. Bizreport found that “Over half (51%) of young social media users (18-34) will search social media for information on who to vote for compared with 38% of 35-44 year olds, 29% of 45-54 year olds and 23% of those aged 55 and over; The vast majority (86%) of social media users own a mobile device as do 88% of social media users who are registered voters; 38% said that social media will have the same influence on their vote as would traditional media such as television and radio.”

Social media is changing the way we view candidates which also influences how fundraising is approached. Through political ads via Google or Yahoo, or Twitter tweets and Facebook posts, this upcoming election will be greatly influenced by what voters see, how they donate, and what they share via social media.

Is a Nonpartisan President an Option for 2012?

It’s not hard to find a bunch of information about the Democratic and Republican candidates for the 2012 presidential election, but is a third party slowly creeping up to  take votes and funding away from the old boys’ clubs? Not since Ross Perot with his nasally voice and Napoleonic stature has someone taken the focus off of the main two political machines.
Realistically, will a third party nominee become the next president of our great nation? Not likely. But just the idea that some unknown businessman with charisma and agendas that are off the beaten track can run for president makes the political sport of democracy all the more interesting. (Heck, if Gary Coleman could run for the governor of California in the 2003 recall election, anything is possible!)

Americans Elect, which started in 2008, is vying to come up with a candidate to be on the ballot for all 50 states in the 2012 election. As of yet there is not a person determined to take this spot, but fundraising efforts and campaigning are well under way. 1.9 million signatures have been collected and $22 million has been raised for this group whose slogan is “pick a president, not a party.”

“’It’s a fascinating experiment in trying to empower the disenfranchised center in American politics,’ says Will Marshall, one of the group’s leaders and the president of the Progressive Policy Institute, a centrist Democratic think tank in an Associated Press article. ‘It uses the power of the Internet and social media to provide a new means for political participation.’”

So how have third party nominees faired in the past? “Ross Perot got 19 percent of the vote in 1992 and 8 percent in 1996; John Anderson, 7 percent in 1980: and George Wallace, 13 percent in 1968. Ralph Nader drew just 3 percent of the vote as a Green Party candidate in 2000, but that included enough liberal votes in Florida to keep Democrat Al Gore from carrying the state and becoming president,” explains the AP report.

Here’s the bottom line: even with the president’s low approval rating and the Republican’s low fundraising dollars, I doubt a third party with truly pose any real threat. It’s like a guppy chasing a great white shark: fun to watch, but I don’t see fear in the shark’s eyes.

To learn more how Fundly can help your political fundraising campaign or one that you know of, please contact Erik Nilsson at: etnilsson@fundly.com

Presidential Third Quarter Fundraising Overview

It seems like when reviewing the third quarter fundraising dollars for the Republican party, who gave is just as important as how much was given.

Rick Perry is in the lead bringing in $17 million this quarter. $9.7 million came from his donors in Texas and 4% came from small donors who gave less than $200 (a much smaller percent than his other candidates). Governor Perry is hot with the oil & gas industry, agriculture, doctors and lawyers.

T.W. Farnam shared this insight about Perry written in the Washington Post: “Perry’s total puts him at the top of the Republican field in fundraising, but his reliance on maxed-out donors who are legally prohibited from contributing more means it will require a lot of work to continue raising money in light of the candidate’s recent collapse in the polls.”

Farman also states that, “Perry’s biggest source of cash was the employees of Ryan, a Texas tax and accounting firm run by G. Brint Ryan, a supporter of the governor. The company’s employees gave $158,000 to Perry’s campaign.”

Mitt Romney follows Perry with third quarter totals amounting to $14 million. Mitt’s supporters come from a broader base then Perry’s and supporters include finance, Hollywood, high technology, and media folks.
Don’t read too much into the fact that Perry’s numbers are higher than Romney’s for Q3. Remember that Perry started later than Romney so Perry has been going after his low-hanging local (Texas) gifts. Romney swept up his low-hanging donations much earlier this year.

In third place is Ron Paul who raised $3.8 million primarily from supporters who gave less than $200 each.
Herman Cain is gaining a surprising amount of support and raised $2.8 million this quarter, including a $175,000 personal loan. As his public presence and opinion increases, I’m sure his bank account will, too.
Even with all these impressive numbers, President Obama has raised $70 million for his campaign and the Democratic Party. Although our economy may be in shambles, the guy certainly knows how to raise a buck or two.

To learn more about how Fundly can benefit your political fundraising efforts online, please contact Fundly today.

Jeb Bush to Support Jon Huntsman

Long ago William Shakespeare penned the line “What’s in a name?” Well, in the political arena your name is worth its weight in gold… especially if that name happens to be “Bush.” Fortunately for Republican presidential candidate Jon Huntsman, Jeb Bush Jr. is lending his name and extensive resources to Huntsman’s political campaign for President.

Reporter Patricia Mazzei shares this story in the Miami Herald and explains that, “Huntsman touted the backing from Bush Jr. and Ana Navarro, a longtime fundraiser and strategist, as significant as he tries to grow an operation off to a shaky start into a top contender… Bush Jr., a real estate developer with an extensive network of contacts, will lead the campaign’s outreach to young professionals. Navarro, who co-chaired John McCain’s Hispanic outreach in 2008, will head Huntsman’s effort to attract Hispanics, a crucial demographic to make Florida go red or blue.”

It’s no secret that the name “Bush” is synonymous with former presidents, conservative politics and big industry. It also brings to mind an era where the dollar was stronger, unemployment wasn’t as rampant and morale was high (didn’t we all rally together after September 11?). It will be interesting to see how the names “Bush” and “Huntsman” will combine to create a viable presidential candidate for 2012 and if this endorsement will help give a boost to his political fundraising endeavors.

To learn more about how Fundly can benefit your political fundraising efforts online, please contact Fundly today.

No Corporate & Union Money for Political Campaigns, Yet…

By Erik Nilsson, President

On political fundraising …

Remember last years ruling in the Citizens United vs. FEC case? This is where the Supreme Court decided to allow corporations and labor unions to make independent expenditures and send out electioneering communications. It is not often I get to use “electioneering” in a sentence (thanks FEC). The FEC is finally working up a plan to figure out how to implement the ruling.

Last Thursday, the FEC sat down to begin hammering down the rules we all have to play by and, guess what? The 6 person board has all kinds of ideas (50 pages of them) but couldn’t come to any agreements. Ideas include:

- increased disclosures,

- disclosures targeting foreign influence, and

- rules that would force corporations to change the makeup of their boards of directors.

Sounds like they are using the Citizens United vs. FEC ruling to bring in all sorts of provisions that the courts have neither upheld or expressly reviewed. This almost sounds like they are trying their own hand at pork barrel politics. It is early days but it will be interesting to see which rules we are stuck with for this next cycle.

For all you corporations and unions, it would probably be wise to increase your political compliance budgets. For all you compliance attorneys, let the good times roll!

MSN Video on Fundly and $300 Billion Social Fundraising Market

MSN interviewed Fundly CEO Dave Boyce on our recent entry into the educational and non-profit fundraising markets.  Some memorable quotes are below followed by a link to the full video (3 minutes give or take).

“Politico calls it one of the most ‘in demand’ pieces of technology. Candidates like Barbara Boxer and Meg Whitman use it to help run their campaigns. But this small business says that politics pales in comparison with the $300 billion market they are getting into now.”

“Fundly has a social fundraising platform. Social fundraising has proven to be very effective.  If a friends asks a friend for a donation, your likelihood of a gift is 10x and the average gift is 52% larger.”

“Fundly has been used in more than 50% of the senatorial and more than 33% of the gubernatorial races this political season.  But now the company is moving into a much larger arena.  Political candidates raise on average about $3 billion a year.  Educational institutions raise $30 billion a year and non-profit in general raises $300 billion a year.  Fundly has already secured 40 customers in the new markets and is growing every day.”

You can view the full video is here.

What Non Profits can Learn from the 2010 Election Season

We are at the pinnacle of the 2010 political season and the fundraising records are piling up. Why do Americans have this great love for the sport of politics, and are willing to part with their hard earned dollars to get someone elected, but they won’t donate $100 to help the poor/save the environment/improve education/put your favorite cause here?

Besides the fact that democracy and supporting the candidates who best represent our views is how our system works, why has political fundraising become such a huge part of our fundraising landscape?

Keep your old poli-sci books on your shelf. I won’t dive into the pros & cons of the McCain Feingold Campaign Reform Act and the rise of the political fundraising machine. What political campaigns have over the rest of the world is a built in SENSE OF URGENCY.


You MUST create a sense of urgency

The great thing about political campaigns is that they have a federally mandated finish line, a final moment on that first Tuesday in November. If I want my candidate to win, I have to step up and give him/her my wooden nickel so they can buy yet another TV ad or drive one more elderly voter to the polling station. If I don’t help the candidate early enough, they can’t spend my money so it makes a difference. Even in politics, donors don’t get off the giving stick until election day is within sight.

How does this relate to my non-profit?

If I am a supporter of your non-profit, what difference does it make if I give you a donation today or next week, or maybe in December… if I get my bonus… if I remember after all that glögg? You MUST give the donor a reason to “act now!” (think late-night infomercial). You are competing with thousands of good causes, and millions of distractions. Without a deadline, your donor probably has something else they should be doing right now that is more fun than parting with money.

Get creative and fabricate a finish line. Let me get you started.

Offer “exclusive” stuff:

- First 50 donors get a copy of my signed book (once I pick a topic and get it written).

- Anyone who gives over $500 gets a team jacket (I walked into this one when my college pulled it on me).

Offer Access (popular among the political types):

- If we get your gift today, you get a photo-op with me.

- The first two $10K donors get lunch and an afternoon skiing with me.

- Go collect a couple million dollars from your friends in $2,400 increments and I will let you be ambassador to France.

Schedule Events:

- Tickets to Reunion/Winter Formal/Dancing in the Park.

- ___-a-thons, Road Races, Tournaments

I think you get the idea. Go create a sense of urgency that best fits your organization and the dollars will come.

Romney Continues to Lead GOP in Political Fundraising

How many dollars does it take to win the Oval Office? That seems to be the billion dollar question of the hour. In a capitalist society, supporters plus donations can’t be entered into a well formulated calculation to determine the outcome of an election.  However, if money makes the world go round, than campaign season must have the earth ready to spin off of its axis.

It’s clear that running for president must be one of the most expensive investments anyone could make. Time, money, energy and emotional stamina are all high costs for the candidates to imbue into any campaign to have even the slightest chance for victory. Mitt Romney is certainly paying his dues as his commitment to being a contender in the 2012 presidential is paying off as he leads the pack of GOP hopefuls.

Romney is currently at the top of the list of the six Republican presidential candidates and boasts of raising over $56 million dollars for his campaign, according to the New York Times ($24 million came in during the last three months of 2011). GooglePost.com states that, “Romney drew in $24 million in the fourth quarter of 2011 alone and is going into the new year with more than $19 million cash on hand. Romney’s fundraising figures dwarfs the other Republican presidential candidates in comparison… Rivals Texas Rep. Ron Paul collected $13 million in the fourth quarter while former House speaker Newt Gingrich raised $9 million.”
So with an unrivaled amount of fundraising numbers from other GOP contenders, it seems like Romney’s biggest obstacle to the White House would be the incumbent who has currently raised approximately $88 million according to opensecrets.com.

How does Romney’s fundraising savvy compete with recent history candidates? “Romney’s fourth quarter total is competitive with what then-Sens. Hillary Clinton ($27 million) and Barack Obama ($23.5 million) brought in over the final three months of 2007 and dwarfs the amount that eventual GOP nominee John McCain raised during that period ($10 million). Romney also raised more in the final quarter of 2011 than then-Texas Gov. George W. Bush did in the final three months of 1999 ($11 million),” explains a report in The Washington Post.

While Barrack Obama still may lead the pack in political fundraising, it seems that Romney is up to the challenge for competing for funds. Both are mastering the skills it takes to garner online support and both are using social media in the political realm like never before.