The Campaign Finance Institute just released its latest figures on small donors to the three major presidential candidates.

Here are my top notes:

March

Percent of contributions in March that came in amounts of $200 or less:

• Obama – 60%
• Clinton – 58%
• McCain – 18%

Cumulative

Amount the three major presidential candidates have raised from small (under $200) and large (over $200) donations since January 1, 2007

OBAMA

• $101 million from small donations.
• $83 million from large donations.

*CFI notes that Obama has raised almost as much from small donors as all the candidates raised combined by this point in the 2004 election ($105 million).

CLINTON

• $44 million from small donations.
• $82 million from large donations.

MCCAIN

• $16 million from small donations.
• $45 million from large donations.

Looking back at 2004

CFI suggests that we haven’t seen much of an increase in small donations since 2004. By this time in the 2004 cycle, Democrats raised 33% of their money from small donations and 48% from large ones. In 2007-2008, those figures are 37% and 46%.

In 2007-2008, Democratic and Republican candidates raised $135 million in small donations and $138 million more in large donations that the candidates in 2004.

[cross posted at http://alexkellner.com]

Last week, Nate Wilcox of the Webstrong Group spoke to one of my graduate classes. Wilcox’s lecture entitled “Confessions of an Internet Hack,” overviewed the history of politics and the Internet. While much of the lecture wasn’t news to me as an avid follower of Internet politics, Wilcox said one thing that really struck me. Throughout the lecture he “named” each of the elections, and his title for the current election cycle was perhaps the best metaphor to describe the state of the current political Internet that I have come across.

Wilcox’s metaphor began by talking about the 2006 election. He discussed the innovations in mobilizing, messaging and fundraising online that were made in the election cycle. He compared these innovations to rock and roll bands in the late 1960s and early 1970s like The Beatles, The Rolling Stones and Pink Floyd. Moving on to the 2008 election cycle Wilcox said that The Beatles are to 2006 as Foghat is to 2008. In other words, no one would suggest that Foghat revolutionized the music scene or was even particularly innovative, but, regardless of that fact, they sold out gigantic arenas throughout the mid to late 1970s. The metaphor carries over to Internet politics because while very little innovation has happened online this election cycle (with perhaps the exception of the use of social networks), the effects of old innovations have had made a larger splash because the people are online in larger numbers (just as people were hooked on the rock and roll scene for Foghat).

I think when you look at the oft-pointed to evidence for why 2008 is “the first real Internet election” it backs Wilcox’s characterization. Ron Paul’s money bomb, Obama and Clinton’s online fundraising prowess, Obama’s offline movement with online roots and the campaign’s webpages themselves are all just extensions of developments that occurred in the 2006 election cycle. These events were more pronounced in 2008 because they involved more people and because they received more coverage in the press. This is not necessarily because the campaigns were doing anything drastically different; rather, there are more people comfortable with “new technology”, more people connected to the Internet and the press has become increasingly more likely to cover “Internet” stories in the mainstream press.

Now, I’m not sure that this means that we actually have reached the “first Internet election.” As a child of the millennial generation, The Beatles and Foghat were both before my time, but I have 12 hours of one of the bands and 0 minutes of the other on my iPod. The Beatles are still relevant in today’s music scene, even to someone born almost 20 years after Sergeant Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band was released, and Foghat is largely forgotten. Perhaps this is carrying Wilcox’s metaphor slightly too far, but I predict that in 20 years, 2006 will be considered far more important year for the development of online politics than 2008. Whether or not it is “the first Internet election” is going to depend on how 2010, 2012 and beyond carry out as the Internet continues to evolve.

Recently, I’ve taken a turn to looking into what was written about the so-called “Internet candidates” of the 2000 election. On the right, we had John McCain, who managed to pull up an astonishing $3 million after winning the New Hampshire primary through the use of….get this…pop-up ads! On the left, we had Senator Bill Bradley, who was criticized by Silicon Valley leaders for spending more time on real estate taxes during a two-decade Senate tenure than on the promotion of high tech issues. (Strikingly, Senator Bradley became the first Presidential candidate to raise a million bucks on the Web without putting so much as a donation link on his Web site’s sidebar, choosing instead to hide a donation hyperlink in a short paragraph encouraging voters to help out.)

The New York Times reported in February of 2000 about the McCain phenomena:

Several bits of evidence suggest that Mr. McCain’s success is of a different order than anything seen in many years. His presence on the ballot is driving voter turnout, starting in New Hampshire and sweeping through South Carolina and Michigan, where twice the normal number of voters went to the polls. He pulls big crowds that clearly adore him. Their excitement undercuts the conventional wisdom about citizen apathy, as does the explosion of Internet fund-raising that has brought him $3 million in the space of a few weeks.

In Washington, Republican leaders are assuring each other that Mr. McCain’s appeal is personal rather than based on issues like campaign finance reform and using the budget surplus to save Social Security and Medicare.

Similar sentiments have commented about the successful Web candidates today: Barack Obama and Ron Paul. As a piece of food for thought, I have considered the possibility that it may not be a campaign’s savvy use of the Internet that makes an “iCandidate” but an intrinsic value within that candidate him or herself. The campaign can guide and nudge, but beating overwhelming support out of the Internet will be a nugatory exercise sans a message with appeal to voters familiar to nooks and crannies of the World Wide Web.

Barack Obama’s forensic ability and “change” message bequeathed him a wide swath of followers who were (generally) younger and therefore less likely to be concerned with online giving. Ron Paul’s idiosyncratic message allowed support for his candidacy to thrive on Internet institutions such as Digg or YouTube because the truly tech-savvy have always been more likely to the beat of the libertarian drum (witness the need for overflow rooms at Google headquarters in California when Congressman Paul visited…there was no such need for more rooms when the more establishment types walked into Mountain View).

Perhaps its the man or the message that yields Internet attention, and not a stronger Web-based campaign tactic. Those who try to apply the Ron Paul example of diffusing most power to supporters with little to no supervision from the campaign in 2012 will probably be disappointed to find that they will not garner $35 million in contributions.

This just in from the Campaign Finance Institute: the presidential candidates in 2007 raised more than double ($552 million) what they raised four years ago in 2003 ($273 million).

The Democrats raised $292 million for the primaries, and the Republicans raised $260 million.

According to CFI, small contributions (under $200) increased by four percentage points, from 22% of all individual contributions in 2003 to 26% in 2007. Here’s the breakdown of small donors by candidate:

• Ron Paul raised 61% of his individual contributions from small donors.
• Fred Thompson raised 43% of his individual contributions from small donors.   
• John Edwards raised 36% of his individual contributions from small donors.
• Barack Obama raised 32% of his individual contributions from small donors.
• Mike Huckabee raised 35% of his individual contributions from small donors.  
• John McCain raised 25% of his individual contributions from small donors.  
• Hillary Clinton raised 14% of her individual contributions from small donors.
• Mitt Romney raised 12% of his individual contributions from small donors.
• Rudy Giuliani 8% of his individual contributions from small donors.

More information is available at http://www.cfinst.org/pr/prRelease.aspx?ReleaseID=179.

Speaking of fundraising, be sure to check out the panel on Techno-Powered Fundraising that Patrick Ruffini is chairing at the 2008 Politics Online Conference. Not yet registered? You can sign up at  https://www.online-donation.com/ipdi-polc/.

Will the academic study of the Internet ever set standards for the practices of political operatives, campaigns and politicians, or will it forever be trying to play catch up to the constantly changing technology?

This was one of the most interesting questions that I received after presenting my undergraduate thesis yesterday afternoon. My initial thought is that for the foreseeable future scholarship of the Internet would not be able to catch up to constantly changing technology. If anything, the constant push towards advancement and the presence of hundreds of millions of dollars that are being spent on acquiring Internet companies is allowing technology to increase its metaphorical lead over academics. I come to this conclusion after reading two dozen scholarly books and articles about politics and the Internet, only a few of which had any salience towards current practice. The lack of conclusions that can be turned into actual practice is not because of bad research (in all but a few cases), but rather because the technology discussed is outdated, even though all of the studies have been conducted in the last 8 years.

My thesis- a literature review of the study of the Internet’s effect on political communications and democracy- identified six main areas or questions that scholars have been considering when approaching the topic of online politics:

1. How does the Internet Age of political communications fit into the history of media and politics? What forces drove the Internet Age to come about?
2. How has the Internet changed the process through which politicians, professional political communicators, campaigns and organizations operate? What may the future hold?
3. What is a blog? What effects do blogs have on political discourse? What societal and political norms do they advance? What is the personal, social and political influence of blogs?
4. What are the implications on democratic societies of Internet-users who can choose what news content they consume?
5. What is the relationship between Internet use and individual-level production of social capital as it relates to politics? Are there generational differences
6. What are the consequences of the growing digital divide on democratic societies as the Internet continues to gain prominence and utilities?

Admittedly, these categories are from perfect. In my opinion this is driven by an overall lack of homogeneity in the study of the Internet. In my research I found that very few scholars are trying to refine or challenge other scholars already published studies. Instead, most scholars are tackling a new aspect of the Internet and trying to put their mark on an emerging field. In the very simplest terms, this makes synthesizing the research more difficult for my thesis; however, it brings up the major question I ask at the end of my thesis: What questions do academics need to focus on in the future of the study of politics in the Internet sphere? And how do they need to approach their studies differently?

Here are some of my initial thoughts:

1. Has the Internet’s significance in political actions changed over time?
2. Do social networking activities have an effect on political campaign? Can politicians target likely voters with the personal information provided by users on their social networking webpages?
3. What are the driving factors in political activities online? Political needs or technology improvements?
4. What are the implications of online micro-donations in political campaigns?

I’d like to start a conversation in the comment potion of this blog post on other questions that scholars should be asking.

Here is the entire Powerpoint I used during my presentation.

The Ron Paul campaign has an ambitious goal of raising $12 million for the 4th quarter. For a candidate with more “star” power, this might not be an ambitious goal, but considering Ron Paul’s (perceived) lesser status, this is a big number. However, he is well on his way having already pulled in over $9 million.

Even with those numbers, his campaign is needing more money now. With that in mind, they are attempting two more money bombs - fundraising campaigns akin to the $4.2 million single day effort.

The first campaign is “Rudy’s Reading List.” This campaign is supposed to highlight Paul’s noninterventionist foreign policy, as opposed to the rest of the Republican field. On the website there is a short list of books that they are recommending (and implying that Rudy Giuliani hasn’t read). They are trying for 25,000 pledges of $100, $2.5 million.

The second campaign is “Tea Party ‘07.” This campaign is meant to happen on Dec. 16th, the 234th anniversary of the Boston Tea Party. I do appreciate their sense of history. Their goal for this campaign is 100,000 pledges of $100, $10 million!

Both of these money bombs have the potential to reach their target. The Internet love that Ron Paul gets is quite extraordinary, and after his first cash explosion, I wouldn’t be surprised to see another bomb land directly on the bullseye.

This campaign season we have seen some new and interesting campaign websites. The web presence of a campaign is a big deal, and this year that is being taken to the next level. There are facebook apps, MySpace pages, and youtube channels for campaigns. I am glad to see campaigns using the full power of the Internet, but also disheartened by the fact that many do not use the greatest asset of the Internet, transparency.

That being said, Ron Paul’s website is breath of fresh air. If you haven’t checked it out, do so (www.ronpaul2008.com). I know it seems like I’ve been schilling for Ron Paul lately, but he is making big news. First with his $4.2 million dollar day and over the weekend the New York Times had a piece on his web campaign. Despite all the other web applications that campaigns use, Ron Paul has one that I thoroughly love. On his homepage he has a running total of his online donations as well as a ticker that lists his recent donors. Most campaigns time the release of fundraising totals for maximum effect, but Ron Paul’s are just out there for all to see. I checked it yesterday around 2 PM and then at 11 AM this morning. He’s pulled in over $120,000 in that time, all online. Impressive.

As many of us have know, Ron Paul has a large Internet following. Despite these ardent supporters, his poll numbers are pretty abysmal. According to RealClearPolitics he doesn’t break into the top five Republicans nationally, in Iowa, or in New Hampshire.

With this lack of support, you would think he would be hurting for cash. Not so. According to opensecrets.org he wass sitting on just over $5,000,000 while holding $0 debt at the end of the 3rd fundraising quarter! Impressive numbers for a 3rd tier candidate. After yesterday, he proved that he could raise money with the big boys, though. He broke single day fundraising records by pulling in over $4,000,000 dollars from about 22,000 donors, all done online!

Kudos, kudos indeed.

You don’t have to be a wealthy rancher hosting a $2,000 a head “diamonds and denim” cookout to become a big-time Republican bundler.

With new, online Republican fundraising utilities like Rightroots and Slatecard, you bundle online donations from your friends, family and associates from the comfort of your laptop. Or your Facebook profile. Or your blog. Or your website.

On both sites, customization will be king. In the near future, Rightroots will allow individuals to create their own “slates” based on issues, races, and geographical regions. Slatecard allows users to create their own slatecard widget. And both sites were created by avidly blogging political operatives.

Looking in through our non-campaign, bipartisan, armchair quarterback window, here are some things we would want to do with both utilities:

• Get my hands on the data. Clearly, one of the most important resources here isn’t just the online donations. It’s the people making the donations. In my fantasy campaign world, I want to see who is donating, who her friends are, where they live, who else they donate to, and how much and how often they donate.
• Hand out the suckers. There’s an old Machiavellian adage that has stuck with me over the past few years: a good prince (or in this case, a candidate) hands out the rewards herself (slowly, over time). I want to be the one who acknowledges and rewards my supporters for donating to me – not someone else. I want to give the warm fuzzies. That way, I build more affinity with the supporters. I’m rewarding them and acknowledging them, not leaving it up to someone else.
• Make my long tail the long tail that everyone sees. I blog regularly about widgets. I happen to like them, and I cannot deny the appeal of the long tail of fundraising. But if there’s anyway to get my logo (and a link to my site) on the widget, then I’ll be happy. I want to drive people to me, not necessarily to someone else.

Bottom line: when it comes to how successful the Internet is as an organizing tool, many people are going to look at one thing: dollar signs. Like it or not, online fundraising – especially small donor online fundraising – has become one of the most important invisible primaries – not just for the presidential candidates, but for how successful online outreach and organizing is in the political space. And over the past several years, Republicans have, well, lagged behind the Democratic pack when it comes to harvesting those small, online donations.

The past month saw some interesting ideas – as well as some interesting predictions for the political tech world.

Some of our favorites:

E-VOTING

Is the idea that paper ballots insure secure elections a myth? Daniel Castro thinks so. In “Stop the Presses: How Paper Trails Fail to Secure e-Voting” for The Information and Technology Innovation Foundation, Castro gives the following three recommendations for e-Voting in the United States:

1. Congress and the states should allow the use of fully electronic ballots.
2. Congress and the states should require that future voting machines have verifiable audit trails.
3. Congress should provide funding for the U.S. Election Assistance Commission to issue grants for developing secure cryptographic voting protocols and pilot testing.

PARTY MONEY

Small contributions from individuals were the principal source of fundraising for the national party committees, according to The Campaign Finance Institute’s new report, “Party Money in the 2006 Elections: The Role of National Party Committees in Financing Congressional Campaigns,” by Anthony Corrado and Katie Varney. Some of that money came from broader donor bases that the parties developing through fundraising programs – many of them online. The report found that the party committees

spent more money in 2006 directly supporting congressional candidates than they had in any previous election – devoting more than one out of every four dollars they received to these efforts.

DIPLOMACY

Will the next technology-fueled revolution occur in the diplomatic sphere? David Ronfeldt and John Arquilla argue that it will in “The promise of noöpolitik” for the August edition of FirstMonday. They argue that the information age will undermine classic diplomacy (based on hard power) and favor diplomacy based on soft power. They recommend that diplomats consider

• Supporting the expansion of cyberspace connectivity around the world, including where this runs counter to the preferences of authoritarian regimes.
• Promoting freedom of information and communications as a worldwide right
• Developing multitiered information-sharing systems, not only to ensure cyberspace safety and security, but also to create infospheres for openly addressing other issues.

They also recommend creating “special media forces” to help settle disputes using information and coordination between diplomats and non-state actors, such as NGOs.