Election '08 Research Paper
From digmovements
[edit] Abstract
With the forthcoming general election, new media technologies are having a major impact on the nature of campaigning. The highly interactive nature of the Internet has impacted the campaign process like no other form of media (i.e. Radio and Television) has before. Sites such as MySpace, Facebook, Live Journal, Blogspot, and YouTube are allowing people all over the country spread their views and opinions on candidates and issues to millions of people. Furthermore, the ease of online monetary transactions has had a profound effect on the way politicians go about raising funds. The 2008 candidates (esp. Ron Paul and Barack Obama) have exemplified that small contributions from a wide range of donors can fund a campaign. Furthermore, the shift we are seeing from large donations from few donors to small donations from many donors is allowing Politicians to run their campaigns in an honest manner and is giving the American people influence on the primaries, like we have never seen before. In all, this interactive forum that is the World Wide Web is bringing the elections back to the people and creating a more democratic society.
[edit] The Effects of Online Campaign Fundraising on the Current State of the Political Atmosphere
The recent boom in online social networking sites, blogs, and YouTube, has given the American people a chance to voice to their opinions like never before. The Internet is essentially a worldwide forum for anyone, anywhere, and at anytime, to voice his or her opinion on any subject they choose. As a result, many people have began to use the internet as a mode for political change by starting online advocacy groups, using sites like Myspace and Facebook to express their views on the issues that are most important to them and to show support for the candidate(s)/political party(ies) they endorse. In addition, with the rise of sites such as Blogspot, Blogger, Live Journal, etc… many of the politically involved have been utilizing these sites to spread political news and opinions that can be viewed across the world.
The internet has not only helped give the American people more of a voice on their country and the issues surrounding it, but it has also completely transformed the way in which politicians raise funds and garner support. We saw the beginnings in 2004. Early democratic frontrunner Howard Dean’s innovative online fundraising campaign allowed Dean to start an online movement that spurred his initial success. Furthermore, in the third quarter of 2004, Dean shattered the record for most donation dollar in one quarter by a Democratic candidate, with an amazing 10.5 million, demolishing the old record previously held by Bill Clinton, the husband of ’08 hopeful Hilary Clinton. Despite Dean’s utilization of the web, the other candidates at the time, which included George W. Bush, Al Sharpton, John Kerry, etc, did not utilize the web nearly as much and stuck to the old way of campaigning which includes receiving mainly large money from rich, influential lobbyists.
With the ’08 primaries we saw the Internet have an even larger effect on the political spectrum. In the 2007 primaries, Republican long shot Ron Paul, a major advocate of net neutrality and internet supporter, managed to destroy the one day fundraising record by amassing an unheard of 6 million dollars in a single day. (Ron Paul, a Republican Outsider, 2007) Furthermore, the majority of these donations were obtained online. Without Paul’s embracement of the Internet, he would not have been able to start such a successful grassroots movement, which is virtually unheard of in these days of questionable big money donations and corrupt lobbyists. This utilization of the Internet allowed a candidate, who had been virtually shunned by his party due to his highly classical conservative views, to fare rather well in the primaries, even managing to come in a respectable second to Mitt Romney in the Nevada primary.
Paul is not the only candidate to utilize the Internet in an effort to raise funds and support. Democratic hopeful, Barack Obama has also used the Internet to his advantage and make the fundraising process more legitimate. Obama started his campaign with virtually no money and he managed to stay true to his statement on not receiving funding from lobbyists, political action committees, people under the age of 16, and foreign agents by amassing many small money donations through the Internet (Sweet, 2007). Not only has this strategy kept Obama in the race and now, at the head of the race, but it has put major pressure on Clinton to increase her online fundraising in response to Obama’s success. In addition, Republican nominee John McCain has also began to rev his online funding in response to his party’s concerns with the online following Clinton and especially Obama are amassing.
A major question that comes to mind with this new form of fundraising is how it will affect the political processes. There are many concerns on both sides. On one hand, one can perceive this switch to online campaigning and fundraising as distancing politicians from the people they are trying to support, due to reduced face-to-face human interaction. On the other hand, utilizing a nationwide interactive forum, accessible to virtually all United States citizens, will allow politicians to spread their message to more people, get more people to participate in the political process, and get more donations from supporters and not rich lobbyists. Through my research I have concluded that the rise in Internet accessibility and popularity has led to n increase in online donations, which in turn is making the fundraising process more honest. Furthermore this online involvement is creating a more democratic society because it is taking the campaign funding out of the hands of the rich, persuasive, lobbyists and into the hands of the American people.
In the forthcoming paragraphs, I will give a historical context of political campaign fundraising highlighting corruption throughout the history of the process. In addition, I will highlight the impact the internet is having on the fundraising process. Furthermore, I will discuss the pros and cons involved with internet fundraising and present information to show how online fundraising is bettering the political procedures involved with receiving donations.
Throughout history, political fundraising has gone through many changes with the advancements of new technology, political policies, and the ever-changing climate of the society. Since the second election in 1792, (George Washington ran unopposed in 1789) money has been a major factor in deciding who gets the presidential bid. Furthermore, since 1792 the size of the candidate’s wallet has been a major factor in who acquires the bid. The amount of money it costs to even think about running for president has always been solely in the range of the wealthy elites. This made it so the common man (or even the upper middle class) can’t really even consider taking on such a challenge. In the early years of presidential campaigns, the process was very corrupt. There were very few regulations on how candidates could go about raising funds and as a result the donation process. Virtually the entire process of election was decided by very wealthy elites who donate large sums based on personal interests, not based on the needs of the country as a whole. The process remained unregulated and highly corrupted well through the 19th century.
Reform didn’t even begin until the early 20th century, after over a century of corrupt fundraising tactics by candidates. The steps to early reform are highlighted in the USA Today article: “In fighting campaign reform, GOP forgets its history”. In 1904, when Theodore Roosevelt first ran for the presidency, his campaign was secretly financed by several large corporations. Initially, this was not disclosed to the public and was not discovered until congressional hearings in 1999 Ironically enough, in 1907, during Roosevelt’s first term, the majority Republican congress passed a law banning political contributions from corporations (In fighting campaign reform, 2002). Additionally there was still significant corruption involved in elections past that.
The next reform on campaign funding was passed in 1947, when labor unions were barred from contributing to campaigns. Corruption in election fundraising was still common, but as Radio and Newspapers were controlled by major corporations with vested interests, Politicians didn’t have to disclose the majority of their fundraising methods. This information was not available to the public. It wasn’t until the mid seventies when the people first saw the level of corruption within elections.
In 1972, the corrupt tactics of Nixon’s campaign were discovered from the infamous Watergate scandal, when members of Nixon’s campaign got caught red-handed breaking into the Democratic National Committee’s office in the Watergate Hotel. Major public outcry and backlash followed with the discovery of the corrupt actions involved with campaigning. In 1974, a series of Electoral reforms were passed by congress, which increased disclosure requirements, curbed individual campaign donations, and put spending caps on campaigns. However, two years after the reform on spending caps was passed, the Supreme Court ruled in the case of Buckley v. Valeo, that limits on campaign spending were unconstitutional under the first amendment, but limits on contributions were acceptable (30 years after Watergate, 2002).
Three years after the Supreme Court ruling, saw the introduction of a practice known as “Soft Money”, which are donations to the Democratic or Republican National Committees and not to the candidates campaigns themselves. Soft Money allows candidates to receive money for their campaigns, because unlike money donated directly to their campaigns, which is capped and regulated, the donations can be made to their party’s committee and then given to the candidate. This process of “soft money” allows wealthy elites and lobbyists to make very large donations they otherwise would not be able to, if sent directly to the candidate. This allows for the wealthy elites and corporations to have a major say in the going ons of political parties and the candidates. Furthermore, the introduction of soft money has made it virtually impossible for candidates to compete if they do not receive soft money. In 2004, we saw soft money donations take a new turn, when interest groups used section 527 of the IRS to fund (with the interest group’s money) television commercials in favor of their candidate. This manipulation gave advocacy groups, such as Progress for America, a heavily weighted voice in the ’04 election (Weigel, 2007).
Despite popular opinion, corruption in elections has been around since the beginning and is still around today. However, as politicians began to utilize the Internet for donations, which allows them to receive donations from anyone, anywhere, and at any time, they can begin to shift from going solely for big money and instead try to get small donations from many different donors, and the internet, like no other media technology before, allows candidates to do this. If the Internet continues to increase in accessibility, it will allow politicians to at least have the option to forgo soft money and large donations from advocacy groups and lobbyists. This in turn will make the fundraising process more honest and all candidates will be able to make the promises Obama did and follow through with them.
In 2008, two candidates’ online fundraising strategies stand above the rest. First and foremost is Ron Paul’s revolutionary, online grassroots campaign. Ron Paul began as the republican dark horse; no one thought he stood any competition at all. While Paul was still unable to receive the Republican nomination, his revolutionary campaign tactics allowed him to garner considerable support and outdo nearly everyone’s expectations. Instead of utilizing the traditional methods of receiving donations (such as fundraisers, expensive dinners, etc…), he embraced the advancements of the Internet to fund his campaign. He avoided the traditional way of gaining support (news shows, expensive commercials, etc…). He started a grassroots movement using the Internet. If you go to Ron Paul’s website (RonPaul2008.com) you will see how much different it is than most candidates. Paul’s website serves as an interactive hub for his campaign. The site is constantly updated with new information and provides the viewers with many ways of getting involved in his campaign. Additionally, the site provides all sorts of information ranging from personal information about Paul’s life to his stance on the war on Iraq. Paul’s site is set up to make you feel like you are a part of something, not just a supporter of Paul, but it offers virtually anyone to get involved with his campaign. Furthermore, Paul has another site, ronpaul.meetup.com, which allows Paul supporters to organize with fellow Ron Paul supporters in their area and unite to work on making a difference. Perhaps the most important part of Paul’s website is all of the options he offers for getting involved other than donating. Paul’s campaign was run to make his followers a part of his campaign and not merely just supporters. This gave Paul the ability to start a grassroots movement with his supporters because his supporters felt more attached to his campaign since they could and even were a major part of it (Feldmann, 2007). In addition to the innovative interactive set up of his web site, with one simple click on the donate button you could donate anywhere from $1.00 to $2,300 by simply answering a few questions and entering your credit card information.
Obama’s campaign has also done a very good job of utilizing the Internet. Instead of using the Internet as an open forum and online movement of sorts, Obama’s campaign saw the Internet as an untapped market and utilized it. Obama’s utilization of the Internet has allowed him to surpass Clinton in donation dollars. In January alone, Obama raised $36 million, around 4/5 of it from online donations (Tumulty, 2007). Obama went about gaining Internet support in a more traditional way than Paul. Obama recognized early on that the Internet was going to have an influence on this election unlike any other. Obama started by forming teams for his Internet campaign under the new media section of his campaign, which is headed by Joe Rospars, who was the brainchild behind Dean’s online campaign in 2004. He has a technology team that works on the design and layout of his website and provides ways for Obama supporters to get involved through his website. He also has a video team that records all of his speeches and posts them on YouTube.
Finally, Obama has embraced the blogosphere, starting a blog off of his website that is run by campaign members and keeps followers informed on what’s happening on the campaign trail. Furthermore he has started his own social networking site of sorts with my.barackobama.com, which allows users to start accounts on his site and interact with fellow Obama supporters, blog about issues that concern them, and to find out about events organized by Obama’s campaign or Obama supporters. Obama’s use of social networking is revolutionary; Obama even has a staff member who is in charge of pro-Obama groups on sites like Facebook and MySpace (Holahan, 2008). Furthermore, Obama’s site offers the same simple donation process that Paul’s site does. By offering an easy way to donate to millions of people at any given time in any place, it makes it considerably easier to amass a lot of small donations, which in the end, add up. Obama and Paul have not been the only candidates to use the Internet this election. The success both Paul and Obama (mainly Obama) have seen through the Internet, has forced other candidates to do the same or possibly fall behind. Clinton started her campaign the traditional way, focusing primarily on large cash donations from deep-pocketed suits. But as the Obama/Clinton race continues on, significantly longer than expected, her funds began to dwindle. Since Clinton was not regularly receiving as many donations as Obama, she began to spend more than she was getting in, and in February Clinton had to put five million dollars into her campaign from her own pocket. This served as a wake-up call and Hilary began to get e-friendly and in the month of February only %20-30 of her donations was from big name donors (Javers, 2008).
Clinton started her campaign in the traditional top-down structure, which focuses on large donations as the primary source of campaign funding and puts recieving small donations as a lower priority, but as the election progressed, she realized that she needed to embrace the online fundraising by attracting a large amount of donors for smaller amounts, essentially the exact opposite of the top-down structure. So, Clinton started to work on building a grassroots following through the Internet by targeting the more affluent youth, by posting online videos and distributing information about her campaign and events through e-mail. Despite her more recent pushes to get in on the online campaigning, Clinton hasn’t been nearly as successful as Obama in organizing volunteering and fundraising groups. The top-down structure of campaigns utilized by Clinton seems to be going extinct as candidates are shifting toward a bottom-up approach with the Internet (Brownstein, 2008).
Finally, John McCain has also started to embrace the Internet in his campaign. While McCain started his campaign in the traditional Top-Down republican style, focusing primarily on large donors for the bulk of campaign dollars, he has been forced to strengthen his online following due to Obama and Clinton strong online presence. Early in the primary, McCain’s campaign used the Internet as an advertising tool. The McCain campaign made sure to buy up many of the competitive search terms in an effort to redirect potential voters towards their site. He even bidded on the search term: “Hilary Clinton.” In order to redirect all the traffic he could towards his site. Ironically, early on McCain purchased the search term “Rudy Giuliani” and in turn Giuliani purchased “John McCain” (Klaassen, 2007). While McCain was initially successful with his online marketing, he did not do the same online organizing and fundraising, that put him at a disadvantage, when the already more publicized Obama/Clinton race was dominating Internet fundraising.
The McCain site is severely lacking compared to the high tech and well run sites of the democrats. The majority of McCain’s online staff has been let go, and the site is rarely updated. His blog is rarely updated and McCainSpace has been left unfinished, his site is pretty barren and cannot compete with that of the very tech-savvy democrats. McCain is planning on launching a new, more interactive site in June, but that might too late. In grassroots donations, McCain’s $66 million, pales in comparison to Clinton’s $174 and Obama’s $197. If McCain plans on catching up to Obama and Clinton, he’s going to have a lot of legwork to do in the way of his site, online following, and online fundraising (Scherer, 2008). This year’s general election, unlike any other before, will hinge on the candidates’ abilities to utilize the Internet and if the McCain campaign is unable to get their online department together we may see a very one-sided race.
Looking at how the fundraising process has been developing over the past few elections, it seems clear that it is undergoing a shift from a top-down fundraising strategy, that focused on big money donations as the primary source for campaign dollars, to a bottom up approach, focusing on getting as many small donations from as many donors as possible. This shift in fundraising techniques can be attributed, almost solely, to the rise of the Internet. Advancement of new media technology has always been very influential in the political process. When radio first came out, it changed the way politicians went about promoting themselves and spreading their message. And when the television first gained popularity, politicians had to adapt and deal with being on televised debates and creating political commercials (McChesney, 2007). Both of these technological advancements had a major affect on how politicians campaign themselves, but they did not revolutionize the process. There were transition years with both, were politicians had to adjust to the new technology, but after those few years everything virtually went back to same and they had discovered a way to use the advancement with television and radio to their favor, and not that of the American people. One vital question comes to mind, is the rise of the Internet going to be any different than that of the radio or television? To answer this question you need to take a deeper look at what separates the Internet from radio and television. Radio and Television are one to many communications; only few are allowed to use the television or the radio as means of spreading their message. It is not possible for someone to just start up a TV channel or Radio station and start promoting their candidate. That is left in the hands of the corporations who control the media. The Internet on the other hand is accessible to anyone, anyone with internet access can go online and start up a blog or even a website dedicated solely to expressing political opinions, a site or blog that has the possibility of being viewed by millions of people. Furthermore, the Internet is a type of many to many communication, the Internet is an open forum for anyone who can get online.
When it comes to fundraising, radio and television are very useful tools for politicians to create advertisements to tell people to donate to their campaign, but you can’t use either to actually donate. It is still left in your hands to send the politician money with Radio and Television. With the internet, if you want to send money to a campaign all you have to do is go to said politicians website and click on the donate button and you’re virtually done. The Internet makes the donation process much simpler for all parties involved. No one owns the Internet; it’s an open forum for anyone who chooses to utilize it. Radio and Television are both run by corporations. These large corporations have vested interests in who will become the next president and will provide skewed or one-sided information, in order to do so. The Internet offers many innovative opportunities for political involvement that weren’t even conceivable with the radio or Television.
It is clear that online fundraising will have a major impact on the way politicians go about raising funds, but the question still remains: What does this mean for future elections? Will these advancements in technology lead to a more democratic society or will it just be another tool for politicians to mislead the population in order to win votes? While online donations will gain in popularity and will likely be one of politicians’ primary ways of campaigning, it will never fully take the place of off line donations and there will always be some level of corruption involved in the process. In an article in The Economist entitled “The road to e-democracy”, the author makes a strong point on this very issue when he states: “The story so far is that technology intensifies the democratic process, but does not fundamentally change it. For example, the Internet is now a vital way of raising money for political campaigns in America, but it has not supplanted the public meeting. Howard Dean's campaign for the Democratic party nomination in 2004 was a huge success in the blogosphere, but failed to translate into votes in real life.” (The road to, 2008) This point is very interesting because even though the Internet is completely changing the way elections are run; they will never replace all of the old practices. However while the Internet may not be the answer all to the problems involved with elections, as the Internet is utilized more and more in future generations, it will definitely have a positive influence.
With the abundance of information available on the Internet, it allows voters to get a well-rounded, informed opinion on the candidates. Furthermore, as blogs and social networking sites continue to gain popularity, they will be a very effective medium for citizens to voice their opinions on issues that are important to them. With the growing number of interactive campaign sites, this will give future generations a better opportunity to take an active role in the election. Most of all, with increasing focus on online fundraising, wealthy elites and lobbyists will lose more of their influence and it will in turn be in that of the American people. With online donations, anyone anywhere can donate to the fund of their choice. Also, on the politicians’ side, being able to anyone in the country with the click of a mouse gives them a considerably easier job of garnering and organizing support. In addition, with online donations it is possible for politicians to run a successful campaign without accepting large donations from persuasive sources. Currently and in past years, it was virtually impossible for a candidate to even be a contender without receiving big money donations. Ron Paul’s ’08 run proves that it is possible to run a grassroots campaign in this day and age, with the proper use of the Internet. Overall, the rise in Internet donations will make the means of running and funding a campaign more honest and will take away a considerable portion of the corporate stranglehold on presidential campaigns.
As the Internet seems to be the final frontier of freedom of speech, it is the last refuge for many activists seeking to spread their message on political atmosphere and their opinions on the election. Web technological advancements are vital to the advancement of the movement. The increasing number of online outlets makes online activism easier and easier and allows more and more people to voice their opinions on the election. With the ability for politicians to receive donations from people all across the country at any time, it will lead to campaign funding by the American people who truly support their candidate. Rich donors who are giving their money in order to influence politicians to adhere to their interests will lose power. The Internet represents all that is democracy and as the larger the influence the Internet has in elections, the more democratic our elections will become.
