One-Click Funding?

Nancy Scola | March 10, 2010 - 2:10pm | 1 comment | Email This!

One further note on cold hard cash money from last night's session in Manhattan that had to do with the future of the left's grassroots in the Obama era.

A question from the crowd asked just how grassroots groups can get funding these days. Demos' Ben Barber made the point that social movements depend on social capital more than capital capital. Still, money's nice. The Nation's Katrina vanden Heuvel namechecked ActBlue as a model that has worked on the electoral side of Democratic politics (to the tune of $122 million since 2004 and counting). KVH suggested that a similar model might work for grassroots/non-profit groups. You might also see a distributed, small-dollar model work for progressive media outlets -- in a few clicks, for example, you might drop five bucks for the Nation, Talking Points Memo, what have you. (It would, in theory, also work on the right side of the spectrum, though there's no ActBlue equivalent in conservative circles.)

It's worth keeping in mind that, as ActBlue reps will tell you, the point of ActBlue isn't to be the PayPal of progressive politics. It's to, to borrow a phrase from them, normalize the act of small-dollar online giving. It becomes something you do online -- you tweet, check Facebook, email some folks, and make a small donation to the politicians/groups/publications you support.

Reps from ActBlue, though, will also tell you that they're going to be consumed by the election through November, so don't necessarily expect something like that to come out of their shop anytime soon.

Our readers also like:

My candidate is Good!
47 recommended posts
Categories: 

Comments

Essentials for an Evolving Landscape

by CulturalEngineer on March 10, 2010 - 10:14pm

Act Blue is certainly a fine organization. And they are wise to do what they're doing.

In fact I actually sent them an email several months before they implemented their system laying out a similar concept with the following caveat:

As a "contribution home" for the citizen... and to encourage the best crowd wisdom it's imperative that the 'core' platform (or more aptly 'network') be non-partisan and neutral. It's more a landscape THROUGH WHICH the partisan groups can then function.

I was hoping (perhaps vainly) for non-partisan backing for my endeavor.

Fortunately I believe this aspect as well as some of the broader theoretical underpinnings is slowly seeping in and will eventually reach an inevitable tipping point. I believe I'm getting it across to a few here and there.

Scale and network effects make the microtransaction a necessary component of a much needed citizens' utility which has additional essential characteristics.

And while large enterprises have legitimate interests in profit opportunities via online payment systems...

For the Commons transaction, at least... it must be essentially costless. I've been on this donkey for a while. And have quite a bit put into the idea actually.

I saved a screen shot from that "Live Question Tool" from the PDF conference in '08 where I brought up the issue in the hope it would be of interest. As I stated then...

"The difference between a public "space" and a public "square" is that a public square MUST be non-partisan and transparant and it MUST have effective lines of opinion/motivation (Money/Speech/MicroDonation between leaders and citizens.

Such a platform for both practical and theoretical reasons should combine Candidate/Cause and Charity functions (these are civic functions addressing the "Commons"

Check the blog once in a while. People seem to be reading it. Over 4000 views on the FixingBig! PowerPoint.

Do you ever post comments? Though I'm sure I'll find a use for these brilliant words somewhere regardless.

—

Tom Crowl
http://CulturalEngineer.blogspot.com
http://www.Chagora.com/faq.aspx