Like any worthwhile idea these days, this one started its life as a tweet:

This week, a new site called Twollars hit the scene, a Twitter-based fundraising solution for charities. Upon reading about it, I once again thought about using Twitter as an engine for small dollar donations to political campaigns. Similar services like Tipjoy and Twitpay have sprung up, focused around the idea that Twitter is a natural fit for micropayments.
One of the great things about Twitter, and its API, is that it promotes the rapid development of innovative applications on top of it. For example, Twitpay was created over the course of a weekend. At a recent Ruby on Rails conference, a full-blown Twitter-based application was live-coded over the course of one freakin’ hour.
So Twitter isn’t just a great tool, it’s a great platform to build on. Now, we all know for a fact that conservatives dominate Twitter (and that the Left should be nervous). But so far, all the Right has built on top of Twitter is a lame leaderboard. And attempts to mirror ActBlue have not been successful.
Because I just can’t stand to see a good idea go unimplemented, I’d like to share with you a step-by-step description of how a Twitter political fundraising engine could be built, and how much it would cost. Let’s call it Conservatwiv. SPOILER ALERT: It would be really easy, and relatively inexpensive.
The first thing to do when building an application is to come up with a list of specifications, or specs. I prefer writing out user stories and mocking up wireframes, but for the sake of brevity, a few bullet points will do:

A true spec document would take hours to produce, and should be done by an experienced web development team that charges no less than $150 per hour. If they’re really good, they will have already built some Twitter apps. Surprised by that hourly rate? You shouldn’t be. If you’re paying significantly less than $150/hr for your custom development needs, you’re doing it wrong.
Time for Specs, User Stories, and Wireframes: 15 hours. Cost: $2,250.
Thanks to Twitter’s OAuth API, user accounts can be completely handled through Twitter. This means no password ever has to be stored at Conservatwiv. After we have basic user accounts, the Activist and Committee types can be built out, and the appropriate forms and validations created.
Time for OAuth integration and User accounts: 12 hours. Cost: $1,800.
Then, we need to think about how we get money from the Activists and to the Committees. We should use an existing payment service instead of attempting to charge credit cards ourselves. PayPal, Google Checkout, and Amazon Payments all do this well, and hooking into them is easy.
Time for third-party payment service integration: 12 hours. Cost: $1,800.
Lastly for the backend, we need to create the weekly reporting mechanism that tallies the amounts and tells us how much money to write on each check at the end of the week. Time: 5 hours. Cost: $750.
Because Conservatwiv’s main user interface is simply a properly formatted tweet, this part is incredibly easy. Simply watch the all the user tweets coming in and create contribution records as needed.
Time for Tweet Parser: 5 hours. Cost: $750.
Design isn’t my specialty, so I won’t be sharing much in the way of concrete examples. I did spend about 10 minutes whipping up a sufficiently friendly logo:

Credit to Chris Wallace for the bird icon.
A designer should also cost $150/hr, and should deliver full mocks of the home page, setup screens for the Activist and Committee user types, and the payment administration interface. Bonus points go to a designer who can package up clean HTML+CSS for the site. Total design time: 15 hours. Cost: $2,250
There you have it. With a competent development shop, this can be built right now for under $10,000 within two weeks. Will the tech-savvy Right finally make the investments they need to truly innovate? Or have they drowned underneath the constant stream of #TCOT, suffocated by the weight of a million teabags? If Twitter truly is a revolutionary tool for the Right, a $10K investment today should yield a massive return on investment in the 2010 cycle.
Disclaimer: I am not an attorney, nor do I specialize in FEC law. Do not start a fundraising operation without legal counsel!
Comments
Slatecard v. ActBlue
@LuigiMontanez -
As the co-founder of Slatecard I take issue with this comment which links up to Slatecard.com: "And attempts to mirror ActBlue have not been successful."
Success, I guess, is in the eye of the beholder. If you want to compare apples-to-apples as I've consistently urged folks in the media to do, Slatecard isn't too far behind ActBlue and it's in the process of re-launching as we speak. Further, Slatecard edged out competition from other right-of-center outfits.
Apples-to-apples...
In its inaugural election cycle (2004), ActBlue raised a total of $791K (as reported by the WSJ).
In Slatecard's inaugural cycle (2008), we raised nearly $650K.
Slatecard is indeed "closed" to the public as we're developing the new version and assembling the team but it's still up-and-running for those candidates, like grassroots favorite U.S. Sen. Jim DeMint, who continue to use it.
BTW - using Twitter to raise money has already been implemented on the Right by Justin Hart. Google it.
________________________________________
David All
http://davidallgroup.com
http://techRepublican.com
http://slatecard.com
________________________________________
2008 v. 2004 environments
@DavidAll -
I can get behind the notion that Slatecard, raising $650K last cycle, was in fact a success on its own merits. Any entity raising that much money certainly must be considered successful. But, I still think that when compared with ActBlue, even the ActBlue of 2004, Slatecard cannot be considered successful.
The reason? It has to do with a built-in multiplier effect between cycles, evident in all metrics in the world of politics and technology. The Slatecard of 2008 raised 82% of the ActBlue of 2004. If Barack Obama's online fundraising, or email list size, was only 82% of John Kerry's in 2004, that would certainly not be a success. Even if comparing the losing campaign of John Edwards in 2008 to the losing but "successful" campaign of Howard Dean in 2004, Edwards significantly outraised Dean.
Slatecard should have easily matched and exceeded the ActBlue of 2004. I believe high-flying Dean's total haul for 2004 was around $50 million, while the ho-hum Edwards camp raised around $66 million for his 2008 primary. The political environment changed so drastically between 2008 and 2004, in the direction of much larger numbers, that I don't think comparing ActBlue in 2004 to Slatecard in 2008 is actually apples to apples.
As for Justin Hart, I did find his Tweet for Chuck effort:
http://tweetforchuck.com/tweet2/
But that example is using Twitter to spread a message rather than to be the engine for fundraising. You donate on one system, then optionally use Twitter to connect to others afterwards. Not really the same thing.
Leftmost Bit
technology isn't really the point
The underlying assumption in your blog post is that Act Blue is a triumph of technology. It isn't. Act Blue was successful because (1) it was released to a large, fired up progressive community that was ready to put its money where its mouth was and (2) it got some big candidates/PACs/bloggers to use the tool as their primary fundraising mechanism.
Of course I think I'm making your point for you, since your post is clearly written with a deep skepticism of what conservatives are (or aren't) accomplishing on Twitter.
http://www.bivingsreport.com