This past week I had the chance to hear a classic Zack Exley rant, disguised as an apology.  Zack may have sold out and started consulting, but before he did that he worked on the John Kerry Internet team.  He and the rest of the Internet staffers screwed up royally.  Thanks to the Internet, they were raking in an extremely large percentage of the overall fundraising, mostly small donations.  At the same time, their requests for more of the candidate’s time were denied.  They may have asked to have Kerry pen his own emails, but it was not enough.  While large donors may have gotten personal attention, the distributed nature of the Internet meant that there was no one effectively lobbying for them.

What Zack admitted, in retrospect, that they should have done was threaten to quit en mass, until they got some love from the candidate.  He had the most interesting story to tell.  Penning emails on his behalf and the campaign manager lacked authenticity and as a result were very boring.  That was the difference from the magic of the Dean campaign.

It is the personal appeals and authenticity that drives much of ActBlue’s success.  It was mcjoan heading on a driving tour of the midwest, or jsw matching funds here at Calitics that drove their totals to $17 million this year.  ActBlue and the rise of the small donor gets some well-deserved love in the LAT today.

After a slow start in the 2004 elections, ActBlue caught on. Its users include the candidates themselves, individuals who want to donate to a particular state or national candidate, and up-and-coming “bundlers” mimicking, on a more modest scale, wealthy fundraisers who squeeze tens of thousands of dollars from friends and associates.

“It is all transparent. It’s all small donations,” DeBergalis said.

We know who is raising and how much they have raised.  They have the ability to place personal appeals right on the site, and much of the donations are driven by emails and blog posts.  Boxer, in particular, was an ActBlue superstar.

Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) used ActBlue to raise $900,000 in 2006, doling it out to Democrats nationally. Candidates also use ActBlue to operate their online fundraising. Edwards makes heavy use of ActBlue, having raised $1.07 million so far in his quest for the Democratic presidential nomination. New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson has raised more than $288,000.

In many instances, individuals set up pages on the ActBlue site and recruit friends to contribute, via credit card, to candidates they tout. ActBlue transmits the money to the selected candidates.

Nate de la Piedra, 24, a political science student at George Mason University in Fairfax, Va., is one such bundler. He figures he has raised $70,000 for state and federal candidates.

“It allows anybody to become a bundler,” de la Piedra said. He envisions the potential: Rather than have a handful of wealthy people raise money for a candidate, “why not have a finance committee of 1,000 people each raising $1,000?”

Edwards and Richardson are funneling most of their donations through ActBlue, though the “Coultercash” was run through a proprietary system. 

As the article makes clear, we are kicking the Republicans rear when it comes to small donor fundraising online.  It has created a new strength in our party, not those rich Hollywood donors giving in big chunks.  And its why blog posts like this on on the FlashReport are so out of touch and inaccurate.

This evidence should help despoil the view that Republicans are the party of the rich. Presently, today’s leftist Dem donors generally come from the idle leisure class. The overwhelming financial support Republicans get are from its middle class supporters.

Yes, there are some really rich Democrats, who shockingly believe that they should pay taxes for the greater good.  There are a heavy concentration of them here in California, which skews the national picture.  One cannot conclude that because there are rich Democratic donors that Republican’s donor base are middle class supporters.  It is the Democrats who are riding the wave of the small donor revolution, which is the opposite of what everyone expected with the passage of McCain-Feingold.  Nobody predicted the rise of online fundraising.

Now that we have it, we need to find ways to leverage it to our advantage, so that candidates are paying real attention to us.  We deserve a seat at the table and online organizing that MoveOn and the blogs are conducting are an expression of that leverage.  We are changing candidate’s behavior, as the Nevada debate campaign proved.  It will not be the last campaign of that nature.  Our blowups will be played out for everyone to watch, not quietly take place behind closed doors.

This is a really frustrating sign for democracy in the nation’s largest state.

Secretary of State Debra Bowen said today that nearly one million fewer people are registered to vote in the state than two years ago. In February 2005 there were 16,628,673 registered. This year’s figure is down to 15,682,358 […]

“The percentage of people who have regsitered to vote vesus the total number of people eligible to register has dropped 5 percentage points in the past two years. This means fewer people are making the critical decisions that affect the lives of 37 million Californians,” Bowen said in a statement accompanying the newest Report of Registration.

We have two parties in California that are fairly dysfunctional.  The gerrymander of 2001 means that relatively few races are contested statewide, and given how adamant Nancy Pelosi and her allies are about keeping things the same, I don’t see that changing in the near future.  When you don’t have the energy and excitement that accompany contested races, you tend to get lower participation rates, and worse, less people even interested in the civic process at all.  The recent post-partisanship and cooperation and progress between Democrats and Republicans Democrats and a Republican governor who wanted to save his job may push the needle on this in the other direction, but I doubt it.  This survey by Binder research shows the real problem with the term limits initiative, the fact that the perception of it as a power grab by elected officials will threaten its viability.

We already know that voters don’t like Schwarzenegger and the Legislature fighting. A survey by David Binder Research in January 2006 showed only 46% support for “adjusting” term limits. Now, that figure is 59% in support of modifying the law through a ballot proposition. That corresponds with a better view of the Legislature and Schwarzenegger. In 2006, 42% of voters said they approved of the job performance of the Legislature, but a year later that has jumped to 49%. Schwarzenegger himself jumped from 53% approval to 68% in the Binder survey.

But it comes with caveats. After the initial questions, the survey-takers explained some of the arguments against the initiative: It would grandfather current members and would permit some lawmakers to easily win re-election at a time when California needs “new blood.” Support for the initiative dropped to 54% of those surveyed, with 35% saying they would vote no and 11% undecided. Anything lower than that – especially without an opposition campaign started yet – would be a major danger sign for any initiative.

I think the universal pre-school initiative was well ahead of that number in a similar poll a year out.  It lost big.

The point is that voters believe that they have little direct voice in choosing their legislators; the gerrymander does it for them.  They view all of the machinations of the legislators with cynicism, expecting that they’re a bunch of people who want to keep power.  They are disconnected from the business in Sacramento by a state media that, by and large, doesn’t report on it.  And the state parties are flaccid, irrelevant to the everyday concerns of citizens and disassociated from the grassroots.

I want this to change.  The future of California as a national bellweather and the source of progressive change depends on it.  That’s why I got active in the party and became a delegate.  The California Democratic Party convention next month is the perfect opportunity to begin to reverse this troubling trend of non-participation.  It’s important to note that there are many in the political class who don’t really want more participation.  A small turnout is one that is quantifiable and easier to manage.  But it’s corrosive to the process of democracy, and ultimately I believe that when people are engaged, progressives win because we have the issues in our favor.

We desperately need the state party to adopt a 58-county strategy and compete in every borough, village and hamlet in California, letting the residents there know that they have a choice.  There’s a second gerrymander at work here beyond the chopping up of legislative districts; there’s the gerrymander created by the CDP choosing not to compete on what they consider unfriendly turf.  Jerry McNerney, Charlie Brown and others ought to have put that fiction to rest.  If we make the effort to fully fund Democratic organizations all over the state, activate core supporters everywhere, and make our case no matter what the environment or the partisan index, I have no doubt we will be successful.  In addition, by becoming a presence at the grassroots level, the CDP will bring voters back into the process again, and help increase voter participation instead of contributing to the decrease.

You can read the resolution promoting a 58-county strategy for California.  I will be at the Santa Monica Democratic Club’s executive meeting tonight asking for their endorsement.  This is absolutely vital to the future of democracy and the progressive movement.