Throughout the conception and development of the donation widget, the most common question we received was “What if I don’t want to give my money to a politician on a cause?” The question usually stemmed from givers’ concerns about donating to politicians who supported one … Continue reading ActiveGiver Tech: Customizing Your Donations
Many moons ago, when election season was just beginning, Jeb Bush was favored to be the Republican nominee. He had name recognition, endorsements from respected politicians, and millions of dollars backing his Super PAC. Though it quickly became clear that political connections were a liability in … Continue reading Campaign Expenditures And Winning: It’s Mostly What You’d Expect
Our blog focuses on different subjects every week. This week is a look at the way we structure our internal system, with a focus on Tech.
Here’s a General Overview, for you Non Tech-Nerds out there:
When the local elections occurred in November, ActiveGiver went through a quiet, under-the-radar launch with a small number of Seattle politicians. Our main goal was to see the platform in use, get some donations flowing through the system, and iterate on our current model to maximize its use value for both Givers and politicians. At the time of the launch our data model was a Cause-Campaign paradigm. Causes were the policies or issues that the campaign supported and that Givers donated through. A “campaign” referred to the organization that had been established by a particular politician for a particular race. Politicians have to register new campaigns every time they face a new election, so each campaign that we developed was singular and time-restricted. This model was intuitive but ultimately prohibitive to the platform. Because campaigns were geared toward a specific seat, we could only classify politicians based on the position they were seeking, not the one they currently held. Additionally, our back office infrastructure was developed to support state and federal-level congressional elections. A lack of specification at the local level created situations where positions such as school board member or port commissioner could not be differentiated from one another. Politicians could only have one campaign in our system, so running another campaign in a different election cycle was impossible. We decided to seek a new data model.
After numerous brainstorming sessions, we decided to split Campaigns into three components: Politician, Race, and Campaign. A Politician is now their own entity, able to associate themselves with multiple different campaigns and develop a personal profile with their current position if they are seeking a different elected office. The Race is a description of the position the politician is running for, and can have multiple politicians assigned to it. Each race expires on the date of its election, maintaining the singularity of each unique race. The Campaign registers both a single Politician and Race and handles financial transactions.
Here’s How We Did it, The Tech Version:
Once we had decided on a new model, implementing the changes was straightforward. We started bottom up, first updating the database and converting the existing data to the new format. Next was the Golang data layer, and, finally, the front end. ActiveGiver has two areas of the front end that were affected: the BackOffice (administration panel) and the Campaign Dashboard. The BackOffice is where the content development team works to implement causes and onboard politicians. Because of the small size of our team, we opted to use an Angular.js framework called ng-admin to construct the BackOffice rather than build it ourselves. The ng-admin remodel was painless and was mostly telling ng-admin how to interpret the new JSON data. The Campaign Dashboard is the page that politicians or campaign representatives can log on to to see how their causes are doing, find more causes that they support, or change their information. The Campaign Dashboard was written in-house and is HTML/CSS/Javascript on top of Golang. The remodel was also very painless, but, since we were already altering the code, we decided to implement a framework to create bindings between the data layer and front end. Previously, whenever a campaign representative wanted to update their information, the Campaign Dashboard would have to submit a form and reload the whole page to show the changes. The new binding allows the update request to be sent back and update the current page without having to reload. There are many frameworks that can do this – Angular and Backbone to name two of the most popular, however, we decided on Knockout.js.
Knockout.js is somewhat of a weird beast. In order to create the bindings, Knockout uses Observables, functions that “notify subscribers about changes”. Basically, if two people are trying to have a conversation, rather than talking to each other directly they have to write messages and pass them through a third person. The reason behind this design choice is actually related to compatibility, but can lead to extremely complicated situations if Knockout is used too expansively or too haphazardly. Keeping that in mind, we chose Knockout because of its relatively low impact on the rest of the code. Implementing the bindings required nothing other than adding some basic struct-like/class-like definitions to the javascript and connecting them to the HTML. With the new data model in place and a new webpage about to launch, we’re gearing up for the important election cycles this coming year.
– Colter, Development
The President has, arguably, the most important job in America. By nominating Supreme Court Justices, issuing executive orders, and influencing congress (or at least attempting to), whoever sits in the Oval Office has the opportunity to shape the face of America for generations. Given the … Continue reading Presidential Elections: Nominations
It’s almost that time in the election cycle. The next few months will bring a wave of elections for the 2016 presidential nominees, and with it a slew of confusing selection methodologies – primaries, caucuses, or both, depending on the state. Today we are taking a closer look at one of these methodologies: caucuses. Next week we will look at the presidential nomination process as a whole.1
So what is a caucus? Those of us from primary-only states may have little to no familiarity with the procedure. A caucus is a meeting among voters to nominate a delegate who will advocate for their candidate. These delegates, designated by voters through both caucuses and primaries, cast votes at the party’s national convention to determine the presidential nominee. Caucuses often have multiple tiers, although the policy differs based on the state. Starting at a citizen’s level, voters gather in local venues (schools, community centers, even homes sometimes) to select their delegates. Rather than simply casting their vote, caucus participants group together to support their candidate. The presence of undecided voters may result in a debate about which candidate is the best. Once a winning candidate is determined (there may be one or two depending on how large the precinct is, and some states have a minimum percentage of support required for a candidate to be awarded a delegate), delegates are sent to the next level, where they gather from regions around the state. Those delegates will then select delegates to advocate for their candidate at the next tier, and so on until the National Convention, when the highest tier of delegates will cast their vote for the nominee of their party.
The implementation and structure of caucuses vary extremely between states and parties. The number of tiers, the minimum requirements for delegate award, and the way that the delegates are allocated to candidates all differ across the country. The reason for this can be traced back to the history of presidential nominations. While the constitution covers almost every American issue imaginable, it actually does not prescribe any method for selecting the presidential nominee. Caucus procedure was initially designed by the leadership of the Democratic party in the early 19th century. Democrats selected their nominee through private deliberations among high-ranking party members. The Republican party adopted a similar standard. Over time, protests about the exclusive and secretive nature of the selection process caused both parties to open their caucuses for public participation.2 Today’s nomination process is a hybrid of the 19th century caucus system and a more contemporary primary procedure. But because each party determines how their elections will be run, and each state has different rules for holding elections, the process is still extremely different in each locality.
While caucuses have the advantage of historical precedent, they are by no means a universally favored method of election. Opponents have pointed out that caucuses are often dominated by the more vocal supporters of a specific politician. More moderate voters might be deterred from participating in the process if they do not feel as informed about or motivated by the candidate they support.3 In addition to delegate allocation going to the most dedicated (yet sometimes also marginal) supporters, the caucus process also favors those with more resources. If it is difficult for poorer voters to get to the polls on election day, spending hours at a caucus meeting might be impossible.
Despite the challenges that caucuses propose to present-day politics, the concept of a caucus is, fundamentally, pretty cool. Part of the reason America’s public education system was established was to ensure informed political participation on behalf of the polity. Caucuses offer a compelling form of political engagement based in a history of rigor and scrutiny around our political system. In a caucus voters must advocate for their preferred candidate, which offers a robust political analysis for those still undecided. Caucuses also require collaboration, and ultimately, some form of consensus. It is politics that brings together people, a part of the history of democracy.
At ActiveGiver we conduct most of our work with two distinct groups: campaigns and givers. Our goal is to provide each group with the most positive and efficient experience with ActiveGiver. When we initially invited campaigns to join our platform we realized that the structure of our payment processing system made it difficult for them to join. Most of the friction was due to the fact that, at the time, we only processed payments through a specific type of merchant account. A merchant account is an account that businesses (or in this case campaigns) use to make financial transactions, such as accepting or spending money. If a campaign did not have the merchant account ActiveGiver used, they would have to set up a new one in order to receive donations. Campaigns already have their own primary account for donations, and setting up every additional account creates exponentially more work (requiring attention to compliance, coordination, synchronization, management, fees and more). The feedback that we received when we tested the effectiveness of our platform made it apparent that this was a significant barrier to entry for campaigns. We realized that there was no unique benefit in having a dedicated ActiveGiver account for donations, so we set out to change the way we processed payments. Our goal was to minimize the amount of time and energy it would take for a campaign to be onboarded to our system.
The way we enhanced our platform to solve for this is both straightforward and elegant. Once we identified the problem, we realized that all we needed to do was support payment processors that campaigns already utilize. Now, when a campaign registers with ActiveGiver, we connect their existing payment processor or gateway to our platform. Any donation made through one of ActiveGiver’s causes is deposited directly into campaigns’ existing accounts. We support over 90 payment processors and gateways (think PayPal, Stripe, and Authorize.Net). As a result, we are compatible with 99% of campaigns’ payment processors. If a campaign has a payment processor not yet available through ActiveGiver, our developers will build compatibility with that processor into our platform. This change has made a marked difference in the way campaigns experience ActiveGiver. After a campaign connects their existing payment processor to ActiveGiver they can monitor their donations both through ActiveGiver and their existing merchant account – making it roughly as simple for them as donations made directly through the campaign’s website. Campaigns love the feature so far, and it seems to have solved the biggest hurdle we have had in registering new campaigns with ActiveGiver.
If you have any more questions about how our platform works, please email hi@activegiver.com!
Last Wednesday Night’s GOP debate has been getting a lot of press… about the press. In case you missed the discussion, debate number three of the 2016 Republican primary was moderated by CNBC. The following day, the internet collectively announced who lost: the moderators. Dissent began during the debate itself; a number of Republican candidates criticized the moderators’ questions, asserting that they lacked substance and tried to pit candidates against one another. Thursday Republican National Committee chair Reince Priebus criticized CNBC’s handling of the debate, and conservative commentators blamed the media’s liberal bias for failing to produce relevant questions. When we heard about the backlash against CNBC, we wanted to shed some light on the situation. We started to wonder, who organizes these debates anyway? Who is to blame when they go poorly? We did a little bit of investigating to find out.
The government does not control political debates. These are arranged by parties, which are their own private entities. As such the Republican and Democratic parties establish their own separate debates prior to the nominating conventions. The general election debates are organized by a group called the Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD), which is independent and nonpartisan. Within the RNC, two committees helped determine the structure of the 2016 GOP primary debates. Back in 2014, the RNC “Standing Committee on Rules” established the location and affiliated networks for the debates. The 2016 Debate Committee, a group of 13 Republican National Committeemen and women, worked to arrange the debates according to the Standing Committee’s rules. While the RNC does have significant influence over how the debate is structured, the networks it partners with can choose their selection criteria for, and the number of, candidates who participate in the debate. Media outlets also curate debate questions, which, as noted in yesterday’s debate, can come under criticism.
The lack of official debate oversight can lead to frustration. Debates are important in determining the eventual nominee; poor questioning in a debate may shift the trajectory of a race and even cause a candidate to drop out. In this specific case, debate moderators were criticized for their questions. But parties and the CPD have also been criticized for the way that they organize their debates. Both the Republican and Democratic parties have attempted to control the public’s exposure to candidates by prohibiting them from participating in any non-sanctioned debates. If they do, candidates will not be allowed to participate in official party debates. The DNC was criticized earlier this election cycle when it announced that there would only be 6 democratic debates leading up to the nomination – down from over twenty in 2012. A number of candidates, including Martin O’Malley and Bernie Sanders expressed disappointment that there would not be more debates between candidates. Lawrence Lessig, a little known democratic candidate, criticized the DNC’s debate criteria, which stipulates that in order to participate candidates must poll at least 1% in 3 national polls. Lessig was not invited to participate in any debate, since he has only been featured in one national poll. He dropped out of the race yesterday, citing his lack of access to the debates as his reason.
The RNC and DNC are not the only organizations who have received criticism for their debate regulations. An organization called Level the Playing Field recently filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission against the CPD. The main argument that the group made was that the CPD, which is an independent organization funded by private donations, excludes independent parties and candidates from its debates, and rather than being nonpartisan, works to support only the Democratic and Republican parties. The FEC itself is composed of a group of Democrats and Republicans, but no independents, which potentially complicates its regulatory oversight of the CPD.
The most popular parties in U.S. politics were once in flux, but today the Democratic and Republican parties have a virtual stronghold over viable presidential nominations. A look at this debate skirmish demonstrates just how many hurdles there are for politicians seeking the presidential nomination. The media’s polling and debate mediation, not to mention their coverage of the presidential race, have a huge influence on the nomination process. Likewise, the Republican and Democratic parties’ strong ties to media outlets, and to private groups like the CPD virtually ensure that independent candidates remain out of the public’s sight and mind. As citizens we should certainly question the way that debates are moderated, but we should also question the entire presidential election process. Without any preset standards for information distribution the media, political parties, and private organizations have a strong influence over the public’s knowledge, and ultimately, our behaviors in the voting booth. The sensationalization of political debates is not an isolated issue, but rather, an indicator of the true losers in the election process: the public.
As a platform ActiveGiver is committed to educating and empowering its users. Have a cause you really care about? We will help you voice your concerns through your donation. One of ActiveGiver’s (many) cool features is that you can donate to a cause across many different campaigns. Want more female Republicans in state congresses? You can find that cause on our platform. Donate to the cause and we’ll distribute the funds to the candidates who support it; we’ll also let them know why you donated. But though the efficacy of our donation platform is one of ActiveGiver’s assets, it does raise some questions about the ethics of this kind of political participation. Should you be able to donate to a campaign if the candidate you support doesn’t actually represent you?
Questions about who controls – or should control – American politics are by no means new. If you head back into the annals of American history (dust off that copy of the Federalist Papers from your 9th grade history class) you’ll find the likes of James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, Samuel Adams and Patrick Henry duking it out about how to avoid overwhelming influence from foreign countries, whether to give more power to states or to the central government, and who needs the most protection from oppression. Which is worse, the tyranny of the majority, or the tyranny of a few powerful factions? Either way, the founding fathers’ concern about sovereignty still lies at the core of the American identity. The prospect of outside influences determining the outcome of a political campaign, even if it’s just a few states over, might therefore leave some people with a sour taste in their mouths.
But whether we like it or not, American elections, in reality, are already heavily influenced by individuals and organizations outside of candidates’ districts. Let’s look at an example. In 2014 the most expensive midterm race was the race between Mitch McConnell and Alison Grimes for Kentucky Senate. Over 54 million dollars was spent on this election. McConnell, the incumbent, raised 30 million, and Grimes raised 18 million, each for their individual campaigns. Of those millions of dollars, 4 percent of McConnell’s donations were small (under $200), in comparison to Grimes’ 35 percent. Both candidates raised 57% of their funds from large contributions ($200 to $2700). But McConnell managed to raise 21 percent of his funds from PACs, as opposed to Grimes’ 4 percent. What does that mean? Well, you might look at the ratio of funds and conclude that Grimes had more grassroots support, because she received much of her campaign funding from small donors. As opposed to McConnell, who raised over 1/5th of his funds from PACs, which could have come from anywhere. But if you look at the in state versus out-of-state donors, the profiles of both candidates are extremely similar. McConnell and Grimes both raised less than 1/3 of their funds from within their own state (McConnell’s percentage was 22 to Grimes’ 28). McConnell raised 78 percent of his and Grimes raised 72 percent of her campaign funds from out of state.2 Were special interest groups fighting a proxy war through the Kentucky senate seat? It’s possible. And that doesn’t even account for funds spent by Super PACs entirely independent of the campaigns themselves. Almost 35 million dollars was spent either in support of or opposed to both candidates by outside PACs, many of whom had anonymous donors.
So what does it all mean? As it is, millions of dollars are being spent annually to elect or to block the election of candidates across the country. Are we being oppressed by the deep pockets of specific factions, as some of our founding fathers feared? Or is the increased nationalization of American politics and political campaigns enabling citizens to shape a more accurately represented American polity? At ActiveGiver our inspiration is to give a voice to the people – to empower citizens to shape the best America we possibly can. Whether or not we succeed in that is yet to be determined. If there is one thing for sure, though it’s that this debate about the best way to carry out representative democracy is at the heart of what it means to be American; and an active giver.
activegiver.wordpress.com 