In this diary, I offer some suggestions and next steps for the new project Kos proposed last night:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/2/6/65751/26945
And, I'd love to have feedback on this.
One concern raised a few times in last night's thread was that locals might be turned off by ads generated by national folks. A solution might be to make sure that the ads attack the Republican incumbent member of Congress, but do not mention the Democratic challenger. That way the Democrat would stay clean and positive (something it seems voters really like). If there is any reaction locally to national people getting involved in their affairs, they are more likely to blame the subject of the ads for inviting this interference. And, of course, the attacks should all be based on facts, and not be random smears, so no ethical charges or others are brought (fairly) against the national or local effort.
But, this solution conflicts with another suggestion repeated a few times last night: that the ads should end with a link to how to contribute to the campaign of the Democratic challenger. At least one poster noted that this would be "the real revolution."
An alternative would be to have two "campaigns" attached to each targeted race--a campaign of attack ads and a fundraising campaign (like we've done on Kos with Stephanie Herseth and like DFA did for Boswell). Or these two campaigns could be done by "sister" groups - one group makes ads and another group raises money, but the two groups share info on which races to target and why (information that will motivate donors as well as the creative folks who make the ads).
The problem with this second solution is that it doesn't give locals a way to donate to their local Democratic challenger. Instead, people nationally will be contributing. Money is money regardless of the source, but a local who gives money to a candidate becomes a more committed voter and possibly activist (door-to-door, telling neighbors, etc.). A candidate who develops a list of local donors might be able to return to those same donors over the years for money or other help. I doubt the national donors will have that kind of interest in the candidate.
So, again, I have a suggested solution. It's a hybrid of two suggestions I've seen in other Kos diaries ([1] Camp Wellstone - training for progressive activists and candidates, and [2] a website for all Congressional candidates where each has a blog, etc.). Here's the idea: There could be a training program on e-democracy for targeted Democratic challengers. This program would teach (and maybe provide a template for) candidates (or their campaign managers or other aides) how to build a website with a local blog, a way of taking online contributions, and maybe a displayed measurement of contributions (e.g., thermometer, bat, hammer, whatever). The program would include the importance of two-way feedback through the blog and frequently-updated engaging content on the blog in order to build a strong online community of support. The program could include ways to get the online community to act (write letters to the editor, host house parties with neighbors, get out the vote, etc.). The training program would also include suggestions for how to promote the website and drive traffic to the site from locals.
To summarize, this overall effort would identify Congressional races to target for national help. Information about the incumbent Republican would be posted, along with rules of an ad contest (deadline, format, etc.)--- this information would motivate creative types to want to get the Republican out of office, and it would be sufficient to generate some ideas for the attack ads. A rule would be that no ad entered in the contest could mention the Democratic challenger (to ensure the Democrat is never connected with this ad, even if someone broadcasts an ad that was simply submitted to the contest but not chosen).
While the creative folks are working on ads, the Democratic challenger goes through a training program (An online course? Individualized training by phone and email? Someone flies out to meet with the candidate, or vice versa?). All ads submitted for this particular race would be voted upon by members of this overall effort (question: how to register members so this effort isn't sabotaged? -- though MoveOn didn't seem to have any problems with this, but the key may be to encourage large participation in the vote so anyone with ulterior motives becomes too marginal in the overall vote).
Once a final ad is selected, we'd enter the fundraising phase. This would include raising money to place the ad, and raising money directly for the Democratic challenger. (Meanwhile, the Democratic challenger is also raising money locally, and is keeping track in a database of which donors are local and which ones are national.)
A nice side effect of programs to train candidates around the country in e-democracy tools is that the Democratic Party grassroots would grow in all these local areas, and these same new local activists are also likely to get out the vote in the presidential race.
Since Kos mentioned that he is only interested in Internet ads (flash ads) and not TV or radio due to legal concerns (the exemption on campaign ads on the Internet), the ads and the local candidate websites would only reach those locals who are online. That makes it less of a "missed opportunity" not to mention contributing to the Democratic challenger at the end of the attack ad. The Democratic challenger could still promote a campaign website on the same places as the attack ad (making it somewhat likely that someone would go from not liking the targeted incumbent to finding a candidate they do like), but not have the Democratic candidate tied to the attack ad at all.
Your thoughts?