I totally agree that their marketing is the purest bullshit. I would point out that, though, that the realy money in a canvass operation comes from following-up with people who donate at the door. The direct mail and phone solicitation that comes after the donor is acquired is where the client org makes its cash.
I also think it is sad that groups don't have their own field capacity, which is an example of the decline of membership-based organizations and the decline of party organizations in the wake of the ascendancy of mass media.
Building your own field capacity requires the creation of a certain internal culture and the investment of a lot of time and effort with very little front-end payoff. Not to mention the people with the skills to do real organizing are few unless you create your own, which takes a long time.
I'm not excusing, so much as lamenting and pointing out why it doesn't happen. But until it does The Fund is going to rule the roost for field contacts whether they call it organizing or canvassing.
Unless for some reason progressives thought it would make sense to invest in expanding the capacity of groups like ACORN and the Sierra Club and USAction and promote union organizing. And maybe bringing back the Dem party precinct leader infrastructure. Then you wouldn't have to worry about buying field capacity because you would already have it. But its a long-term commitment and that doesn't work well in an environment dominated by 2-year election cycles.
Something to think about.
I want to clarify, after Alex's comment, that it does seem like the DNC's 50 State Strategy is a big step into the right direction vis a vis truly grounded, long-term organizing. Bizarre as jasmine's comment below is, that Dean-NYT mag article was actually on my mind all week--Dean is funneling money out of the central party, out of Washington, and into the party presence in the states.
Now, we've talked plenty about GCI's DNC canvass already - should the DNC be running a canvass in addition to the 50 State Strategy? Well, yeah I think it's potentially a good complement. But the GCI/Fund model is problematic in the partisan, electoral context, fundamentally so: it's a long-term base-building effort being sold (to canvassers and donors alike) as a short-term action plan to TAKE BACK CONGRESS. That's a big contradiction; furthermore, it defines GCI's managerial environment, and exacerbates the Fund model's flaws.
The canvass could be a positive complement for the 50 State Strategy -- if it was also more about party advocacy, and about making positive contributions to the local and state infrastructure. And, of course, if it upheld the basic Democratic Party values of minimum wage and labor rights.
There are definately ways in which a canvass can augment a long-term stragety to build capacity and infrastrucutre. USAction affiliates have done this and I know about an effort in suburban Philly by ACORN that does something similar.
I agree that it is about the goals going in and about ensuring that it supports efforts that build something real and long-lasting, rather than just building a donor list (which is importnat, don't get me wrong).
The key here is that a FUnd-style canvass is a good tactic to use in a larger startegy. Not a strategy in and of itself.
Well said.
I would point out that, though, that the realy money in a canvass operation comes from following-up with people who donate at the door. The direct mail and phone solicitation that comes after the donor is acquired is where the client org makes its cash.
I have seen many stupid ponzi schemes in my life, but this one really takes the cake. I have a bridge in lower Manhattan that I want to sell whomever is paying for this contract at the DNC.
Come to think of it, we're all getting suckered.
Alex, I think we agree on a lot of the macro-stuff related to the use of Fund-style canvassing in a larger progressive movement context, but I think the history of canvassing over the last 30 years shows it to be a very cost-effective way of acquiring a donor list.
If you really sat down and ran the numbers I don't think a marketing firm would come close to working out.
I'm also distressed by your characterization of the canvass as a pyramid scheme. In a Ponzi scheme, the new investors coming in pay for the old investors cashing out until it collapses. A canvass acquires names for a list that are then used for a variety of fundraising appeals. This is a sound fundraising technique (the post-acquisition appeals) used by non-profits across the country, politically oriented or not. In no place are new donations used to cash out old donors.
IMHO opinion the most damaging critiques against the Fund and GCI are the management model and the idea that generations of potential progressive activists are being burned. I'd also say that its a damning critique to point out how this isn't really organizing, but that would require the people who contrat with the fund to actually understand what organizing is in the first place, which it's pretty clear they don't, otherwise they wouldn't be contracting with them in the first place.
Sorry to distress you Nathan, but I'll stick by my characterization, though in this case it's a pyramid scheme that preys upon idealistic young activist. In this case I am not saying that the monetary side of the canvass is the scheme, though I still have yet to see any hard data that these schemes help MoveOn and the DNC financially (for other groups, such as Greenpiece and the Save the Children campaign that I see everywhere I turn, that don't depend upon local organizing then I might be persuaded to see the benefits), while I have seen plenty of evidence of the terrible toll they take on our party. The pyramid part of this scam is the "enticing" young activists in, chewing them up/exploiting the hell out of them, and spitting them out, all in the name of "making a difference". Yes, some people might climb up the pyramid, but the vast majority are going to leave with only a sore rear end.
I'll say it again- this is NOT a "sound fundraising technique" when it is not part of any real movement (which I don't really think that you disagree with). There are plenty of local political groups, doing real field work, that could use the money a lot more than either GCI or MoveOn/DNC. The fact is that MoveOn/DNC/GCI make it harder for local groups, those groups they purport to help.
Now- if a canvass is part of a larger campaign, then I can see the value, but the activities of MoveOn and DNC done through GCI do not qualify as belonging to a larger campaign, except in the most remote/abstract way.
The last thing that I would point out is this:
I think the history of canvassing over the last 30 years shows it to be a very cost-effective way of acquiring a donor list.
Coincidence? I think not.
It's time to scare the foxes out of the henhouse, it's time to purge the PIRGS from the party!
"The last thing that I would point out is this:
Hmmm. What else has characterized the left over that same exact period? Stagnation. Decline. Destruction of labor/environmental/consumer protections. Lossing (over and over).
It's time to scare the foxes out of the henhouse, it's time to purge the PIRGS from the party!"
Alex, I'm pretty sure we're mostly on the same page here. I definately agree that a canvass without a larger strategy is potentially dangerous to a progressive movement. I agree that The Fund's model does a poor job of cultivating progressive activists.
I'm not sure I'm a partisan of the thought that this is therefore the strangulation of progressive politics, so much as it is a symptom of a larger abandonment of organizing and civic engagement in the post-CRM and anti-war movement world.
But this last part, that I quoted above (sorry I'm so html illiterate that I can't make the cool snippet box everyone else uses), I just have to say "correlation is not causation".
First, I only said 30 years because this kind of mass fundraising used across the country has only really been done for the last 30-40 years.
Second, the collapse of organizing is the result of a number of different trends including the rise of mass media and direct mail advertising for candidates, the rise of television itself, the decline of unions, and the collapse of 1950's and 1960's membership groups that fed the 1960's movements. I'd also throw in the creation of the 501c3 organization as a result of the 1956 revision to the tax code and the post 1974 reforms of the political money system. It ain't just the rise of canvassing.
'Nuff said. We're basically arguing about commas when we agree on the chapter.
Agree on all your points, including the fact that canvassing didn't cause the decline of the left. I would just amend my statement above a bit: the correlation of the time-periods between the rise of the PIRG model and the decline of the left is a bit too striking to ignore, but that decline has many parents...
Nuff said.
Thanks!
