K Street Cafe

In the week since Senator Obama became President-Elect Obama, much attention has been given to unprecedented role the Internet played in his campaign’s success and how his Administration will use the massive online army it built on the campaign trail to govern from the White House.

Emerging from this speculation seem to be a few main (viable) options for the President Elect to use the assets he built as a candidate (including an email list that Luigi Montanez estimates to include roughly 10-12 million individuals) to help him advance his agenda as the Chief Executive.

K Street Cafe contributor Alan Rosenblatt has written on the possibility of continuing myBarackObama.com’s sense of community alive to turn campaign supporters into policy advocates. There remain a number of legal and logistical questions about how this might unfold – should the online community be housed on WhiteHouse.gov? Even if the legal hurdles are overcome, is the federal government’s IT infrastructure even able to support the necessary functionality? (My friend David Almacy has outlined a number of potential technology obstacles, including regulations that prevent federal web sites from placing cookies on people’s computers). There is also uncertainty about whether rules would allow President Obama to use official government money to encourage people to contact their Members of Congress on key issues? (I remember helping to create one of the first Web sites for a Congressional office in the 1990s and being told we had to remove language that encouraged citizens to contact their own lawmakers in support of piece of legislation that my boss introduced).

Another approach (and one that Micah Sifrey is putting his money on) is myBO supporters to the Democratic National Committee own (similarly structured) online community Partybuilder. At first glance, this option seems to be an obvious solution – but it would likely damage the momentum and vitality of the support network the campaign was able to build. Those 10-12 million addresses are individuals who bought into the Obama brand of Change – not Democratic Party brand. Trying to transform their support of Obama as an individual into allegiance to Democratic party organization would be a mistake.

A final option that has emerged from the option would be to transfer the campaign’s assets to a leadership PAC. If Obama took steps to brand the PAC with his own personal stamp (my colleague Chris Battle suggests the name “Change America PAC”), the personal connection with supporters would be maintained and there will be a logical place for President Obama to turn to for mobilizing support for his agenda. Though John Kerry created his own PAC to maintain control over his campaign’s email list in 2004, there is no precedent for a sitting president to run a political organization that mobilizes citizens targets policy makers to support his own agenda. Obama’s transition team should be mindful of how this model might affect its relationship with Capitol Hill — how will Democratic Senators and Representatives respond when their President encourages citizens to speak out on an issue? If the passion of Obama supporters during the campaign is any indication, a call to action by the President will almost certainly result in overflowing inboxes and incessant phone calls to Hill and District offices.

Regardless of what approach the Administration adopts, Obama’s ultimate decision on how and to what extent he will engage all Americans (supporters and critics alike) has significant implications for organizations with a stake in the White House’s agenda. The unparalleled involvement of everyday people in the 2008 campaign – through both campaigns – makes it very unlikely that American citizens will accept a back seat role for the next four years. We are dealing with a new and unchartered paradigm for debating policy, and advocacy organization have to open and willing to adapt.

As we speculate about what will happen next, advocacy organizations should keep the following in mind:

1) Activists have heightened expectations. The interactivity of the Obama and McCain campaigns have changed citizens’ expectations on how they should be engaged in advocacy efforts. We are moving to a post email blast world – the days of building an email file and directing people to take a particular action are fading fast. Now, activists want a say in how an organization goes about influencing legislation. Advocacy organizations still have a leadership role to fulfill, but they must recognize that citizens expect to be provided with the tools to organize themselves and the ability to participate in the conversation using their own words.

2) Activism has gone mainstream. Politics on the Internet used to be driven by bloggers who fell at the extreme ends of the ideological spectrum, but the 2008 election saw everyday citizens become involved by joining Facebook groups and making online donations. These new activists are not political junkies who fit into the Netroots model of advocacy. This election has energized average citizens to take action. Smart organizations will engage, recruit and mobilize these new mainstream activists.

3) Success requires giving up control. The Obama campaign has proven that it is possible to build a support base from the ground up – but it requires a certain degree of letting go. Organizations and their leadership still resist buying in to a two-way model of engagement because they fear their message will become distorted. But to stay relevant, organizations must be open to participating and giving up complete and total control.