George,

Campaigns and candidates strive for investment. This comes in quite a few ways. First and most obvious is monetary, in the form of contributions--although every candidate will tell you that they would prefer a donation to an investment any day, because the term investment implies some sort of return down the road.

Second is the investment of time. Volunteers come into offices, make phone calls, write letters and more.

Investments are important for a number of reasons; first campaigns need money to exist. It's unfortunate but it's true. In an effort to pinch pennies, the volunteer hours make up for paid staff hours and therefore are also important. Volunteer time also speaks strongly about a candidate and the dedication of those who believe in him or her. If people are willing to give up their time to help the candidate get elected this impresses upon undecided voters the quality of the candidate. Also, the dedication and opinions of one's friends and neighbors curry more favor than those of a well-intentioned, although inherently biased, campaign staffer.

I however spend every waking minute trying to make sure that voters do in fact vote. A potential voter may love my candidate more than their own children, may be decidedly lukewarm on them, or may merely support them purely because they hate the opponent more; but in the end if they don't vote it doesn't matter who they liked or how much.

And here is where investment plays its biggest role in my opinion. People that make an investment in a campaign have an incentive to vote. Their investment gives them a stake in the campaign and candidate. It's their money/time up there for election, their fortunes are now married to the candidate's. I know that this sounds a bit dramatic but for anyone who's attended a victory party or its less-enjoyable counterpart, they can tell you that it's usually the staff, and especially the volunteers, that take the news hardest or bask in the victory most. The candidates, elated or disappointed as they may be, don't hold a candle on the emotional front to the best volunteers who have slaved away countless hours when election night rolls around.

The blog offers a new kind of investment, and more so, an investment that requires less sacrifice but is none the less very legitimate. The blogger has posted their name along with their words on the campaign's website, the ever-increasing public face of the campaign and candidate. A frequent blogger, from the comfort of their own home, without any monetary cost to themselves, have begun investing themselves in the campaign by contributing their insights, their emotions, their feelings and sometimes even their ideas. Based on the investment theory (mind you I've seen no studies to back this up and may be proven wrong), I would wager that people that blog on campaign websites regularly (once a week or more) also have a higher voter turnout rate than American society at large. (Again, take this last statement with a grain of salt until studies have shown conclusive results. A question for someone to seriously study would be: "ARE BLOGGERS VOTERS?")

Ideas, this last contribution of bloggers I listed above, also shows one of the benefits a blog brings to campaigns. Most, if not all actions a campaign takes are aimed at connecting with voters. They try to find a message that resonates, they try to plan events that will bring in potential voters (sometimes using spaghetti, ice cream or pancakes as unwitting accomplices), and they write speeches that speak to voters' regional interests. Campaigns also though have a certain science to them. Time tested methods that are used on every campaign. It can be hard for the campaign staff to "think outside the box" and despite their best efforts, the out of district (in many cases out of state) staffer could benefit from the insight of a blogger that has lived in the area for a long time. This is nothing new, as campaigns regularly seek out "locals" for input but the blog gives another opportunity for people to put their two cents in, while adding the safety and security of the online world. If you're looking for something that resonates with voters, campaigns may look to the blog for actual voter input.

Next is the place of blogs in fundraising. The Howard Dean campaign brought the power of Internet fundraising to unprecedented levels. (for all that saw "blog" in my title and were then waiting to see how long it took to see the words "Howard Dean", it was 736 words, counting the title.) A very small percentage of Americans donate money to campaigns, and this is for many reasons. One of these (I would also say that this is certainly not the top reason for people not donating) is that they don't feel that they get anything in return. This is why contributions to political campaigns need to be seen as donations by the contributors, and not investments. However, with a blog, it gives another opportunity for the campaign to interact with their donors. Joe Trippi was said to spend countless hours on the blog, talking with bloggers (many who were also contributors). For those few moments, the lowly blogger had the ear of the national campaign manager. Which is no small thing for people who want to feel like they get a return on their investment.

If it hasn't already been done, I think that we'll begin to see password blogs for contributors. The $1,000-a-plate fundraisers might find a lower grade equivalent of a $50 blog group, where you can blog with the candidate for a half hour through a password you receive for your donation. This is something a candidate can do from practically anywhere these days--in the car, on an airplane, even while making fundraising calls.

This brings us to another of the blogs uses: Candidate blogs. These give the candidates another forum to interact with their voters and potential voters. The medium is less formal which can benefit candidates, especially candidates running for national offices (i.e.: President) or statewide offices in large states where many voters will not get the chance to see them in person. The informal nature of the blog serves to make voters feel as if they are "closer" to the candidate, as if they have access to them that is not granted to all people, even if it is a public blog. As blog writings are seldom the topic of new stories (although this may very well change in the near future), the blog is an opportunity for the candidate to act more like an everyday person speaking off the cuff and less like a candidate constantly running for office (with the public perception of them being heavily scripted.)

So to quickly sum up the positives of the blog as I see them, we have: investment as a form of voter mobilization, forum for voter input, fundraising and candidate personalization. Added to these is the obvious use of blogs to connect voters (i.e.: like-minded individuals who have gravitated to the same candidate) so that they are able to interact with each other, see they are not alone in supporting candidate X and further reinforce their choice, always a good thing.

Next, to touch on a few of the negatives that I perceive in the blogs. First concerns controlling the message of a campaign. Most Americans do not devote a significant part of their day to politics. Most do not scour the newspapers, 24-hour news channels, and campaign press releases. Most are not, well, us. Anyone reading this site now has more than a fleeting interest in politics. Campaigns therefore are very careful in making sure that they have a "message" that is short, sweet, and easily digestible for the average, uninterested voter. The campaign's job is partially to make sure that they get this message out to their potential voters. Campaigns and candidates of course have opinions and ideas on many, many issues. Yet a campaign cannot throw all that information at the average voter who may be able to find 5 minutes a week to devote to politics. The average voter understandably has other things that are more deserving of their time such as their spouse, their kids, their job, their community groups, their parents, their hobbies, their sports teams and in this particular voter's case - reality TV shows.

It is very important for a campaign not to dilute its message. In some ways, the average voter who hears a different thing associated with the candidate each time they see their ads or read their literature perceives a candidate that stands for too much at one time, as not standing for anything. Blogs can be dangerous in this way. Those who blog on sites will each have their own agenda and that agenda can and will be seen in their postings. Candidates go to great effort to get the average voter to look at their websites, they must therefore be certain that if the voter does get to the website, they get the right message. If they go to the blog, the campaign loses the ability to control that message. Even though each blog post might be talking up a different, positive aspect of the candidate. The average voter's visit to the campaign website may be a one-time event so it is necessary that the official campaign message be conveyed. If the blog is the only thing the voter sees, the message could be lost and the trip to the site wasted. This problem can be curtailed to a good degree by making sure that the blog is not the first thing that a person sees on the website. Perhaps even advisable to require multiple clicks to find the blog, so dedicated supporters can find it and bookmark it, but first timers to the site will first surf the issues and biography portions of the site, where the message can be controlled.

A second negative can be the content of blog posts. I must add in that I don't have experience on the web side campaigns and I say this because I don't know to what degree, if any, the blog posts are edited or censored. I'm going on the premise that the posts aren't heavily censured or edited because this would not be in the spirit of blogs and the Internet at large. In this case, blog posts that may look rather tame to most people could turn others off. In particular, candidates need to attract and add independents and moderates to their support base. Blog posts by party/candidate hard-liners that bash the other party or the opponent can turn these independents and moderates off to the campaign and the candidate if they perceive these few bloggers to be the candidate's base. This can be especially true in primary races where Democrats or Republicans seldom enjoy seeing their party tear itself apart. Campaigns must be careful that the blog posts, which appear on THEIR website are, to at least a small degree, things that they stand behind because no matter how many disclaimers they add, perception speaks volumes.

The last negative that I would like to highlight is something that may be a personal pet peeve of mine as an organizer. This is the degree to which bloggers translate into more tangible assistance to a campaign. I must first say that I recognize that no one need ever volunteer for a campaign. There is a special place in heaven for campaign volunteers and I appreciate everyone who has ever helped me on any campaign I've worked on and regardless the side of the aisle, volunteers are great people to get involved in America's political system out of the goodness of their hearts. Volunteers also are a very powerful asset to a campaign, which is why campaigns spend money to recruit these volunteers and to ensure they are well taken care of and best utilized. Volunteers recruiting other people to support the candidate or to volunteer are the best things that they can do. I believe that if a person wants to get involved in the campaign and they decide to blog instead of to make personal phone calls or write personal letters, they have been wasted as a volunteer. Mind you, I'd rather have people blog than do nothing at all. However, if someone is willing to help out, I could give a very long list of things I'd prefer them to do, blogging would be quite low on that list. Volunteers are often called upon to help out on campaigns. For an example, I'll say to help staff and serve at a pancake breakfast with the candidate. I know that if I ask a volunteer face to face and they say yes, I can reasonably count on them to show up. If I call someone on the phone that I've never met face to face and they tell me they'll help. There's a better than 50/50 chance that they'll show up. If I e-mail someone or use a blog post and they respond via e-mail or blog post that they'll help, my confidence is not very high in them showing up based on that contact alone.

In short, the same anonymity that gave them the confidence to bear their opinions and comments on the blog also inoculates them, because when all is said and done, a blog post is just that. It may in some ways be a high tech scribble on a bathroom wall that would never had been written if there was anyone there to see it done.

Gus Gustafson (electronic mail, March 19, 2004)

Gus Gustafson is presently working for the Knowles campaign for U.S. Senate in Alaska. He recently worked for the Clark for President campaign in Charlottesville.