• by Nick Desai , June 12, 2007

I recently read an editorial in the Los Angeles Times about the Federal Campaign Fund (the money generated from people who elect to check the relevant box on their tax returns), and the fact that it could only provide about $75 million to the presidential nominee from each major party.

Yes, you detect sarcasm! The article grabbed my attention, because it discussed how candidates are actually turning down this money because it requires fundraising limits for matching funds, and that $75M plus the matching money won't be enough to win in 2008.

"Wow," you might think. "Really? $150 million is NOT enough money?" The article continued to say that the Fund needs to grow to be meaningful for the two parties and their candidates.

The story got me thinking about the election process in the United States, in the post-You-Tube, anyone-can-post-a-video-and-a-million-people-will-watch-it world, and the impact positive or otherwise the Internet (and Web2.0, specifically) can have on candidates, elections and by extension, this country.

First, let me state a truism: a VAST majority of people I talk with agree that the two-party system no longer serves the needs of millions of Americans. The strength and character of this country is in its incredible diversity -- from geography to ethnicity, to income levels, viewpoints, TV, movie and music preferences, eating habits, educational levels, opinions, concerns and so much more.

The idea that two parties can basically sum up what most of us think so that we belong in either box A or box B is absurd. So many people I talk to are picking between whom they consider to be the "lesser of two evils," rather than a candidate they truly want to get behind.

But, it's also a fact that the success of the two-party system depends almost entirely on money. The two major parties are designed to raise money, and that money is increasingly coming from special interest groups either corporations or groups disguised as political action committees (PACs) organizations concerned about a single issue they're sure their candidate will support.

Money has been the limiting factor for all other struggling parties, and for independents who present their views independent of a party, to succeed. That is because money equals media, and media equals exposure. Let¹s consider the last candidate outside the two-party system to get a meaningful vote in a presidential election, Ross Perot. Perot's financial resources enabled him to attract the media.

Today, however, we live in a world where media is free to all. Television may not be free (I'll come to that in a moment), but the Internet is. Anyone can create a video and post it to YouTube. Anyone can create a profile on MySpace.com and build a network of "friends." And, anyone can use a mobile social media application to proliferate those videos to the cell phone for instantaneous, personal communication with a target audience.

What this means is that a candidate can distribute media to an interested audience, and use that audience to super-distribute their message for them even further, virally and very cost-effectively. I think that a few kinds of technologies and tools bear specific mention.

First, there is the concept of the online social network. Often, we see ads in which a candidate is supported by a union or interest group. But, online social networks allow us to find others of truly like mind. Does everyone in a teacher's union believe in what the union itself represents? Of course not. So, online social networks allow groups to form around opinions, causes, issues or even an overall platform.

Second, there are online video applications like YouTube, which allow anyone to have 15 seconds of fame through the use of rich media. It takes time and money to market a video, but it can be done and has been done effectively by lots of unknowns it just hasn't been done yet by politicians. Remember LonelyGirl15?

A quick side note: It's imperative to remember that reaching consumers in this age of new media requires two things. First, it calls for a clear understanding of how to deliver your message. This isn't about taking the same 30-second TV spot and putting it on YouTube. Rather, it's about reaching the online demographic all of us in the way we are open to being reached: ONLINE. Making content funny or informative is key, and interactivity is a must.

Second, you may think, "The base is the base," with evangelicals on the right and urban liberals on the left. But, let's remember that every U.S. citizen over 18 can vote. And they do! They just do it on American Idol. You don't have to cheapen the process, just elevate it to touch all the constituents. And not just those who you think will vote.

Back to technologies. The third and in my view, the most important, is the mobile phone. Because our mobile phones are always with us, and now capable of communicating voice, text, pictures and video, it is the only way to reach everyone personally and immediately.

Consider a text message-based poll conducted by a new, yet unknown candidate. Answer five simple questions -- one a day over five days -- and the candidate will tell you if they are right for you. The participation would be enormous and peoples' credibility in being able to answer questions to easily and conveniently discover whether a candidate is right for them would make an impact for both the candidate and the voter.

Imagine a candidate sending a short video to a targeted, voluntary audience, delivered to them right on their phones. Each recipient could be asked, right then, to enter three cell phone numbers of friends that might also enjoy that video, and then those friends could also receive it. Then, consider the implications of being able to distribute Election Day "Get out and vote!" reminders.

Of course, such campaigns would have to be well-planned and avoid SPAM. But, those are just minor details. Candidates now have the power to reach an elective audience, who can extend that audience even further, at no cost.

These technologies enable upstarts to compete side-by-side online and on a mobile phone screen with the two major parties. This is exactly what happens in e-commerce; any small store with a product people want, an understanding of online marketing, and incredible tenacity can build an e-store.

So, let's build the e-candidate. The time has come.

Now, sure, the two major parties still have tons of money for old-fashioned campaigning and for TV and media. But, the e-candidate can get his start online and then he too can raise money, right? At some point, if you have a following, people will follow. If they don't, then no technology can help you. And yes, it's still harder for the e-candidate from the Social Media Party.

Well, good, because it's supposed to be hard! Isn't it always more difficult for the start-up company, candidate or idea? Now, however, the tools finally exist to give the e-candidate a fighting chance. Let's have an election where an independent gets 10% of the total vote, and 35% of the voters under 35!

All of this brings me back to the Federal Campaign Fund. I think it's time that the U.S. government (we the people, that is) take that money, but not to help the entrenched who snub their noses at ONLY $75 million. Instead, let's use it to create traditional broadcast channels (a new C-SPAN, if you will) where candidates who get some minimum views online of their videos, get airtime.

Make a video, get 100K views, get airtime on this non-partisan, taxpayer-funded channel. The government should foster the diversity that is America to become part of the political arena.

To close, I think 2008 will be a very interesting election for several reasons. One will be the yet-to-be-discovered, oh-my-God-did-you-see-that-candidate-do-that type of online video we'll all watch and talk about.

That's the "e-candidate." Good luck to him - or her.