Thanks to thedigitalcampaign.com for this graphic. So far, presidential candidates have spent seven times the amount of money spent in 2008 on digital ads. Online ad spending has doubled as a percentage of campaigns’ budgets over the same time period.

How’s that money being spent? Mostly on campaign emails, but also on display ads, sponsored search terms, audio and video ads. For those of us in the civic space, that means a lot of room for growth.

So I just submitted our application to the Code for America accelerator and I have to say I’m excited it’s finally here. The civic space is worth over $100bn annually according to Code for America and yet there has been a significant lag in political IT development compared to virtually every other sector of the economy. A program like this will jumpstart a type of innovation in this country that is of paramount importance, how does the government actually serve us? This accelerator has the potential to completely revolutionize the relationship between government and technology and I encourage every idealist who’s good with a keypad to apply. Imagine parking spots that tell you when they’re available, city permits fully filed online, disaster coordination programs that let love ones know they’re okay even when the unthinkable happens. This accelerator has the potential to fund 911 or 411 text apps, new platforms for virtual town halls, and new campaign tools that feed on the strength of your ideals and not the weight of your wallet. The possibilities for improving government with technology are, literally, endless. So please, apply with your idea. Because if you get in, you’re not just building a company, you’re building a public service.

Very interesting report and exactly what we expected to see. When we first started developping GovHub we always thought of pseudonyms as a happy middle-ground between the permanent accountability and potential blowback of posting controversial opinions under your real-name and the hateful ignorance generated by too much anonymity. By creating a pseudonym you create a digital representation of what you consider to be your true self. Considering this, it’s no surprise that pseudonym-ed posters are shown to produce both the highest quantity (not afraid to speak for fear their neighbor/bffl could see an opinion they disapprove of), and quality (again, a need to curate their online identity) of posts in online communities.

So when I read this fun little article today about George Clooney being arrested at the Sudanese embassy I was initially intrigued. A famous actor gets arrested for civil disobedience against a brutal regime? At first this seemed like a great scoop so I decided I’d engage in some celebrity stalking when suddenly this catches my eye:

“Also arrested, said Mr Oglivie, were Martin Luther King III, son of the civil rights leader; Massachusetts Democratic Congressman Jim McGovern; Virginia Democratic Congressman Jim Moran; and National Association for the Advancement of Colored People President Ben Jealous.” 

Suddenly, my intrigue turned to virulent disgust. Here is the BBC, arguably the finest news source in the world, and here it was, finally putting the final nail in the casket of global quality journalism. For those still unsure about why I’m so upset consider this. The BBC, unlike its American counterparts in main stream media, has always been held to a higher standard. A full legnth story on Clooney was something I’d expect to see on HLN or CNN in the middle of the day. But here’s the BBC, in a story where two sitting congressmen are arrested (not to say MLK III and Mr. Jealous aren’t also more important than Clooney) and and yet here’s the BBC spending a pithy paragraph on this actually major and important story while taking up another 10 minutes of my time on why the real story is an actor getting arrested. 

So just to sum up, why am I so angry? Because the BBC, one of my sources of truly quality journalism, has instead been reduced to a tabloid that cares more about the arrest of Clooney than a handful of true public figures. 

Shame on you BBC.

Another great article about how diverse the political views of your friends on Facebook really are. Perhaps unsurprisingly, the most vocal participants in the digital debate are the individuals on the two extremes of the political spectrum. Unfortunately, with nearly 2/3rds of the social networking community supposedly not even participating, it’s no wonder that debates in the comments section of statuses have become little more than hyper-polarized shouting matches reminiscent of two Howler monkeys flinging feces at each other.

This, along with many other factors including the often frustrating linear commenting system, is what convinced us that Facebook, while revolutionary, is still quite lacking as an effective tool for political engagement.

This is an interesting article that highlights the problems with candidly sharing your political opinions with people you know using your true identity. The possibility of being ostracized by their peers can preclude some people from feeling comfortable with sharing their true opinions on the issues and in some cases may dissuade them from discussing politics at all. This is yet another piece that has convinced us that we are taking the right route with pseudonym posting (of course you’ll always be allowed to share your true identity if you so desire).