From the ActBlue Blog…

Fundraising pages are the most important component of ActBlue: the vast majority of visitors to the site arrive directly on a fundraising page because a friend, an organization, or a campaign has channeled them there.  We pride ourselves on these pages’ simplicity: donors can show up, immediately understand what’s going on, and contribute with no distracting bells and whistles. 

But we harbor a dirty secret (or, not-so-secret if you’ve been with us a while).

Over the past three years, $22 million raised, and 200,000+ donors, these pages haven’t actually changed all that much.  For a bit of nostalgia, check out the DailyKos dozen page as it looked back at the end of 2004 (compare to the same page with today’s look).  Yeah, the site framework has changed a little, but the makeup of the fundraising pages is remarkably similar.

Next week, all that is about to change.

Motivated by a strong sense that we could do better (and by a desire to burn down HTML code approaching its second anniversary), a few weeks ago we got to work putting together a new design with the help of the excellent Steve Ofner of Liberal Art.  The result is the new design that that you see at right.  (Click the image for a full-size mockup.)

In putting the new design together we had several aims:

• A sharper, more dynamic look & feel
• A simpler user experience
• A clearer presentation of the dollar and donor numbers
• A more attention-grabbing "contribute" button at the top

The result is an improved page design that looks good with long candidate blurbs, short candidate blurbs, no candidate blurbs, or all of the above.

We’ll be rolling out this design next week, and will continue to refine it in the coming months — so please let us know what you think!

Congratulations to New Hampshire for achieving civil unions (without threat of a court order) for Granite State gay and lesbian couples. A wonderful day for my natal state, in keeping with their wisdom and courage in electing the Episcopal Church’s first openly gay bishop, Gene Robinson.

I like civil unions. Lots less baggage than “marriage.” We get to invent our own traditions, or carry on parts of the old ones, or take on the whole marriage panoply of ceremony and tradition as we like.

But — and you knew there would be a “but” — what sticks in my craw are comments like those of Howard “Fifty State” Dean, the former governor who signed Vermont’s civil unions bill secretively, behind closed doors, so as not to offend the bigots or allow the queers and their equality-minded allies opportunity to celebrate. Howard Dean, the former presidential candidate who made millions of dollars for his 2004 campaign from hopeful queers across the country, thanks in large part to gay and lesbian Vermonters who campaigned for him among out-of-state communities he otherwise had no clue how to address, shows an odd mix of almost-courage buried in cowardice. It’s as if his heart for justice is battling his fearful political instincts, and unfortunately there is no well-meaning but ultimately fraudulent Wizard of Oz to give him a medal so he could finally go with justice.

About New Hampshire’s enactment of civil unions, a step toward equality for gay and lesbian couples, Howard Dean, the current kingmaker of the Democratic Party, said in a statement carried by WCAX TV:

You know I don’t think marriage or civil unions are a national issue. I think the defense of marriage act is unconstitutional. Clearly the states have the right to make these kinds of decisions about benefits and legal relationships and that’s always been the way it is. I think there should be less federal regulation not more.

Okay, he threw one good line in there: “I think the defense of marriage act [DOMA] is unconstitutional.” That’s the courageous Lion part.

The problems with the rest of his statement are below the fold.

The Cowardly part of his Cowardly Lion act lies in the rest of what he said:

Clearly the states have the right to make these kinds of decisions about benefits and legal relationships and that’s always been the way it is. I think there should be less federal regulation not more. [emphasis mine]

Problem #1: When the federal government exercised no say in marriage laws of individual states, 13 or 14 states decided that whites and African Americans could not legally marry. That issue was dealt with in the Loving v. Viginia Supreme Court ruling.

Problem #2: No civil union is recognized by the federal government, which grants more than a thousand rights and benefits to married couples.

Here are two major examples of the consequences of not having equal federal rights and benefits: income tax and health care.

Income tax: Every year my partner and I have to do two federal tax returns apiece: one as if we were filing separately, as legal strangers; one as if we could file jointly, as the all-but-married, civilly united couple that we are. Because Vermont’s state taxes are a percentage of federal taxes, and the federal government does not recognize our legal relationship, the second federal return is required to enable us to file our state taxes as a couple.

Not only do we have to give the state copies of our fake second federal return in order to prove our numbers (which no mixed-gender married couple has to do),  but because we do not get to file federal tax returns as a couple, we lose out on more than a thousand dollars a year in refunds. Screw all that whining about the so-called “marriage penalty.” We — and all other Vermont gay and lesbian civil union couples — lose serious cash every year on a major “civil union penalty.”

Howard Dean’s support of “states’ rights” with regard to marriage and civil unions ignores this federally enforced major economic disadvantage.

Health care: One of Bush’s few “big ideas” (other than war as a vehicle for transfer of wealth) was employer-and-employee-funded, consumer-controlled “Health Care Savings Accounts” to supplement (in some cases to replace) employer-paid health insurance. It was supposed to help slow the growth of health care expenses by enlisting the consumer in making choices based on cost and real necessity not just on whether the insurance plan would pay for any given piece of premium care.

Even if you accept the premise (and so far I can’t say it has worked well), it is a federal program. Because it is a federal program, the amount of my spouse’s health care savings account money we can use for my health care expenses is: ZERO. Zip. Nada. Nichts. Nothing. At the same time, married couples can use their health care savings account money for any family member’s expenses. My spouse’s employer has made an HCSA part of its diminishing health insurance benefit package.

And that’s not even mentioning all the other issues from Social Security survivor’s benefits to buying a family pass to national parks.

So, Mr. DNC Chairman Howard Dean, thanks for the incremental step toward equality in Vermont. Thanks for supporting civil unions so that Heartland Democrats who are confused or uncertain, or fear that the issue will bite them in the next election will know that their party’s leader thinks civil unions are okay (but not “gay marriage”) — and just in case that’s too scary, that he supports “states’ rights.” BTW, your statement on civil unions appears nowhere on the DNC site, so maybe I’m giving you more credit than you deserve.

The courage you showed seven years ago in signing Vermont’s civil unions law and your cowardice in doing it “in the closet” shows in what you did not say this week: “States should be able to define marriage and civil unions, and in the name of equality for ALL Americans, as long as the federal government awards benefits to married couples, those benefits must also be awarded equally to partners in civil union.”

( – promoted by odum)

It’s time to wrestle with the big question on everybody’s mind of late; that is, who – after two landslide victories in his back pocket – is going to step up and challenge Governor Douglas in next year’s election for Governor? It’s a question with some urgency, as whoever is had better get moving in late Spring/early Summer, or they shouldn’t even bother. The Dem candidate needs to look to models like the NH Dean Presidential campaign to build a groundgame unlike one any of their statewide candidates have been willing to put the resources behind before, and the biggest resource in such an equation is time. Just to make it harder, they should expect to do so with little help from the state party and zero help from the national one, as it will be considered a terrible investment (although they’ll still be expected to raise scads into the Dem Coordinated Campaign, unfortunately… but that’s an issue for another diary).

So, who do you think? Contrary to people’s assumptions, there’s been nothing to indicate that any of the Dem elected big-dogs want to go head-to-head with big Jim – and yes, that includes Shumlin and Symington. Shummy may have it on his mind, but he’d probably be more inclined to join the inevitable stampede for the office that will ensue the day Mr. Douglas decides he’s done. People are wondering about Matt Dunne, particularly Peter Freyne who, rather inexplicably, referred to him has Douglas’ “worst nightmare.” Dunne has the advantage that neither Parker nor Clavelle had – that he’s now been on a statewide ballot and the voters have therefore been properly introduced – but I’m among those that think it’s hardly enough. What I’m hoping to see is Dunne refine his style and campaign strategy and take another run at Dubie. With that challenge hanging out there un-met, it’s hard to believe he’d be considered a viable candidate.

In fact, if you look at the realities of numbers and statistics, of the current crop of Dem pols, the one on paper who would have the best shot is former multi-term Lieutenant Governor and current Chittenden Senator Doug Racine. Think about it – voters outside his district know him, and have elected him to statewide office despite the none-too-insignificant anti-Burlington-area feelings out there in greater Vermont. And of course, there’s the fact that he’s the only Dem who’s run against Douglas for the top spot that made a respectable showing (only losing by 3 points – and then, thanks to Con Hogan who apparently pulled virtually zero R votes). But Doug is the Rodney Dangerfield of Vermont politics. There’s this idea out there that he’s not interested in or capable of engaging in “serious” rough and tumble campaigning. There was even subtle eye-rolling that fed that insider-narrative as a result of his last Lite Guv run when he became the first (and only, I believe) candidate ever to win a statewide election in any state with a publicly-financed operation.

So the narrative is unfair and largely driven by “conventional wisdom” insider snootery, in my opinion. But having said that, I don’t think he’d be the candidate either – at least not this time.

So who, then?

Being out of the elections business has allowed me the glorious freedom to lose the political gamesman/tactician and re-embrace my inner idealist, but I’ll admit that the big statewide races still being out the tactician in me. I can’t help it. Tactically speaking, it’s likely that most folks on the Dem political bench would get waxed by Douglas unless they were inclined to really, really take some risks and think outside the box. That aint gonna happen with this bench. And I still believe that Progs statewide peaked with Anthony Pollina’s third place showing with a mere quarter of the vote his last time out for Lite Guv.

So the Dem candidate is going to have to be from outside the standard political ladder – but is going to have to be someone who can go a long way towards funding the run him-or-herself, or through his-or-her connections. Worse case scenario says I’m describing a Tarrant-style “vanity” candidate, but best-case means some genuine fresh blood.

And yes, this leads you right to the business community via campaign contribution lists that give you some sense of what business leaders are liberal and politically minded. There are some interesting names on some of these lists, such as the Blittersdorfs of NRG Systems fame and success. With the wind power boom on the edge of happening, though, it’s hard to imagine either of them breaking now for a statewide political run. Also, there’s that pesky Chittenden County factor again.

One name that leaps out at me is Bob Stiller, founder of Green Mountain Coffee Roasters. GMC is based in Waterbury (one of those swing towns) and the company is well-regarded by almost everybody as a success story and as a fair trade promoter. Stiller has not been shy about supporting Dem candidates and the business-leader-gone-politico schtick has definite crossover appeal. His involvement in the promotion of meditation might get him some wannabe-Governor-Moonbeam jibes, but it might make some other groovy lefties less nervous about promoting a big business guy.

But in truth, I’m just musing, here. I don’t know the guy at all. Never met him. He might be a disaster. Maybe he has a speaking voice like Pee Wee Herman. Who knows?

The point is that now’s the time, and everybody I know is scratching their heads.

Ideas?