Obama Campaign Deploys New Cellular Weapon

Hugh Pickens writes "Michael Scherer writes that the Obama fundraising machine has deployed a new cellular campaign weapon designed 'to trigger the campaign finance equivalent of an impulse buy' during key political moments in the campaign. The tool links two familiar technologies, SMS and one-click purchasing, by sending out an SMS message to cell phones and smart phones of tens of thousands of previous campaign donors giving them a one-click option to give more money. 'Campaign officials hope to be able to return to donors in key moments of emotional excitement,' writes Scherer. One person familiar with the ask says that the response rate has been more than 20 times greater than any text message solicitation Obama has sent out before and and the reason is simple: Even with an iPhone, it remains an arduous hassle to enter all the information that is typically required to buy anything online with a credit card. The trick is that anyone who gives even a few dollars to the Obama campaign is asked if they want to keep their credit cards on file to participate in what the campaign calls 'Quick Donate.' Now donors just need to write '25,' or '10,' and that amount of dollars is immediately drawn from their credit cards. One of the Obama campaign's best fundraising days in 2008, for instance, came right after Sarah Palin's convention speech. Now partisans can 'vent their outrage or enthusiasm by simply typing one number into their phone.'"

Comments

Doesn't Amazon have a patent on this?

[Anonymous Coward]

One button donate sounds great, but what about One Button Bribe or Quick Graft? I tell you, corruption is the future!

Re:Doesn't Amazon have a patent on this?

[nuttzy]

Most places store a token and not your actual CC now. It makes PCI DSS compliance far easier and more secure. There's zero risk to consumers if a token gets compromised. Would just be a matter of the upstream CC processor being secure.

Poines?

[MickyTheIdiot]

Poines? Omg..

Response to reality

[fermion]

As reported a couple weeks ago, Obama is lagging in big donors. While Romney is building his campaign thousand dollar donations, Obama is increasingly having to build his campaign on hundred dollar donations, or as the article suggests, $2 at a time.

So, if we assume, as pundits say, that big donors are not going to Obama because he wants to transfer all wealth to the lazy people, and the only people who support him are the young people who don't know any better, kids that are hoping for a socialist government so they do not have to work, how does Obama capitalize on that demographic? By using the one tool all these kids know. The phone. These kids, while they are in their drug induced stupor on payday, can click to donate a few bucks. They would never actually be able to write a check and address an envelope. But over a few months, they can donate $50 bucks.

Really, all kidding aside, this is the way a modern politician needs to collect funds. The maximum donation to a politician should be $50 a month. Anyone can do that. This idea of stealth funding of campaigns by a few large donors need to go. In the republican race, this has resulted in our choices being a polygamist in spirit, a polygamist in reality, a jihadist, and a one that wants to promote the idea that we should pay our troops to sit around the base playing video games and get high. Not a great list for a party that claims to be pro america.

Re:spim, in other words

[Fnord666]

Spimming/spamming me; robocalling me, even calling me unsolicited, are not ways to get me to vote for you, no matter the party.

I agree. It's bad enough that they thoughtfully excluded themselves from the do-not-call legislation. Anyone with any sense of decency would still check the list and abide by the wishes of those who have chosen to add their numbers. On the other hand, if they had any sense of decency, they probably wouldn't be in politics in this day and age anyway.

Re:It would be, if it was a sensible election.

[TheRaven64]

Mind you, this is assuming that voters don't actually hate themselves and their country

It's not self loathing, it shocking ignorance. Around 2004, there was a BBC documentary that followed the reelection campaign for George W Bush. Even the people they interviewed who were actively involved in the campaign often had no idea what his policies were, how he was perceived internationally, or what he had done while in office. The people they were talking to had even less idea. Yet all of them then went to vote for GWB. I suspect the same is true of Obama and I'm fairly certain it's true in most congressional elections. If the average voter can't tell you anything about the voting record of he person he's voting for, how can you expect a rational outcome to the election?