Outsourcing research and development to customers via Digg-style voting is a hot trend for tech-savvy companies right now. Dell did it with IdeaStorm (our coverage), Starbucks did it with My Starbucks Idea (our coverage), and Salesforce did it with IdeaExchange. The concept has now made the leap to politics with Oh Boy Obama, an unofficial "online think tank" in which supporters can vote on ideas that they think Barack Obama should pursue in his presidential campaign.
The concept behind these types of services is that by letting users suggest ideas and vet them via a community voting process, you'll be left with only the ideas that your most loyal customers really want - and that these are things that are most likely to succeed in the marketplace. It's too early to tell if the ideas that are winning on these sites will also win in the long run with consumers, but let's take a look at Oh Boy Obama.
The site, which says that it wants to give "the Obama grassroots a platform to submit and vote on ideas to better the 2008 primary and general election campaign of Barack Obama," works in generally the same way as the Dell, Starbucks, or Salesforce sites do. Users submit ideas, then vote and comment on their favorites. The top ideas right now are "Make transparency a central issue in the campaign" and "Keep the Obama logo and visual identity for the general [election]."
Josh Levy at TechPresident thinks that the site was "likely borne out of necessity," because the netroots has criticized Obama for not reaching out to online activists. With Obama's embrace of social networking sites like Facebook, MySpace, and Twitter, and his dominance of those online forums (compared to other presidential candidates), it's hard to figure out what else he could be doing to engage the online audience, though.
Ben Smith over at Politico believes that Oh Boy Obama "doesn't quite fit the mold" for the Obama campaign, which he sees as wanting to maintain "tight strategic control" at the expense of "real community engagement." That also seems a little off the mark, though. We wrote in March about the Obama campaign's use of wikis in the Texas and California primaries to organize on the ground campaign efforts. Wikis were specifically appealing to Obama because they allowed volunteers to shape the messaging and quickly collaborate with each other without the need to go through a webmaster. Or in other words: Obama was willing to relinquish control in favor of organizational speed.
Regardless, Oh Boy Obama is making use of a good idea from the corporate world in a way that makes sense in the political world. The Obama campaign will likely be able to cull some good ideas from the site while they shape their general election campaign this fall (assuming Obama gets his party's nomination). Even though Oh Boy Obama users will be the most dedicated campaign supporters -- not representative of the country at large -- the site can be used as an early testing ground to guage reaction to new ideas. And at the very least, getting involved with sites like Oh Boy Obama will help the Obama campaign energize the grassroots.
Comments
Subscribe to comments for this post OR Subscribe to comments for all Read/WriteWeb posts
Evelyn Pringle has just completed her series on Obama at opednews.com. You should review the articles, and then review the discussion of 18 USC 1346 provided, in order to see for what activities Obama will be indicted. Obama's just an organized crime punk, a flunkey for the Rezko/General Mediterranean/Syrian mafia criminal enterprise. Rezko's just had another warrant issued for him for gambling fraud in Nevada. I think this is related to his other fraudulent debt--to GE--and is another reason Obama served as a front for the house thing, to shield Tony's assets. Obama was never interested in buying a house. It is a pure fraud play in which Obama, as always, played the front and the flunkey so Rezko could hide assets.
Won't it be hilarious to see the looks on the faces of Obama's STUPID and CORRUPT and IGNORANT supporters when this hyena is indicted along with Blagojevich.
But it tells us one thing: all Obama's supporters are just as corrupt as he is.
Titles of Pringle's articles:
Final Chapter - Curtain Time for Barack Obama Evelyn Pringle 05/22/2008 Curtain Time for Barack Obama - Part V Evelyn Pringle 05/18/2008
Curtain Time for Barack Obama - Part IV Evelyn Pringle 05/16/2008
Curtain Time for Barack Obama - Part III Evelyn Pringle 05/15/2008
Curtain Time for Barack Obama - Part II Evelyn Pringle 05/13/2008
Curtain Time For Barack Obama - Part I Evelyn Pringle 05/12/2008
Discussion of 18 USC 1346 from:
http://www.groom.com/_library/downloads/NAPPAArticle-Feb2006.pdf.
This article provides brief guidance as to the manner in which courts have interpreted 18 U.S.C. § 1346, which generally provides that for purposes of federal mail and wire fraud statutes (18 U.S.C. §§ 1341 and 1343, respectively), a “scheme or artifice to defraud” includes a “scheme or artifice to deprive another of the intangible right to honest services.” Specifically, this article examines the manner in which courts have interpreted the broad language of § 1346 in circumstances that do not involve the explicit bribery of public officials. I. Background 18 U.S.C. § 1346 was enacted in 1988, for purposes of reversing the Supreme Court’s decision in McNally v. U.S.,483 U.S. 350 (1987). In McNally, the Supreme Court overruled a long line of lower court decisions by holding that the federal mail and wire fraud statutes did not encompass schemes to defraud citizens of an intangible right to honest government service from pubic officers. Id. at 355. By enacting 18 U.S.C. § 1346, Congress restored “honest services” within the ambit of the federal mail and wire fraud statutes, meaning that a scheme to deprive the public of “honest services” by a public official could be punished as mail or wire fraud (assuming, of course, that such an instrumentality was used as part of the scheme or artifice). II. Judicial Interpretations of the “Honest Services” Fraud A. General Parameters of the Statute Not surprisingly, the majority of cases that have analyzed the “honest services” fraud set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 1346 have involved the bribery of public officials, where the charge under § 1346 is in addition to other charges. However, there have been numerous prosecutions under § 1346 against public officials (and those who have corrupted public officials) for transactions that do not involve outright bribery, but which nonetheless involve the provision of cash or gifts to a public official in exchange for the public official’s exercise of power on behalf of the individual or entity providing the gratuity. Courts have recognized that the term “honest services,” as used in § 1346, is incredibly broad, but the statute has survived repeated challenges asserting that it is unconstitutionally vague, with courts resorting to a “common sense” usage of the phrase “honest services.” In rejecting a constitutional void-for-vagueness challenge to the statute’s wording, one court opined that “[c]oncrete parameters outlining the duty of honest services should not be necessary. . . . The concept of the duty of honest services sufficiently conveys warning of the proscribed conduct when measured in terms of common understanding and practice.” U.S. v. ReBrook, 837 F. Supp. 162, 171 (S.D. W. Va. 1993), aff’d. 58 F.3d 961 (4 th Cir. 1995). Another court demonstrated little patience for the defendant’s void-for-vagueness challenge in the context of a kickback scheme, holding that “[i]t should be plain to ordinary people that offering and accepting large sums of money in exchange for a city councilman’s vote is a type of conduct proscribed by the language of § 1346.” U.S. v. Paradies, 98 F.3d 1266, 1283 (11 th Cir. 1996). Nonetheless, courts have refused to allow § 1346 to be used as a “catch-all” that subjects every unethical or illegal act to federal mail and wire fraud prosecution. See, e.g., U.S. v. Bloom, 149 F.3d 649, 654-56 (7 th Cir. 1998) (noting, inter alia, that “not every breach of fiduciary duty works a criminal fraud”); U.S. v. Welch, 327 F.3d 1081, 1107 (10 th Cir. 2003) (”the right to honest services is not violated by every breach of contract, breach of duty, conflict of interest, or misstatement made in the course of dealing”). Recognizing the difficulty of interpreting the undefined phrase “honest services,” courts have attempted to establish general criteria that must be satisfied to successfully assert an “honest services” fraud claim. One of the leading circuits interpreting the scope of the honest services fraud is the First Circuit Court of Appeals, which held that: First, . . . honest services convictions of public officials typically involve serious corruption, such as embezzlement of public funds, bribery of public officials, or the failure of public decision-makers to disclose conflicts of interest. Second, . . . the broad scope of the mail fraud statute . . . does not encompass every instance of official misconduct that results in the official’s personal gain. Third, and most importantly, . . . the government must not merely indicate wrongdoing by a public official, but must also demonstrate that the wrongdoing at issue is intended to prevent or call into question the proper or impartial performance of the public servant’s official duties. U.S. v. Czubinski, 106 F.3d 1069, 1076 (1 st Cir. 1997) (emphasis added) (internal citations and quotations omitted), (discussing the First Circuit’s prior decision in U.S. v. Sawyer, 85 F.3d 713, 724 (1996). The Seventh Circuit has held that “[m]isuse of office (more broadly, misuse of position) for private gain is the line that separates run of the mill violations of state law fiduciary duty . . . from federal crime.” U.S. v. Bloom, 149 F.3d 649, 655 (7 th Cir. 1998). The court went on to note that “in almost all of the intangible rights cases decided . . . (before McNally or since § 1346), the defendant used his office for private gain, as by accepting a bribe in exchange for official action[,]” but also noted that “[s]ecret conversion of information received in a fiduciary capacity is a form of fraud against the owner of that information.” Id. Accordingly, the Seventh Circuit summarized its test for an honest services fraud as follows: “[a]n employee deprives his employer of his honest services only if he misuses his position (or the information he obtained in it) for personal gain” (emphasis added). Id. at 656-57. ——————————————————————————– The Tenth Circuit has likewise held that cases involving § 1346 “must be read against the backdrop of the mail and wire fraud statutes, thereby requiring fraudulent intent and a showing of materiality.” U.S. v. Welch, 327 F.3d 1081, 1107 (10 th Cir. 2003). However, the Tenth Circuit unequivocally rejected the Seventh Circuit’s position that a public official must seek “personal gain” to violate § 1346, stating that while it was unwilling to “define the exact contours of honest services fraud or the proof necessary to sustain it . . . to require an allegation of intent to personally gain would suggest that [a defendant is] justified in using whatever means necessary to achieve [his or her] goals . . . ,” which the Court was unwilling to do. B. What Constitutes an Honest Services Fraud? As noted above, the language of § 1346 is not helpful in categorizing what specific conduct by a public official is prohibited, and courts have been unwilling to set forth a litany of proscribed acts, instead setting forth general parameters that must be satisfied to successfully assert an honest services fraud. It should be noted, however, that Justice Stevens, in his dissent in McNally (vindicated by Congress’ reversal of McNally), stated the following: In the public sector, judges, State Governors, chairmen of political parties, state cabinet officers, city alderman, Congressmen, and many other state and federal officials have been convicted of defrauding citizens of their right to honest services of their governmental officials. In most of these cases, the officials have secretly made governmental decisions with the objective of benefiting themselves or promoting their own interests, instead of fulfilling their ...
Posted by: John Ryskamp | May 30, 2008 11:09 AM
I think Obama's a hosebag too, but that first comment's a little overlong no? Just a little mention might suffice and avoid editorial blowback. Of course I'll read it but maybe throttle back a touch.
As for community voting on ideas, I think the self-reinforcing fanboyism that propagates on Digg, and the amount of votes for Linux vs. buyers of Linux at Dell would lead to some toxic advice in politics.
Maybe for a primary, but in a general election a hyper-skewed echo chamber to get ideas from? Ouch. Either offend your most loyal by ignoring their ridiculous ideas, or follow their ideas and alienate the 99.9% of people that would never participate in Oh Boy Obama or any other site like that.
Posted by: Morgan | May 30, 2008 11:48 AM
John Ryskamp = Google Alert + Copy/Paste
A quick google search for your name has the first link calling you a spammer. I think I'd agree.
Thanks for adding to the discussion...
Back on topic, While I think the idea that it could theoretically give voters more of a voice in shaping the campaign, there is a certain element of mob mentality (ala Digg) that may for the reasons Morgan described above hinder actual progress.
The internet is great for giving everyone a say, but it tends to bring out the wackos.
Posted by: Megatron! | May 30, 2008 12:11 PM
Digg involved in shaping politics in anyway is crazy.
The only reason I need to give in order to back up my thesis is the person who commented first on this post.
Live From Las Vegas
The Masked Millionaire
Posted by: The Masked Millionaire | May 30, 2008 3:37 PM
It's an interesting idea, to be sure. But it's unofficial and therefore toothless, right?
If you're a developer and you really want to help the campaign, you could go work (like, as in salaried) for them: LAMP, scaling, frontend, backend -- looks interesting if you're willing to relocate to Boston for the campaign: http://my.barackobama.com/developer.
Posted by: Joe Crawford | May 30, 2008 5:44 PM
I don't know what's up with "online activists", whether they need to be courted or actually haven't been able to get legitimate needs met, but a lot of online media types like myself are actively supporting him and we're not looking to his machine for help.
We'll pursue action independently and do our best to get Obama in office, just as everybody else will do for their candidate, and then we'll start addressing the inevitable disappointment of finding out who he really is once he's in place.
Posted by: Clyde Smith | May 31, 2008 7:19 AM
Obama and his campaign are brilliant. The use of social media really gives people an edge. For instance, I was reading a post on another blog and it was saying that he targeted the voters that other candidates didnt. While they fought over the same people, he found new people. The company I work, Trail7 Consulting does something similar
Posted by: jeremy hicks | May 31, 2008 11:53 AM
@Clyde Smith
Don't blame Obama for your own shortcomings... He's clearly a 2 faced CFR backed, Corporate owned candidate. 5 mn on Google will show you that he voted against everything he preaches (very well, I'll give him that). If you refuse to see it and focus on his charisma, you'll have only yourself to blame afterwards.
Stop believing the mass media propaganda that tells you what your choices are before you made your choice. The real choice is made at election time, anything else they work so hard to stick in your brain is BS.
Vote for Nader (or whoever you really believe in) and don't be disappointed after the election...
Posted by: wack | June 1, 2008 3:02 PM
It is obvious to all in contact with the candidates on the web that Barack Obama is winning the race online. After contacting the three Senators, I too realized what a money-making, policy-inducing, social mechanism Obama has going. Amazing that the other two Senators are not influentially reaching out to this sector of our population. My Story: http://www.basilandspice.com/journal/whos-winning-the-race-online.html
Kelly Jad'on/Founder
www.BasilAndSpice.com
#1 Site Syndicated Author & Book Views On a Healthy Life
Posted by: Kelly Jad'on | June 1, 2008 4:14 PM
Compared to other discussions on social platforms like Facebook and Myspace,OhBoyObama is much harder to scale and get less dedicated people back for more "voting". Maybe it should find a way to better integrate to Facebook and Myspace or other social media to get more presence.
Anyway, each media has its own audience and its unique positioning/function. Without a clear and unique positioning, the site can will face a tough struggle with other platform.
Posted by: Charmgene | June 1, 2008 8:15 PM
United Nations' Millennium Campaign i.e. Stand UP Take ACTION is also running a campaign on Twitter
http://twitter.com/endpoverty2015
What about that?
Posted by: EndPoverty2015 | June 3, 2008 12:35 AM