Part II of a III part series analyzing why MoveOn.org has been successful for the Left and what entities on the Right are doing to help counter that effort.

Ed. Disclosure: The organizations listed below are not listed in any particular order and I'm only focusing on a handful of the organizations. Indeed, there are other organizations which I've included as "Entities to Watch" at the end of this piece. From time to time, I may have worked or pitched business to some of these groups and know well some of the people involved within the organizations. If I should have included another organization, feel free to contact me at David.All AT TechRepublican DOT com and start the conversation.

Today's piece in the Washington Post regarding the search for GOP donors to find the one organization that will help the Right catch up to the Left is well-timed given the fact that today I'm taking a closer look at some of the players who are seeking to fill this void.

In my opinion, these are the groups that are extremely well-funded and are making a run at being the "MoveOn.org for the Right."

* Freedoms Watch [501(c)4] *

Given the amount of money behind the effort from a very small crew of Republicans, the next MoveOn for the Right could someday be Freedoms Watch (Resources: Washington Post profile, PolitickerME blog post).

I've termed Freedoms Watch the "bad boys of conservative politics" as a nod to Lee Atwater. Among other things, Atwater served as the Party's Chairman and was very much in touch with the establishment. From what I've seen, heard, and read about Freedoms Watch, they too are very much in-step with the GOP establishment.

Freedoms Watch has been playing a valuable role in Special Election races across the country -- airing ads that help draw a contrast on where the Democrat stands on the issues as counter to a Republican position.

For all of its early success (particularly helping ensure Congressman Bob Latta won his special election in Ohio-5 and now playing in a Louisiana Congressional race), every now and then something bubbles up about the operation that leads me to believe that they're still understandably figuring out the path.

Two examples include it's former CEO Bradley Blakeman resigning earlier this year and the alleged recent meta data gaffe. True or not, the meta data issue was brought to light by Democrats -- proof positive that Freedoms Watch is on their radar - perhaps a good sign.

Of note, Freedoms Watch has resources and lots of it. This gives them the luxury of both having a hip office downtown that compares to Google's (I've been to both) and continues to pick-up talented Republican political operatives like Carl Forti and Ed Patru who know exactly what they're doing behind the wheel of a massive political entity.

But oddly, it’s those same resources that could destroy the operation. At least that’s what I glean after reading Michael Luo’s piece earlier this month in the New York Times. I'd add that any massive organization which has been under media and Democratic scrutiny as intensely as Freedoms Watch has will understandably meet a few bumps along the road so I doubt this will cripple the entity.

Of course, I'd like to see Freedoms Watch engage the online space even more using modern campaign techniques like effectively building email lists and the drafting of clever email marketing campaigns. The top-down organization needs to level out and find its voice from within the community. Given the pool of talent leaving some of the Presidential campaigns, my guess is that they'll pick-up an A-list online political operative in the near future. Stay tuned.

* Coalition for a Conservative Majority [501(c)4] *

The Coalition for a Conservative Majority is being led by Ken Blackwell and was founded by Tom DeLay (Resources: Washington Times profile, PolitickerME blog post).

CCM is a 501(c)4 and its mission is to "provide American conservatives a new voice in public policy and politics by inspiring, identifying, organizing and training them to become directly engaged in American citizenship and become effective activists for conservative principles and ideas."

CCM's approach to organizing and deploying grassroots support for candidates is unique. Its primary goal is driving a conservative agenda through the House and Senate, and CCM does not run ads. As other groups raise funds to fight the air wars, CCM will provide troops on the ground trained in using political guerilla warfare tactics to drive earned media, voter education, and outreach in their strategic media markets.

Since January, CCM has opened up chapters in the following targeted media markets: Columbus, Houston, Denver, Colorado Springs, Las Vegas, and Phoenix, with chapters opening in Scranton and Pittsburgh after the PA primary.

Like Freedoms Watch, another sign of CCM's success is what the Democrats are saying. Donna Brazile recently sent out the third DCCC email attacking CCM as one of "two high-profile organizations at the center of the GOP's sinister strategy" (Freedoms Watch was the second).

As a hat-tip to their willingness to engage the modern world, Ken and Tom helped announce the organization at the Conservative bloggers briefing which Joe covered in this space in November. That's a good start.

The team behind CCM from the top to the bottom is very good. They "get it," have a proven track-record of results, and are quietly organizing and making a difference in campaigns.

* American Future Fund [501(c)4] *

The American Future Fund "operates as a 501(c)(4) and was formed to provide Americans with a conservative and free market viewpoint to have a mechanism to communicate and advocate on the issues that most interest and concern them. Conservative and free market principles will be under direct attack in America. In light of that, it is imperative there be a voice for conservative principles that sustains free market ideals focused on bolstering America's global competitiveness across the country."

Admittedly, it is this organization that I know the least about other than what I’ve found on their website and in the media.

AFF emerged on the scene in March in support of U.S. Senator Norm Coleman through this TV ad. I don't personally know the folks behind AFF other than the piece I've read on them in the Washington Post which alerted me about their efforts in Minnesota. This sentence from that article leads me to believe that the effort is just getting started but will likely continue to make a difference: "[AFF is] a group with ties to several high-profile Republican consultants."

Today's Washington Post story quotes Phillip A. Musser, a Republican consultant for the organization as saying, "The soft-money landscape has changed. There are a lot of organizations interested in taking on various slivers of this election, but nothing has coalesced around the presidential contest in the way we saw in 2004."

We'll keep an eye on the effort and add more as we find it.

* Club for Growth [501(c)4 & PAC] *

The Club For Growth, to my knowledge, was one of the first to emerge in early 2000 as an entirely organic defined political entity. Its wikipedia entry is thorough and serves as a good resource on the history of the organization.

From their about section, "Club for Growth is a national network of thousands of Americans, from all walks of life, who believe that prosperity and opportunity come through economic freedom. We work to promote public policies that promote economic growth primarily through legislative involvement, issue advocacy, research, training and educational activity. The primary tactic of the separate Club for Growth PAC is to provide financial support from Club members to viable pro-growth candidates to Congress, particularly in Republican primaries."

To be sure, the CFG is not a "loved" organization by the Republican establishment. They play often in primaries both through running their own independent, hard contrasting TV spots and also raise money from their membership for the candidates they endorse. I worked on a campaign in 2006 that was supported by Club For Growth members and when checks arrived via FedEx it was essentially Christmas for our cash-strapped campaign.

CFG "gets" modern campaign warfare and they put resources in to that effort. Their comprehensive online effort has been led remarkably well by Andy Roth. Andy consistently drives their message strategically through many mediums with creativity and cleverness. After all, who could forget this ad against Howard Dean? The Club's website itself is a well-written and often quoted blog and they're even launching micro-site efforts to focus like a laser on particular issues. For example check out the sub-site, VP Watch.

The Club For Growth, as a brand, is very well-defined and received by its more than 40k members. Those members are wired, wealthy and active - a lethal combination.

To be sure, the CFG has had its share of dust-ups with campaigns and candidates on both sides of the aisle and the FEC for alleged infractions. But to its credit, it has endured and will continue to make a difference in this space with or without the blessing of the establishment.

"Entities to Watch"

There are several organizations on the Right which are worth noting as entities to watch. Some of these organizations focus specifically on policy initiatives and legislation, state-based efforts, have yet to launch (but are expected to), or have yet to engage in specific campaigns in this election cycle.

A handful of those organizations worth watching include the Foundation for Defense of Democracies which was tagged in today's Washington Post article, the Sam Adams Alliance, TheVanguard.org, FreedomWorks, Americans for Prosperity, and American Solutions.

Part III of this series will take a closer look at some of the entities I believe play a role more specifically in Henke's three M's: Messaging, Money, and Mobilization. It will be available soon.

Are there more players competing for this space? What do you think of the efforts of those I have profiled? Weigh in at the comments.

* Read part I of the New Guards series, "Why MoveOn Matters."
* Read part III of the New Guards series, "An Empowered Rightosphere."

Jon Henke's blog post, "New Guards," is one of the most important pieces I've read regarding the next stage of the Revolution of which we fight. You need to read Henke's post before digging in to this series.

Henke accurately notes how the Left effectively uses its online infrastructure to provide three things to progressive candidates: Messaging, Money, Mobilization.

Henke concludes that the Rightosphere can catch up, but it's going to take, among other things, a changing of the "guards." He writes:

The Right can accomplish the same thing, but it cannot start on third base. The Right has to develop the gravitational pull before it tries to pull the political system into its orbit. That may be complicated, but I don't believe it is actually difficult to do. However, it is not something that can be done simply by funding more of the same Old Guards. If the Right is to do something about the current long train of abuses and bad government, it must, to borrow from the Declaration of Independence, "provide new Guards".

After reading Henke's post, I was immediately reminded of the first blog post I wrote announcing the launch of this group blog where I said:

One thing which has become increasingly clear to me and many others is that the Republican Party - the establishment - has failed to effectively engage and embrace Web 2.0 strategies. While the Internet has grown rapidly, the Party apparatus and its top officials are operating in a disconnected, Web 0.5 world. The result is that our message is failing to penetrate the modern world where millions of independent voters and modern Republicans spend a majority of their time.

It was true a year ago when I said it and to some degree is still true today. Some colleagues in the politics + technology liken pointing to the deficiencies in the Right's online effort as unhelpful. Constantly harping on the issue would indeed be hurtful to the overall effort, but sometimes it simply makes sense to take a step back, analyze the effort, note areas of success and those needing improvement, and move on. That is what this series seeks to accomplish.

WHY MOVEON MATTERS

There are many elements on the Left which comprise what is referred to as the "Netroots" that are making an impact that I won't be discussing in this piece. Some of these include Talking Points Memo (especially TPMuckraker), Huffington Post (Off The Bus), ActBlue, Media Matters, Kos-FiredogLake-MyDD-OpenLeft, Brave New Films, etc.

However, the focus of this article is to discuss MoveOn in the sense that it is making the largest impact on the space and is trying to be replicated on our side of the aisle.

* MoveOn [501(c)4 & PAC] *

To be sure, MoveOn is the most convincing force which is making a difference on the Left. It contributes more than any other political operation to Henke's three M's: messaging, money and mobilization.

Ironically, MoveOn is not a competitor to activism organizations on the Right. It's members would never cross-over to support an organization on the Right. Indeed, it's market is vertical with a defined niche and audience. Indicative of this is the fact that for as long as I can remember they have been saying they have more than 3.2 million members - the organization's growth is static - at least for now.

In my opinion, MoveOn's success is due to several factors.

1. First, MoveOn is a brand encompassing a "family of organizations" that includes both a political arm (MoveOn.org Political Action) and a non-profit arm (MoveOn.org Civic Action / 501(c)4). This yields it the legal leverage it needs to do whatever it wants (take massive donations through its 501(c)4 for use on "education and advocacy" and pay costly operational expenses, and use its PAC to play in political races, make contributions to candidates it supports, and raise money from its membership for those candidates.

2. Its large membership is extremely wired, active, can afford to drink fancy coffee drinks, and loves being a part of MoveOn because they constantly put points on the board.

3. MoveOn has always been an organic effort which focuses on member initiatives. They branded MoveOn from the beginning as an inclusive, member-driven community of grassroots activists coordinated by a nimble team instead of being a staff-heavy, top-down operation. That's important.

For example, pay close attention to the messaging in the smart deployment of a DonationTube highlighting their accomplishments in 2007:

The take-away from this video is that you, the member, are "MoveOn." It is the passengers riding the bus, and not the bus driver, who are responsible for helping change the political landscape and forwarding their liberal agenda. Organizations on the Right would be wise to honestly shift more control over their efforts to its community. Doing so would leverage a stronger, more cohesive team approach.

4. Their emails and online campaigns are thoughtful, interesting, and effective even to the outside observer like TechRepublican. Yeah, this point seems obvious, but it's not obvious to everyone given the fact that I'm constantly barraged by email newsletters on a Friday at 7 PM that I never read.

So where is the Right's MoveOn? Are the "New Guards" already on the scene? Which organization will get the formula right for the Right? The answer is not an easy one but we can take a close look at some of the competing forces trying to be the one.

To do so, I'm going to take a broad look at many of the entities on the Right -- some old, some new -- which are all working independently on the Right to help further, generally, Right-leaning efforts.

Parts II and III will be available soon.

Why do you think MoveOn is successful?

* Read part II of the New Guards series, "The Players."
* Read part III of the New Guards series, "An Empowered Rightosphere