MoveOn.org

---

no merri

activist with rapid mobilization capability?

---

email g 7 25

We’re kicking off our tour in Phoenix, Arizona, alongside firebrand Senator Chris Murphy, leading progressive Representative Jasmine Crockett, and climate champion Representative Yassamin Ansari, rallying against Representatives David Schweikert and Juan Ciscomani—two of the most vulnerable Republicans in Congress—who just voted to hand billionaires a huge tax cut, paid for by the working class.

Then, we’re headed to Omaha, Nebraska, where Republican Representative Don Bacon is retiring from his swing district—which Kamala Harris won in 2024—because he’s too afraid to face his constituents, giving Democrats a golden opportunity to pick up a critical House seat. We’ll be joined by powerhouse Senator Elizabeth Warren and rising star Representative Maxwell Frost.

And we’re partnering with MeidasTouch—the fastest-growing independent and wildly popular media network—to broadcast our events far and wide to reach audiences on YouTube and digital platforms that have tuned out traditional media.

---

1 24 ymail

Trump henchman and former Attorney General Bill Barr has just published a propaganda piece in the right-wing opinion pages of The Wall Street Journal, accusing MoveOn of engaging in an unlawful, Russian-style criminal conspiracy against American democracy and supporting efforts to investigate No Labels' "most serious allegations" against us.²

Barr is attacking MoveOn for organizing to expose a plot by No Labels, a billionaire-backed dark-money political slush fund, and their effort that would reinstall Trump in the White House.

We won't be silenced. But MoveOn's 2024 budget did not account for a potential legal fight with a billionaire-backed organization, and now it's escalating with Trump's former attorney general calling on the Justice Department—which he used to lead—to investigate the baseless allegations.

Although the allegations have no merit, now that Barr has raised them in The Wall Street Journal, we frankly cannot fully anticipate what may happen next, as the attack on MoveOn gets even more of a foothold among MAGA leaders and the MAGA movement. As we enter a critical election year, we cannot afford to pull a cent away from our campaign to defeat Trump and stop his fascist plans. Which is where you come in.

Barr will make any argument—no matter how absurd—to distract from the fact that No Labels is a dark-money group, funded by Fox News founder Rupert Murdoch; Harlan Crow, a Nazi memorabilia collector and benefactor of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas's lavish lifestyle; billionaire investor Nelson Peltz, a major Trump backer; and other donors whose identities remain secret.^3,4,5

In Maine, there were numerous complaints of No Labels misleading voters, tricking them into changing their party registration.6 And, in Rhode Island, No Labels' petition papers were referred to the local police department because their organizers may have forged the signatures of dead people.⁷ Dead people!

Barr is silent on all of that. Instead, the same man who misled the nation about the Mueller report, dropped federal charges against Trump ally Michael Flynn, and personally ordered police and federal agents to clear out innocent protesters outside the White House, accuses MoveOn and our allies of pushing America to be more like Russia.^8,9,10

Of course, this is no surprise. The constant drumbeat of attacks is part of a billionaire-backed effort to exhaust, intimidate, and harass us into silence—and to force critics like us, those who are speaking truth to power, to drain their financial resources.

Expect far, far more of this if Trump gets a second term. We can't let it happen. And with your help, we won't.

Billionaires already buy our elections—in secret and with few limits since the Citizens United ruling.

The Wall Street Journal piece is just another example of how Trump and his henchmen want to have it both ways: They want to illegally funnel unlimited sums from secret fat-cat donors into our electoral system but then cry out for "democracy," "fairness," and rights for "rival political parties" when it suits their interests.

Expect far more hypocrisy and yes, investigations of MoveOn and others on the left if Trump gets a second term. It's terrifying but true. We will never back down, but the best defense is a good offense.

MoveOn's 2024 budget did not account for the potential legal costs to come. These costs could be astronomical, and the legal proceedings could take years, but we cannot allow this billionaire-backed effort, which is just a small preview of what a second Trump term would look like, to distract us in an election year where MoveOn must go all-in to defeat Trump and stop his fascist plans in their tracks...

---

1 24 ymail

In a massive public relations stunt, No Labels, the dark-money group funded by Harlan Crow—the collector of Nazi memorabilia and funder of Clarence Thomas's extravagant lifestyle—on Thursday announced that it filed a complaint with the Justice Department, accusing MoveOn of criminal harassment, extortion, and "unlawful conspiracy" under RICO—the law often used to prosecute organized crime.^1,2WHAT?!

Yes, they did.

MoveOn has been working for more than a year to expose the billionaire-backed group's dangerous and deceptive third-party presidential campaign that threatens to reinstall Donald Trump in the White House. And we have no plans to stop now. We will not succumb to their scare tactics—even if it means having to take on substantial legal costs to defend our organization.

But, Padraig, we need your help to fight these baseless, politically motivated allegations. We weren't expecting the legal costs, which add up very fast, particularly in an election year where we're all-in to defeat Trump and stop his fascist plans before it's too late.

The complaint was filed by No Labels—a dark-money operation that has committed an eye-popping $70 million to put a spoiler third-party candidate on the ballot in 2024 that would siphon votes away from President Biden and tip the election to Trump.³

MoveOn has worked in partnership with pro-democracy organizations and leaders to raise awareness about No Labels' right-wing plot. Our work has included sending a letter to every secretary of state and election board in America asking them to investigate No Labels after the Maine secretary of state told No Labels to "cease and desist" for lying to voters.⁴

The group is already on the ballot in 14 states and is aiming to get on the ballot in 13 additional states—many of them battleground states that President Biden won narrowly in 2020.⁵

Now, No Labels is playing dirty.

On Thursday, in a high-profile news conference at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C., they announced their complaint, which asks the Justice Department to criminally investigate MoveOn.⁶,7

It's clear our work to sound the alarm on their dangerous plan is working. Why else would they stoop to Trumpian tactics designed to drain our coffers with legal fees and shut us up? Our takeaway: We need to double down on our efforts to expose and stop No Labels.

Disguising themselves as a group of "moderates," No Labels has refused to disclose their deep-pocketed donors, but some information has gotten out, including that their donors include Harlan Crow, Rupert Murdoch, and billionaire investor Nelson Peltz, a major Trump backer.⁸,9

With far-right donors, it comes as no surprise that No Labels plans to win two-thirds of their Electoral College votes in states that President Biden won in 2020—blocking President Biden's path to reelection.¹⁰

Plain and simple, there is no path to victory for their candidate, who has yet to be announced, though West Virginia Senator Joe Manchin is the person they talk about the most.¹¹ Instead, their strategy would rob President Biden of a second term and ensure a Trump victory.

---

random eg

3 23 yahoomail

Dear MoveOn member,

I'm Tony Evers, the governor of Wisconsin. I've never emailed you before, but I'm emailing you today because I need to talk to you about an incredibly urgent matter: the Wisconsin Supreme Court election on April 4 that will decide whether the far right controls the court or not.

My state is one of the most critical battleground states in the country, and the Wisconsin Supreme Court will rule on hugely consequential election cases that could end up deciding the 2024 presidential election.

That's why Republican billionaires are flooding Wisconsin with cash—all to elect their right-wing candidate, a radical extremist who collaborated with Trump's plot to undermine fair elections in Wisconsin.¹

Even the man who financed the January 6 insurrection is pouring money into our state.²

That's why I'm partnering with MoveOn to stop the far right and to win this election. But we need your help.

...

It's not just democracy and voting rights that are on the line in this election.

...

Sources:

1. "Trump ally with ties to 'fake elector' scheme advances in Wisconsin Supreme Court race,"NBC News, February 21, 2023

https://act.moveon.org/go/170624?t=4&akid=347354%2E20164584%2E_YYjVx

no lnx

Trump ally with ties to 'fake elector' scheme advances in Wisconsin Supreme Court race

Daniel Kelly, a conservative with connections to a plan to reverse the 2020 election results, will face liberal Janet Protasiewicz in an April 4 election to determine control of the court.

Feb. 21, 2023,

By Adam Edelman

A Donald Trump ally who advised Republicans on legal efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential race has advanced to the Wisconsin Supreme Court general election, putting him one step closer to a seat on the powerful bench.

Daniel Kelly is a former state Supreme Court justice with connections to a plan hatched by the former president's allies to reverse the 2020 election results in Wisconsin through the use of “fake electors.” He was one of two candidates to advance in Tuesday’s Supreme Court primary, according to projections by The Associated Press.

The other to move forward was liberal candidate Janet Protasiewicz, a Milwaukee County circuit judge who was endorsed by the Democratic abortion rights group Emily’s List.

Protasiewicz and Kelly will face off in an April 4 general election that will determine political control of the court — and, with it, the future of many pivotal issues the court is likely to decide in the coming years, including abortion rights, elections and gerrymandering. The winner is elected to a 10-year term.

Although the court and its members are technically nonpartisan, conservatives hold a 4-3 majority. But with conservative Justice Patience Roggensack retiring, that majority hangs in the balance.

There has not been a liberal majority on the court in 15 years, and Democrats see the election as a prime opportunity to shift the balance.

Kelly was one of two conservative candidates in the primary election; the other, Jennifer Dorow, is a Waukesha County circuit judge best known in the state for having presiding over the criminal trial of Darrell Brooks, who was convicted last year of killing six people at a Waukesha Christmas parade in 2021 when he crashed his SUV into the crowd.

Wisconsin faces high-stakes Supreme Court race

FEB. 21, 2023

Protasiewicz won about 46% of the vote Tuesday, a commanding victory based on Democratic turnout, particularly in Milwaukee and Dane counties, that was especially high for an off-year, down-ballot, winter primary election.

The two liberal candidates in the race together won 54% of the vote, compared to about 46% for the two conservative candidates combined.

Kelly only narrowly bested Dorow for a second-place finish, with the two basically splitting the support of voters who turned out for a conservative candidate. Kelly outperformed Dorow in rural counties, while Dorow outdid Kelly in the heavily Republican suburban counties surrounding Milwaukee.

Kelly is a former state Supreme Court justice who lost his seat in a 2020 election to liberal Jill Karofsky. He was appointed to the seat in 2016 by former Gov. Scott Walker, a Republican. He has remained tied to Trump allies through a plan that was intended to reverse the results of the 2020 presidential election in the state with the use of “fake electors.”

In a deposition to the House committee investigating the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol, former Wisconsin GOP chairman Andrew Hitt said he and Kelly had “pretty extensive conversations” about the plan, and the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reported last week that the Republican Party at the state and national levels had paid Kelly $120,000 to advise it on “election integrity” issues.

[Recommended

CONGRESS

Democrats, led by Warren and Porter, unveil bill to repeal Trump-era bank law

GUNS IN AMERICA

Biden seeks to expand gun background checks with new executive order]

A spokesperson for Kelly's campaign did not respond to questions about his involvement in those efforts. Kelly spokesperson Jim Dick told the Journal Sentinel that Kelly "believes Joe Biden is the duly elected president of the United States." Dick also suggested to the newspaper that Kelly's beliefs about the election were not necessarily aligned with what his clients believed, saying, "It is a maxim in the legal profession that the views of clients are not attributable to their attorneys."

Kelly based much of his campaign on heavy criticism of Protasiewicz for having openly suggested how she would rule on pivotal cases likely to come before the court involving hot-button issues with national ramifications, like abortion rights, elections and gerrymandering.

Protasiewicz, one of two liberal candidates in the race (the other was Everett Mitchell, a Dane County circuit judge), focused her campaign heavily on her support for abortion rights. Her television advertisements, for example, emphasized that support: One featured her talking directly to the camera, saying, “I believe in a woman’s freedom to make her own decision on abortion,” while a second featured several women touting that support and slamming “extremists” on the other side of the argument.

[pix Daniel Kelly, Scott Walker

Attorney Daniel Kelly in Madison, Wis., on July 22, 2016.John Hart / AP file]

The issue has taken center stage in the race. After the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade last year, an 1849 state law banning abortion in almost all cases snapped back into effect.

Gov. Tony Evers and Attorney General Josh Kaul, both Democrats, have said they will not enforce the law, and Kaul has filed a lawsuit alleging that it is unenforceable. The suit is expected to eventually make its way before the state Supreme Court, most likely giving the court the power to decide on abortion rights in Wisconsin.

Kelly, who has refrained from saying how he would rule in such a case, was endorsed by three groups that oppose abortion rights.

The court is also very likely to hear various challenges to existing election laws, as well as cases that might relate to recounts, absentee ballots and other facets of election administration that could have material impacts on the outcomes of close elections in the perpetual battleground — including the 2024 presidential election.

For example, in a 4-3 decision last year, the state Supreme Court deemed all ballot drop boxes outside election clerks’ offices illegal — a setback for Democrats, who had advocated to preserve one of the more lenient rules about the boxes that arose during the coronavirus pandemic. Two years earlier, the court, in another 4-3 vote, narrowly upheld the 2020 election results in the state. Court watchers predict similar cases in the future.

Other issues that could make it before the court in the coming years include challenges to Act 10, a law enacted by then-Republican Gov. Scott Walkerthat eliminated collective bargaining for most public workers. It could also hear cases about redrawn legislative maps (the current map, which experts have said is one of the most gerrymandered in the country, was approved by the current state Supreme Court last year). As is the case in many states, in Wisconsin, if the governor and the Legislature cannot agree on legislative maps, the issue falls to the state Supreme Court.

The general election is on pace to be the most expensive Supreme Court race in Wisconsin history. Candidates and outside groups have already spent more than $9.2 million, an amount that, through the general election, will clearly exceed the record $10 million spent in 2020.

2. "PAC linked to megadonor Dick Uihlein says it's prepared to spend millions backing Kelly for state Supreme Court," WISPolitics, November 18, 2022

https://act.moveon.org/go/170738?t=6&akid=347354%2E20164584%2E_YYjVx

"Work for anti-abortion group issue in Wisconsin court race," AP News, February 23, 2023

https://act.moveon.org/go/170739?t=8&akid=347354%2E20164584%2E_YYjVx

7 22

775K

Petition Calling for Impeachment of Clarence Thomas Nears 500,000 Signatures (truthout.org)

https://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/wisconsin-power-grab-protestors-state-capitol

failed in n carolina? also done now in MI

Stinging from their defeat at the polls in November, Republicans are now rushing a set of billsthrough a special session of the Wisconsin State Assembly nakedly designed to curb the power of Democratic Governor-elect Tony Evers and Attorney General-elect Josh Kaul, and handicap Democrats' competitiveness in upcoming elections. The bills are scheduled for a vote on Tuesday, with the plan of getting them on outgoing GOP Gov. Scott Walker's desk so he can sign them before losing his job in a few weeks.

But Republicans didn't plan on the furious wave of protests that would descend on the state capitol in Madison on Monday afternoon.

Demonstrators crowded outside as the bills were debated, trying to shout down Republicans' power grab: [pix tweets]

The protests were spurred along by MoveOn political director Ben Wikler,who has been covering the GOP's power play closely since last Friday when the bills were first introduced, and who urged his followers in other states to call senators in key districts:

3/17

MoveOn members helped boost Jon Ossoff's campaign, and it's making national headlines. Can we do the same for Rob Quist?

In an election too close to call that could determine control of the U.S. Senate, ABC News reports thathundreds of thousands of voters have received grossly incorrect voter registration information in the mail from the Koch brothers' right-wing front group, Americans for Prosperity.¹

Here's just some of what's in the mailing:

The wrong deadline for registering to vote—cutting the registration window short by five days, critical for working families.
The wrong office for questions on voter registration and the wrong zip code for turning in a voter registration form.
False information about how voters will be notified of their precinct after they register to vote.²

also http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/03/07/1282814/-Louisianna-Threatens-To-Sue-MoveOn-Over-Billboard?

MoveOn is being threatened with legal action by the state of Louisiana after we bought a billboard criticizing Governor Bobby Jindal for preventing 242,000 Louisianans from accessing Medicaid.

In politics, a frivolous lawsuit or the threat of it—combined with a smart reaction—can be a golden opportunity. On the other hand, the wrong reaction can be disastrous. That's why what we do now—which is dependent on you—is so important.

Here's what happened: This week, MoveOn put up billboards in red states criticizing Tea Party governors for refusing federal funds to expand Medicaid. The billboards are working really well, and are getting a ton of press coverage.

Now, the Republican lieutenant governor of Louisiana wants us to take down a billboard criticizing Governor Jindal—who has presidential ambitions—because it's a takeoff on the state's tourism slogan, "Pick Your Passion." This is a blatant attack on free speech. A state government isn't entitled to use trademark law to censor citizens who want to criticize the state for its heartless and stupid policies.

The good news is, legal action like this can be a dream when it comes to focusing press coverage on the need for Medicaid expansion. If we take this on from a position of strength, unapologetically doubling down on our Medicaid campaigning right now—while preparing to vigorously defend ourselves against a potential lawsuit—we can score a big win.

OCTOBER

On October 5, ThinkProgress exposes the U.S. Chamber of Commerce for directing foreign funds into the general account it uses for political expenditures to defeat progressive candidates.

On October 7, MoveOn, Public Citizen, and other progressive organizations protest the Chamber’s plan to spend $75 million against progressive candidates, and their lack of transparency over foreign money, in front of Chamber headquarters in Washington D.C.

hightlight:

At the time of MoveOn's public launch on September 24, it appeared likely that its petition would be dwarfed by the effort to oust Clinton. A reporter who interviewed Blades on the day after the launch wrote, "A quick search on Yahoo turns up no sites for 'censure Clinton' but 20 sites for 'impeach Clinton,'" adding that Scott Lauf's impeachclinton.org website had already delivered 60,000 petitions to Congress. [2] Salon.com reported that Arianna Huffington, then a right-wing commentator, had collected 13,303 names on her website, resignation.com, which called on Clinton to resign. [3]

Within a week, however, support for MoveOn had grown. Blades calls herself an "accidental activist. ... We put together a one-sentence petition. ... We sent it to under a hundred of our friends and family, and within a week we had a hundred thousand people sign the petition. At that point, we thought it was going to be a flash campaign, that we would help everyone connect with leadership in all the ways we could figure out, and then get back to our regular lives. A half a million people ultimately signed and we somehow never got back to our regular lives." [4] MoveOn also recruited 2,000 volunteers to deliver the petitions in person to members of the House of Representatives in 219 districts across America, and directed 30,000 phone calls to district offices. [5]

...

In June 1999, MoveOn established its own political action committee, the MoveOn PAC, with the ability to accept contributions online via credit card. It was not the first organization to fundraise online for political candidates, but its success was unprecedented, raising $250,000 in its first five days of operation and $2 million over the course of the 2000 election to help elect four new Senators and five new House members. "That may not seem like a lot of money to most people, but it was a revolution in fundraising for campaigns from average citizens," Blades said. [7] According to Michael Cornfield, director of the Democracy On Line Project at George Washington University, MoveOn's achievement created "a change in attitude" in the political fundraising community. "It is like a bell has gone off," he said. "The race is on. 'Let's raise money online.'" He compared MoveOn's achievement with the pioneering of direct-mail fundraising in the 1970s by the religious right and conservative fundraisers such as Richard Viguerie.

The history of MoveOn, began with its opposition to the impeachment of U.S. President Bill Clinton in 1998. MoveOn has emerged as a powerful fundraising vehicle for Democratic Party candidates.

Contents[hide]

[edit] Opposing Clinton's impeachment

The MoveOn.org domain name was registered on September 18, 1998 by computer entrepreneurs Joan Blades and Wes Boyd, the married cofounders of Berkeley Systems, an entertainment software company known for the flying toaster screen saver and the popular video game series You Don’t Know Jack After selling the company in 1997, Blades and Boyd became concerned about the level of "partisan warfare in Washington" following revelations of President Bill Clinton's affair with Monica Lewinsky. The MoveOn website was launched initially to oppose the Republican-led effort to impeach Clinton. Initially called "Censure and Move On," it invited visitors to add their names to an online petition stating that "Congress must Immediately Censure President Clinton and Move On to pressing issues facing the country."

Then two weeks after the November 1998 election, Congress went ahead and voted to impeach. When you become active in the system and communicate to your representatives, and they don't vote in accordance with your values, your next responsibility is to support candidates who will. All of a sudden we were signed up until 2000." [6] In response to the impeachment vote, MoveOn launched a "We will remember" campaign, asking its members to sign a pledge that "we will work to defeat Members of Congress who voted for impeachment or removal. To give substance to this pledge, we are also pledging, today, our maximum possible dollar contribution to opposing candidates in the year 2000."

In early 1999, MoveOn continued to pursue bipartisan appeal, recruiting GOP moderate Larry Rockefeller, a New York environmental attorney and heir to the Rockefeller fortune, as the public face of a "Republican Move On" aimed at mobilizing anti-impeachment Republicans. As the 2000 elections neared, however, the organization gravitated toward the Democratic Party. 1999 also marked MoveOn's first foray into issues other than Clinton's impeachment. Following the shootings at Columbine High School near Littleton, Colorado, Blades and Boyd launched a "Gun Safety First" petition to promote the "common sense regulation of firearms," such as child safety standards for gun manufacturers and laws forcing gun-show operators to enact more-stringent background checks on buyers.

[edit] MoveOn PAC

The most significant innovation was MoveOn's success at raising funds from small donors, with an average contribution size of $35. Prior to the Internet, small-donor fundraising was prohibitively expensive, as costs of printing and postage ate up most of the money raised. By comparison, MoveOn's fundraising costs were minimal, with credit card transaction fees constituting their biggest expense. "If candidates can use the Internet to raise significant funds through small donations and attract and organize volunteers at relatively little cost and labor, it could radically alter the balance of power in politics," observed political reporter Joan Loawy. "Suddenly candidates with fewer resources are more viable and the clout of moneyed special interests is diminished."

The $2 million that MoveOn raised, however, was substantially less than the $13 million that its members had pledged they would give to defeat Republicans when passions were running high over the Clinton impeachment. According to Mike Fraioli, a Washington-based fundraiser for Democratic candidates, MoveOn missed an opportunity by waiting until the impeachment hearings were over before it began trying to collect campaign contributions. "Never let your pledges hang out there," Fraoli said. "Things change, the world changes. All the emotion that existed a year ago no longer exists today."

The 2000 elections also saw MoveOn's first effort at web-based voter registration with the launch of votepledge.org. It also weighted in regarding the 2000 presidential election, warning its members that voting for Ralph Nader could throw the election to George W. Bush. ""Many (Nader supporters) say they never got into the race to play the spoiler," said an email message from Wes Boyd. "What was positioned as a safe protest vote has now become a kind of kamikaze vote."

[edit] ActionForum.com

In January 2000, MoveOn rolled out ActionForum.com, an Internet discussion forum designed to solicit public involvement in policymaking. "Unlike most chat rooms, in which the loudest voices often rule, the site allows members to rank the comments they respect," explained the Contra Costa Times. "Those with the highest rankings move to the top. ... ActionForum aims to be an Internet chat room with accountability. In a typical chat room, users sign on anonymously. On ActionForum, users are required to address their letters with their real names, as well as their profession and city of residence." As a test subject for the new chat form, Blades and Boyd chose one of the most controversial issues for 2000 in their home town of Berkeley, California: a draft revision of the Berkeley General Plan, a document that aims to set the city's goals for everything from zoning laws to transportation, housing and community safety. The forum was initially greeted with enthusiasm by city government officials as an online means of soliciting community feedback. Blades and Boyd also supported the Berkeley Party, which attempted to builds a political platform for the city centered around the ActionForum, with "no back room deals, no insiders," making it "unlike another political party in the world." [8] The ActionForum.com never really caught on with Berkeley residents, and efforts to use it for municipal purposes were abandoned in 2001. In the meantime, however, it became an important vehicle through which MoveOn received advice and suggestions from its own members.

In March 2001, MoveOn joined forces with the nonprofit advocacy site Generation Net, an online advocacy organization headed by Peter Schurman. He became MoveOn's first full-time, salaried executive director, taking on administrative tasks that until then had been performed on a volunteer basis by Blades and Boyd. Issues prioritized by MoveOn in 2001 included support for the McCain-Feingold campaign-finance reform bill, environmental protection and opposition to the Bush administration's proposal to abolish estate taxes for the wealthy. MoveOn also responded to electrical blackouts and skyrocketing energing costs in California by calling for cost controls on electricity utility companies, organizing a nationwide "roll your own energy blackout" - a voluntary, three-hour electricity-free evening on June 21, in which more than 10,000 participants turned out lights and unplugged TVs and other appliances to protest Bush's energy plan.

[edit] Anti-war organizing

Following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, MoveOn launched an online campaign calling for "justice, not escalating violence." It collected 30,000 signers for a statement that argued: "To combat terrorism, we must act in accordance with a high standard that does not disregard the lives of people in other countries. If we retaliate by bombing Kabul and kill people oppressed by the Taliban dictatorship who have no part in deciding whether terrorists are harbored, we become like the terrorists we oppose. We perpetuate the cycle of retribution and recruit more terrorists by creating martyrs." Eventually, this led to them working on behalf of Eli Pariser's similar 9-11peace.org petition.^[1] Pariser later joined MoveOn currently serves as its executive director.

During the buildup to the invasion of Iraq, MoveOn circulated an anti-war petition calling for "No War on Iraq." In July 2002, it came under criticism after MoveOn's Eli Pariser urged its members to oppose the war by sending letters to the editor of their local newspapers, offering sample form letters that members could use rather than writing in their own words. Several of these form-based letters were actually printed in newspapers including the St. Petersburg Times, [9] the Claremont Courier, [10] and the Times Herald-Record of Middletown, NY. [11] This practice was criticized as "propaganda mail" by the "Daily Pundit" weblog. [12]

On August 17, 2002, MoveOn launched an online petition against the war, collecting 220,000 signatures in two months. As it had done with the petition against Clinton's impeachment, it organized volunteers who hand-delivered the signatures to senators and representatives before the congressional vote on the war powers resolution. In October 2002, a MoveOn fundraising appeal raised $1 million in two days' time for what it called four "heroes of the anti-war effort" in Congress who opposed the Iraq resolution: Senator Paul Wellstone of Minnesota, Reps. Rick Larsen and Jay Inslee of Washington, and Rep. Rush D. Holt, Jr. of New Jersey. However, MoveOn also worked to raise money for Democratic candidates who actually supported the Iraq resolution, some of whom were locked in tight races in moderate or conservative states, including Missouri Sen. Jean Carnahan, and Senate candidates Ron Kirk in Texas, Jeanne Shaheen in New Hampshire, Tim Johnson in South Dakota and Mark Pryor in Arkansas. All told, it raised $3.5 million for the 2002 election cycle.

In September 2002, it issued a bulletin by Susan Thompson, "Selling the War on Iraq," offering "lessons in PR from previous wars" and warning that "the costs of regime change" would "cost a whopping $200 billion" (which actually has turned out to be a low estimate). MoveOn predicted that "regular people will probably have to foot the bill" while anyone with ties to the oil companies (Bush and Cheney for example) will probably profit immensely."

MoveOn also joined with 14 other organization to form the Win Without War coalition, which also included the National Council of Churches, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, and the National Organization for Women. Win Without War in turn helped organize Artists United to Win Without War, a group of more than 100 anti-war actors, producers and directors from Hollywood. In December 2002, MoveOn launched another petition, titled "Let the Inspections Work," with the goal of raising $40,000 to pay for a full-page anti-war appeal in the New York Times. Instead, its members sent in nearly $400,000. With the additional funds, it sponsored anti-war radio spots and TV ads in 13 major cities. Modeled after the famous "Daisy" ad from Lyndon B. Johnson's 1964 presidential campaign against Barry Goldwater, the TV ads warned that war with Iraq could spark nuclear armageddon. According to an account in the Los Angeles Times, "To generate buzz - essentially free advertising - for its own antiwar television spot, MoveOn.org hired Fenton Communications, the same company that promoted Arianna Huffington's recent anti-SUV ads. ... A week after its TV ad first appeared on the news, MoveOn.org reported that its membership had grown by 100,000. The ad was covered on virtually every major network. It was shown and discussed on news programs in Australia, Pakistan, Russia and Japan. The tally is ongoing, but the ad generated at least 110 television news stories and dozens in print, according to an Interim Media Coverage Report by Fenton Communications." [13] It also attempted to place anti-war advertisements on the sides of buildings, billboards and buses but was thwarted when Viacom, which owns the largest outdoor-advertising entity in North America, refused to run the ads.

By early 2003, MoveOn boasted more than 750,000 members in the United States and hundreds of thousands more overseas. As war in Iraq neared, its member base grew and the pace of its activities accelerated. Whereas the Nexis/Lexis news database recorded 155 mentions of MoveOn in 2002, in 2003 there were 2,226 mentions. In January 2003, more than 9,000 of its members, organized into small delegations, visited more than 400 home offices of U.S. senators and representatives across the nation to present the petitions in person. In February 2003, MoveOn teamed up with Win Without War to sponsor a "virtual march on Washington" that generated more than 1 million phone calls and faxes to politicians opposing the invasion. [14]

In June 2003, two months after the Pentagon declared an end to "major combat operations in Iraq," MoveOn teamed up again with Win Without War to purchase a full-page ad in the New York Times that labeled Bush a misleader and demanded an independent commission to determine the truth about US intelligence on Iraq, declaring, "It would be a tragedy if young men and women were sent to die for a lie." [15]

[edit] Virtual primary

In June 2003, MoveOn held what it called "the first online primary of the modern age," and Howard Dean won a plurality of 44 percent of the vote, with 139,360 votes. [16] The methodology of the primary, however, attracted criticism from a staff member of the Richard A. "Dick" Gephardt campaign, who complained of "vote-rigging" because only three of the Democratic primary candidates -- Dean, John Kerry, and Dennis Kucinich -- had been invited to send detailed messages to MoveOn members in advance of the online voting. [17] MoveOn called the Gephardt charge "absurd," stating that Dean, Kerry and Kucinich "were chosen by MoveOn members" and that their candidate emails included "links to the sites of ALL the other 6 candidates. ... The Gephardt campaign, and all others, were made fully aware of this process from the beginning, and chose to participate. The process was not changed. 96% of MoveOn respondents voted to endorse the selection process." [18]

An opinion piece for the New York Times noted that MoveOn's "effort is more extensive than most - enthusiasts clicked on for the two-day primary that drew more than 300,000 voters. The virtual tally - results of which were not expected until today [Friday, June 27, 2003, at noon] - would top the combined turnouts in Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina in 2000.

"There were complaints about some of MoveOn's electioneering strictures, and this is but a baby step in field testing the Web's possible role for democracy. But it does provide a glimpse into politics of the future. After coming into being with an Internet petition against President Bill Clinton's impeachment, MoveOn has become an electronic precinct machine, steadily attracting more than one million enrolled members with criticisms of the George W. Bush administration and quietly raising more than $7 million for Democratic candidates. If a contender can draw at least 50 percent in the elbow-throwing field, the result will mean a formal endorsement with money and volunteers to follow.

[edit] Bush in 30 Seconds

In January 2004, MoveOn provided an interesting example of the way that new communications technologies might be able to transform the 30-second television campaign advertisement that has become one of the standard weapons of modern election campaigning. Historically, campaign ads have operated according to the rules of top-down, one-to-many propaganda. They have been expensive to produce and have been the work of small cliques of paid political professionals who possessed the creative and technical skills and the expensive equipment needed to script, shoot and edit the ads. MoveOn's innovation was to create an online contest, inviting visitors to submit their own TV spots critiquing the performance of President Bush. Also interesting is the fact that all submissions to the contest are under the Creative Commons License. More than 1,500 people produced and submitted ads to the "Bush in 30 Seconds" contest, and more than 100,000 people helped vote to select the finalists. A winner was then selected by a panel of celebrities, which MoveOn promised to broadcast.

"Bush in 30 Seconds", which was created by MoveOn Cultural Director Laura Dawn, techno artist Moby, and MoveOn PAC Executive Director Eli Pariser, came under attack from Republicans who complained that two of the ads submitted (neither of which became a finalist) had compared Bush to Adolf Hitler, a comparison that conservatives described as "political hate speech." MoveOn.org attempted to place the winning ad, "Child's Pay," as an advertisement during the 2004 Super Bowl, but CBS rejected the ad, along with one from People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, for being "controversial", drawing criticism for what critics alleged was censorship. The ad has since been broadcast elsewhere (most notably on CNN during Super Bowl halftime), along with several other finalists in the competition. But even before the ads appeared on television, the contest itself and "word-of-mouse" viral marketing had already given them considerable exposure.

[edit] Opposing Arnold Schwarzenegger

During the California gubernatorial recall election in 2003, MoveOn broadcast a 30-second television spot opposing the candidacy of Arnold Schwarzenegger on grounds that the actor "has a serious problem with women."

[edit] Take Back the White House

In April 2004, MoveOn organized a “Take Back the White House" campaign, which included 1,100 bake sales across the U.S., rallied 500,000 volunteers, and raised $750,000 for ads targeting Bush’s military record. [19]

[edit] Fahrenheit 9/11

In June 2004, MoveOn organized a response to criticism of Michael Moore's controversial film, Fahrenheit 9/11, calling on its members to send supportive emails to movie theatres. More than 110,000 MoveOn members pledged to go see the film once it opened. [20] According to MoveOn's Eli Pariser, its influence on moviegoer turnout may be even larger than that number suggests. "When I went to Waterville, Maine and asked how many people from MoveOn were there, probably three-quarters of the people there said yes," Pariser told Variety.

MoveOn also organized nearly 3,000 "Turn Up the Heat" house parties on the Monday following its first weekend in theaters. Attendees listened via Internet hookup and participated via a live online map-based town hall application in a 30-minute talk by Moore and MoveOn organizers, and then signed up to participate in voter-registration drives and other activities aimed at unseating Bush and other Republicans in the November 2004 U.S. elections. "I've never been politically active before. I've never opened my mouth. We need to come together and open our mouths," said Katie Call, who attended a house party in Palm Beach County, Florida. [21]

[edit] Facebook and "Beacon"

In November 2007, a drive spearheaded by MoveOn caused Facebook to change its controversial new "Beacon" program, which notified Facebook users about purchases by people on their friends list. The Facebook group "Petition: Facebook, stop invading my privacy!" had over 54,000 members at the time the announcement was made that Facebook was changing Beacon to an opt-in system. ^[2]

[edit] 2008 Presidential endorsement

On February 1, 2008, MoveOn announced it had endorsed Sen. Barack Obama, rather than Sen. Hillary Clinton, the former First Lady, in the 2008 Presidential election. MoveOn said it had never endorsed a Presidential candidate before.^[3] MoveOn also launched a television advertisement critical of John McCain, Obama's Republican opponent for the presidency. The ad was titled "Not Alex" and featured a young mother telling McCain that she wouldn't allow her young son to be sent to Iraq.

[edit] References

^ York, Bryon (2005-06-24). "Rove Was Right about MoveOn". National Review. http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york200506241146.asp. Retrieved 2007-09-25.
^ Liedtke, Michael. "Facebook revamps new advertising system,"Associated Press, Nov. 30, 2007
^ Marre, Klaus. "MoveOn endorses Obama," TheHill.com, 2-1-2008[1]

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_MoveOn.org"

Categories: American political websites | Company histories | Political advocacy groups in the United States