Reinventing the wheel
Key lessons from U.S. political tech
PATRICK FRANK
Patrick Frank is the co-founder of Lunda and CEO of Nimbus Digital, a fundraising consulting agency for progressives. Before starting Lunda, he was outreach Director at ActBlue.
Share this article:
Part One
OCTAGON-SHAPED WHEELS
In the 1996 U.S. presidential election, Democrats and Republicans introduced a new campaign asset: campaign websites — a technological innovation that would soon become indispensable. Campaigns began adapting to technological changes, from the rise of cell phones to the explosion of social media. The post-2008 small donor revolution changed online campaigning again, requiring campaigns to operate almost like tech startups, constantly developing new tools to stay competitive.
This led to a routine on the left: campaigns not only ran political operations but also built specialized tech, such as the Obama campaign’s MyBarackObama.com in 2008 or 2012’s Project Narwhal, which brought Silicon Valley giants together to create a data-driven system for Obama’s re-election. In 2016, Hillary Clinton’s campaign used a startup called 'The Groundwork' to handle its data and fundraising needs.
Some tools, like Blue State Digital (which began with Howard Dean’s 2004 campaign), continued to serve subsequent campaigns. Others, like Clinton’s donation platform, disappeared after the election. Despite producing some useful tools, reinventing the wheel was often a tough challenge. Many of these efforts resulted in 'octagon-shaped wheels' — imperfect tools that worked but lacked the refinement that comes with time and experience.
Part Two
The exceptions and the skills benefit
One tool that defied this trend is VAN (Voter Activation Network). Founded in 2001, VAN provides Democrats with a comprehensive voter database that can be layered with campaign data. It allows campaigns to manage canvassers, phone banks, persuasion lists, and even track volunteers. Ask any Democratic field operative about VAN, and they’ll tell you stories about how it transformed their organizing efforts.
By the time I joined the Obama campaign in 2012, VAN had been in use for more than a decade. Volunteers were already adept at using it, which enabled campaigns to become more efficient over time. This provided Democrats with two distinct advantages: programmers could continuously improve the software (rather than repeatedly start from scratch), and staff and volunteers could develop deeper expertise with each election cycle.
VAN’s lasting presence has allowed it to become a cornerstone of Democratic campaigns. Countless guides, tips, and walkthroughs from across the country demonstrate the collective expertise which has been built around this tool.
A similar pattern emerged with ActBlue, a fundraising platform launched in 2004. It gained significant traction after 2012, becoming a must-use tool for Democratic campaigns by 2014. By 2020, all major Democratic presidential, senate, and house candidates were using ActBlue, which by late 2024 has raised nearly $16 billion.
The benefits of using permanent tools like VAN and ActBlue go beyond their technical advantages. The human expertise developed over time with these platforms has allowed young political professionals to build their careers by mastering tools that evolve cycle after cycle. This continuity and skill-building provides a key advantage for Democrats.
Part Three
The challenge for Europe
Today, the state of European progressive tech remains in flux. There are not enough scalable tools to meet the needs of every campaign, and this lack of resources has hindered the development of young progressives who aspire to build long-term careers in political organizing.
While U.S. campaigns have benefited from permanent tech infrastructure, many European progressives still struggle to get started. Even in the early days of U.S. political tech, campaigns were able to invest significant resources in incremental development.
In Europe, progressive parties are often fragmented across multiple party families, making it harder to achieve the same levels of investment. The compressed nature of the campaign cycle and clear division between electoral periods and non campaign periods also contributes to the challenge. The UK comes closest to the U.S. model, with tools used by the Labour Party offering some sustained growth, but the scale of European campaigns makes the American approach difficult to replicate.
Despite these obstacles, there is reason for optimism. In the absence of a unified campaign system in Europe, knowledge and expertise is already being shared across progressive networks. Whether it’s protecting water rights in Slovenia or electing Keir Starmer as UK Prime Minister, successes in one region are informing and inspiring campaigns across the continent.
Part Four
A path forward
At Lunda, where I work as Outreach Director, we’ve focused on creating contribution pages compatible with multiple compliance regimes, and which function across languages and currencies, allowing us to test what works in different regions and share those insights across borders.
By building a tool that can be adapted to various political environments, our aim is to help digital practitioners improve their skills and bring their knowledge to other progressive movements across Europe.
As part of the WPC network, our goal is still more ambitious — working with like-minded organizations, we want to create a set of permanent campaign tools and — ultimately — a progressive ecosystem that encourages growth, learning, and long-term success. With continued collaboration and investment, we feel confident that Europe’s progressives can begin to reinvent the wheel — this time, with a smooth, circular path forward.