European Online Campaigning Platforms: A Comparative Overview

Table of content

I. Background and Purpose ...... 3 II. Defining Online Campaigning Platforms ...... 3 III. Benefits and Drawbacks of Online Campaigning Platforms – for campaigners, citizens, democracy and the EU ...... 4 IV. Online Campaigning Platform Design ...... 6 1. Decision making. Who sets the agenda? Who selects ? ...... 6 2. Business model. How is it financed? How does it ensure its long-term sustainability? With whom does it compete? ...... 6 3. Data management. Who has access to supporters’ personal data? How may data be used? How are data protected? ...... 6 4. Legal scope. What legal rules govern the petitions it hosts? ...... 7 5. Technical design. Whose needs guide the design? ...... 7 6. Scope of action. Does it combine online and offline activism? Does it offer deliberative features? ...... 8 V. In-depth Look at 14 Online Campaigning Platforms ...... 8 A. Virtual Campaigning Communities...... 9 2. Campact! ...... 11 3. 38 Degrees ...... 12 4. WeMove.eu ...... 13 B. Hosting Platforms ...... 14 5. Change.org ...... 14 6. We Act! ...... 15 7. OpenPetition ...... 16 C. Modular Petitions Support Software ...... 17 8. ClicknSign ...... 17 9. PoliCAT ...... 18 10. NationBuilder ...... 19 D. E-Government Petitions Tools ...... 20 11. The Petitions Portal of the European Parliament ...... 20 12. The Petitions Portal of the German Parliament (Deutscher Bundestag) ...... 21 13. The ECI Online Signature Collection System ...... 22 E. Hybrid NGO-Government Petitions Support ...... 23 14. Manabalss ...... 23 VI. Benefits of Database Ownership ...... 24

2 I. Background and Purpose

In 2014, Citizens for Europe (CfE) created a task force on online campaigning to explore how digital tools might be used to both enhance the impact of European civil society actors on and improve the democratic nature of decision making at European Union level. As a first step, this task force commissioned a study on European online campaigning platforms. This report summarises findings from that initial study.

This report provides an overview of 14 online petitions platforms and software services that can be used to mobilise European citizens to impact public policy at local, regional, national and/or European Union levels. It also identifies benefits and drawbacks of such platforms and design variables that distinguish each. Its goal is to help European issue campaigners to better understand these platforms and evaluate their suitability for their needs, as well as guide the future work of the CfE online campaigning task force.

This study was conducted by experts in democracy and public participation, not IT specialists. It consisted of a literature review, an examination of online campaigning platform and interviews with online campaigning practitioners. To protect anonymity, no individuals have been quoted. The work of several organisations is described, although these descriptions may include information from multiple sources.

II. Defining Online Campaigning Platforms

In a narrow technical sense, an “online campaigning platform” refers to software and hardware used to collect political support from citizens online – e.g., signing a petition. However, these platforms are much more than simply IT tools. Many, such as Azaaz, Campact! and Change.org, function as virtual campaigning organisations or consulting businesses, complete with clearly defined missions, proprietary methods, professional support services and carefully designed business models.

This study focuses on online campaigning platforms that host petitions or citizens initiatives. Petitions may be launched by citizens, platform staffers or civil society organisations. They may be informal or part of legal procedures. Their target may be politicians, business leaders or the media. What they all do, however, is to all allow citizens to express their opinions. They also all collect personal data from supporters -- at minimum name and email address. These personal data can be an extraordinarily valuable asset to mobilise citizens for future actions.

Other kinds of digital platforms and tools may be used to promote online petitions, especially such as and . Likewise, some platforms integrate crowdfunding software to fund petitions. However, this study will not focus on these kinds of digital add-ons.

3 III. Benefits and Drawbacks of Online Campaigning Platforms – for campaigners, citizens, democracy and the EU

Scalability is what makes online campaigning platforms unique and powerful. Once a platform has been created, it costs very little to reproduce its services. The more a platform’s services are used and the more citizens it reaches, the more the platform itself becomes accepted as a trusted agent by the public. This is very beneficial for the platform itself since it can become a powerful political player in its own right. However, this has both advantages and disadvantages for issue campaigners, citizens and democracy itself. It also has very specific implications for the European Union.

For campaigners, online platforms dramatically simplify and reduce the cost of mobilising supporters. There are no postage or printing costs. Armies of volunteers and staffers aren’t needed to phone, mail letters, go door to door, or stand on street corners convincing citizens to sign petitions or attend demonstrations. Online platforms also dramatically widen the geographic areas in which campaigners can operate. In theory, they can reach anyone anywhere in the world with internet access. In addition, they vastly increase the number of people who can be reached at one time. Costs of engaging 100, 10,000 or 100,000 people are virtually identical. Furthermore, some platforms provide affordable access to ready-made databases of potential supporters.

The sheer numbers of ordinary people who can be quickly mobilised to pressure politicians has had real tangible political impacts. For example, in 2012, an Avaaz petition attracting 2.8 million supporters led Members of European Parliament to vote down the ACTA treaty limiting internet privacy protections. Likewise, popular support for the ECI Right 2 Water prompted the Commission to remove water from its concessions directive.

Despite these benefits, online campaigning platforms can also pose real threats to issue organisations. New upstart groups and online campaigning platforms can now easily launch their own petitions on topics previously controlled by well-established issue experts. These “rogue petitions” can dilute messages and derail carefully designed advocacy strategies, as well as draw citizen support, media attention and/or financial resources away from established NGOs.

At EU level, online campaigning platforms could disrupt traditional policy making methods. Citizens’ interests have long been represented in Brussels by a small number of European NGO platforms with privileged access to EU institutions. Online campaigning allows outsiders to bypass these gatekeeper groups and send messages directly to policy-makers. However, it also can amplify the voice of European NGOs by demonstrating popular support for their positions. So it is both a potential benefit and a threat to EU-level NGOs.

For citizens, online platforms allow them to conveniently articulate their views on issues directly to political representatives. No need to compose letters, travel to visit representatives

4 or take time to join demonstrations. No need either to join or donate money to issue or political organisations. In addition, citizens can choose which policies to advocate to decision-makers. They no longer have to simply trust issue groups to advocate their preferred positions.

Unfortunately, online platforms do not empower all citizens equally. People without access to or the ability to use computers and other digital tools are excluded. This disproportionately includes people who are elderly, disabled, living in poverty or located in rural areas. Online platforms also tend to be used by people who are already politically engaged offline. They tend to be better educated and more affluent than average. In addition, whereas some online platforms allow any citizen to propose a petition topic, others are controlled by a small number of individuals or groups.

At the European Union level, citizens currently have no access to a common European public space where they can express their views on EU policy or collaborate with citizens of other countries. In addition, due to limited national coverage of EU issues, most know little about EU public policy. Online campaigning platforms could create such and enhance both cross- border understanding and EU policy knowledge.

For democracy, online platforms create an additional channel through which citizens can express their views on policy options. Elected representatives often complain that they only hear from professional lobbyists and wish to better understand the needs and desires of their constituents. Petitions platforms allow them to hear from both a larger number and a greater diversity of citizens expressing more varied opinions than in the past. In theory, online citizens’ initiatives could significantly strengthen democracy by allowing citizens to directly influence policy – either through agenda-setting or putting a policy to a direct popular vote.

Unfortunately, in reality, the direct policy impact of online petitions is often minimal. Similarly, citizens’ initiatives are often implemented in ways that limit their real impact. This can downgrade their value in the of both citizens and politicians. For example, in a German study, a majority of online petition users said that they only wanted to send a symbolic signal and did not expect real change. Petitions can also degrade the quality of policy discourse by overly simplifying complex issues. Online campaigning platforms can worsen this phenomenon by selecting easy to understand and “winnable” issues and ignoring important but complex or little known topics. Finally, online campaign is vulnerable to actual or suspected government censorship and eavesdropping.

At European Union level, online campaigning platforms promise to enhance the usability of citizen involvement tools such as the European Citizens’ Initiative (ECI) and petitions to the European Parliament. Both tools are designed to bridge the gap between citizens and EU institutions. However, in practice, their direct impact on policy is minimal. Furthermore, strict technical rules limit the use of online campaigning platforms for the ECI or petitions to the European Parliament.

5 IV. Online Campaigning Platform Design

Although all the online campaigning platforms studied support the engagement of citizens via petitions, each is structured and functions in a slightly different way. Comparing diverse platforms, there seem to be six key design variables.

1. Decision making. Who sets the agenda? Who selects petitions?

Online campaigning platforms use different methods to select petition topics to accept and/or promote. For-profit platforms, such as Change.org, accept any petition but promote only those petitions whose organisers pay fees. Government platforms, such as Bundestag ePetitionen, accept petitions that respect their legal rules and then treat all petitions equally. Within online campaigning communities, such as Avaaz and Campact!, a small internal team selects and chooses to promote petitions based on fit with their philosophical mission and likelihood of success. One civil society platform, Open Petition, allows anyone to use its petitions platform and then asks its users to select petitions to promote.

2. Business model. How is it financed? How does it ensure its long-term sustainability? With whom does it compete?

Government platforms are financed by taxpayers and offered as free public services. For-profit platforms like Change.org collect fees for their services, including use of their databases. Non- profit platforms, such as Avaaz and Campact!, fundraise to cover their operating expenses. Some platforms integrate crowdfunding within the petition itself to cover its costs. Open Petitions fundraises in order to offer free petitions services to civil society.

Platforms compete both with one another and with traditional NGOs based on the size and quality of their databases. This is especially true of online campaigning communities such as Avaaz, Campact!, 38 Degrees and WeMove.eu. The more petitions they host, the more names they add to their database, the more successful future petitions can be and the more funding they can attract. This may tempt some to launch petitions on “hot topics” in part to grow their database. This can have perversely negative effects on civil society overall. Like spiders trapping whatever is in the air in their webs, they can attract funds and supporters away from traditional issue advocacy groups.

3. Data management. Who has access to supporters’ personal data? How may data be used? How are data protected?

The personal data of petition supporters are of tremendous value, but their use also presents moral and legal challenges. Platforms could theoretically choose to sell these data, destroy them, share them with petition organisers or keep them for their own use. Government

6 platforms have the highest data protection standards and never sell or reuse names. Change.org has the lowest standards, selling access to its database for a fee. Campaigning platforms like Avaaz keep them for their own use. Service platforms like Open Petitions share them with the petition’s sponsors.

Most non-governmental platforms also use email addresses to remain in touch with a petition’s supporters – e.g., to inform them of the political outcome or related actions. Some automatically add them to their list of members and re-contact them to sign different petitions or engage in other actions. Others only add those who choose to become members to their member database. Government platforms rarely if ever contact petition supporters.

4. Legal scope. What legal rules govern the petitions it hosts?

Most platforms only host informal petitions. Because they aren’t part of any legal process, they need not respect any formal rules. Government sites typically only host petitions that require some sort of government action and must respect legal rules. One NGO platform, Campact!, has tried to use their informal petitions campaigning methods with formal government petitions.

Citizens’ initiatives always have a legal impact and must respect strict rules, especially in terms of data protection. Many can only be signed on paper or in government offices. Those that can be signed online are almost always hosted on government platforms. National citizens’ initiatives, however, are rare in EU Member States.

The European Citizens’ Initiative (ECI) has unleashed a great deal of interest in combining the methods of informal petitions with the impact of a formal government process. Until recently, all ECIs could only be signed on an official EU government . However, The ECI Campaign recently helped to create signature collection software (Open ECI) that is hosted on an independent server. Previously ClicknSign created a centralised web portal to promote ECIs. Campact! planned to apply informal petitions campaigning methods to the ECI Stop TTIP, but instead launched an informal petition when this ECI was refused registration.

5. Technical design. Whose needs guide the design?

Most non-governmental platforms are carefully designed to be as user-friendly as possible. Some also integrate other functionalities such as crowdfunding, sign-ups for newsletter and discussion forums. Other platforms, especially government platforms, are designed primarily to meet legal requirements or be easy for administrators to run.

The websites of many platforms only feature a small number of high-priority campaigns. Other sites provide search functions or menus of open campaigns. Some campaigns are only visible to those with a link to the specific web page.

7

6. Scope of action. Does it combine online and offline activism? Does it offer deliberative features?

Most platforms only offer online petitions. A few, such as Campact!, combine paper and online petitions. These petitions may be the sole action or one of multiple tactics in a broader issue advocacy or community building strategy. Some are used to draw media attention to an issue, others to pressure political or business leaders to act.

Campaigning communities like Avaaz and 38 Degrees use petitions partially to build databases of like-minded citizens who can later be called on to engage in diverse offline activities such as joining demonstrations or flash mobs, hosting issue discussion events, visiting elected representatives, writing letters to newspapers and fundraising. Move-on co-founder Ben Brandzel calls these “digitally facilitated” communities.

A small number of platforms include discussion forums or ranking options for pro/con arguments on petition subjects. This can help make these platforms more deliberative and enrich the public debate on the issues they present.

V. In-depth Look at 14 Online Campaigning Platforms

Researchers for this study took an in-depth look at 14 online campaigning platforms. They appear to cluster into five broad models for supporting petitions and citizens’ initiatives.

A. Virtual Campaigning Communities These are self-supporting, full-service, mission-driven campaigning organisations. They exist to promote common philosophical and policy goals and are run by a small core leadership team. Petitions help build large member databases of people who then can be called upon to support diverse actions. Examples: Avaaz, Campact!, 38 Degrees, WeMove.eu

B. Petition Hosting Platforms These are petition service platforms that facilitate others’ petitions with a diverse range of services -- ranging from campaigning support to access to databases. Services may be sold for a fee, donated to groups and individuals promoting a specific political philosophy or provided as a free public service. These are the largest and fastest- growing sources of petitions. Examples: Change.org, We Act, Open Petition

8

C. Modular Petitions Support Software These are customisable digital tools that can be used to support petitions and other campaigning tactics. They are typically offered on a fee for service basis by both for- profit and not-for-profit entities. Examples: Click n’Sign, Policat, Nation Builder.

D. E-government Petitions Tools These are government e-services designed to support formal citizen involvement tools. Examples: Deutsches Bundestag ePetitionen system, Petitions Portal of the European Parliament, European Citizens Initiative Online Collection System.

E. Hybrid NGO-Gov Petitions Support These are mission-driven NGOs that support formal government citizen-involvement tools with both software and advice. Example: Mana Balss (Latvia).

Below are in-depth descriptions of 14 different platforms organised by these five models. Each is described briefly, including a summary of how it applies the six design variables. Then strengths and weaknesses of its approach are outlined.

A. Virtual Campaigning Communities. Self-supported, mission-driven virtual organisations that build and manage database communities of like-minded citizens. Examples: Avaaz, Campact!, 38 Degrees, WeMove.eu.

1. Avaaz (www.avaaz.org) is the second largest online petitions platform in the world, after Change.org. Its petitions are all informal and address political authorities in countries around the world. Avaaz has also used its database to collect donations, organise mass phone and email campaigns and recruit participants for demonstrations and street actions. It promotes politically progressive public policies.

Decision making: Petitions are selected by a core leadership team following internal criteria. Business model: Self-financed via fundraising to provide services free of charge. Data management: Petition supporters automatically become members. Avaaz owns their personal data and uses them to develop and promote future petitions and offline activities. Legal scope: Informal petitions that typically target government decision-makers. Technical design: Well-researched, user-centric design. Only priority campaigns are visible on the website. Minor campaigns require a link to access. Scope of action: Combine online and offline activities.

Avaaz was founded in 2007 in the United States and is headquartered in New York. Its database includes over 40 million members in 194 countries worldwide. Begun with donations from charitable organisations, it now boasts a staff of 50 and an annual budget of five million US dollars. It is funded by individual donations of $5,000 or less.

9

Avaaz staffers develop most petitions and campaigns themselves to promote their politically progressive philosophy. However, members may propose subjects. They may also initiate a petition directly. Available in 18 languages, the avaaz.org website shows a selection of recent petitions and campaigns. Anyone may sign a petition with their name, email address, postal code and country. By signing a petition, one automatically becomes a member.

Strengths: Avaaz is a true global campaigning community. It can mobilise citizens from one region to engage in issues on the other side of the world.

Avaaz is run by a professional team of campaigners who carefully design and test petition messages to both mobilise citizens and impact policy. They then support petitions with public relations, demonstrations and other activities that increase their impact on decision-makers – e.g., ACTA petition, major media coverage. Their website is designed in an extremely user- friendly way and requires few personal data. This has helped its database of members to grow rapidly.

Weaknesses: Avaaz typically works alone vs. in coalition with other organisations. As a result, its petitions may not benefit from the visibility and expertise of issue expert groups and may sometimes even dilute or contradict their messages. That said, Avaaz has shown the ability to learn from its mistakes and now cooperates more actively with issue groups – e.g., seed exchange campaign.

Avaaz’s definition of membership is problematic. Anyone who signs any petition is automatically added to the Avaaz database of members, whether or not they agree to join or agree with their overall mission. Furthermore, there is no verification of identity, so some members may in fact be fake email addresses. Therefore, the number of Avaaz members and the degree of their commitment to their mission are both likely overstated. However, this is also true for many platforms.

Avaaz lacks transparency. Its budget and decision-making criteria are not made public. It is also impossible to see a list of all petitions or search its website for a particular topic. Petitions it promotes appear on its website, but user-initiated petitions can often only be accessed with a link. Avaaz conducts an annual “members’ survey” to gauge interest in potential petition topics. However, this is a close-ended questionnaire with pre-selected issues and appears to be designed primarily to obtain additional information about Avaaz members.

10 2. Campact! (www.campact.de) is the largest virtual campaigning community in Germany with a database of 1.6 million people. With a staff of about 30 campaigners, it runs informal petitions that address politicians at the federal, regional and local levels and coordinates street events and other offline actions. Started with foundation support in 2004, its 1.8 million Euro budget is now covered by small individual contributions. It has also launched two online petitions platforms (Open Petition and We Act!) and an EU-level virtual campaigning community (WeMove.EU).

Decision making: Petitions are proposed by members and selected by a core leadership team following internal criteria. Business model: Self-financed via fundraising. Provides a variety of online petitions services free of charge. Data management: Petition supporters choose to become members. Campact! uses member data to develop and promote future petitions and offline activities. Legal scope: Informal petitions that typically target government decision-makers. Technical design: User-centric design that features key campaigns. Scope of action: Combine online and offline activities.

Campact! promotes politically progressive policies related to the environment, democracy, peace, social welfare and gender equality. Any community member may propose a petition, which is then selected and developed by staff. Topics are selected based on importance, clarity, relevance to community members and likelihood of political impact. The website features key campaigns. Other campaigns are accessible via menu and search functions. Petitions may be signed with name, mailing address and email address. Petition supporters decide whether or not to join the Campact! community and may also leave comments on a blog.

Strengths: Campact! is a true full-service campaigning organisation. It combines online petitions with offline actions to maximise political impact. Its extensive database of like-minded people can be called on for a variety of campaigning actions. It cooperates with issue organisations. Its campaigns are run by talented professional campaigners.

It observes high standards for transparency and ethics, building user trust and membership. It only shares email addresses with the petition’s addressee. Petition supporters must choose to become members, rather than being added automatically. The name of the staffer responsible for each campaign is listed. A petition’s supporter may choose how to use social media to promote the campaign. Detailed annual financial reports are made public.

Weaknesses: Campact! typically takes up topics only after they have been well-developed by issue organisations. While they do list them as campaign partners, they are not as visible as Campact! itself and may not get credit for the tremendous work they’ve done over many years to raise awareness of their cause. One potential side effect is that Campact! may attract

11 donations that would otherwise be given to issue groups, undermining their future effectiveness. Similarly, because Campact! only addresses issues where it is likely to have an impact, it ignores many topics that may be important to its members.

The Campact! website only features high-priority campaigns. It would be more democratic if other campaigns could be easily found, for example via a search function. It would also be more inclusive of those without digital access if it were to provide downloadable signature forms that could be signed on paper and uploaded to the site.

3. 38 Degrees (www.38degrees.org.uk) is the largest virtual campaigning community in the United Kingdom with 1.9 members. It promotes a politically progressive policy agenda. Anyone who signs a petition automatically becomes a member. Begun in 2009, it uses diverse online and offline campaigning methods to target both politicians and business leaders on national, regional and local issues. In addition to online petitions, it coordinates mass email and Facebook campaigns, face-to-face contacts, events and media stunts. Its budget of around 1.2 million GBP comes primarily from small individual donors, as well as charitable foundations.

Decision making: Petition and campaign ideas are voted on by members in weekly polls based on recommendations from both members and staff. Business model: Self-financed via fundraising. Data management: Petition supporters automatically become members. 38 Degrees uses their data to develop and promote future campaigns. Legal scope: Informal petitions and diverse campaigning tactics that target both government and business decision-makers. Technical design: Extremely clear and easy to use. Scope of action: Combine online and offline activities. Online forums allow members to propose and deliberate on policy ideas.

Strengths: 38 Degrees involves its members to a much greater degree than most online platforms. Both members and staff may suggest topics, either formally or informally, including in forums and social media. Members then vote on proposed topics in weekly polls.

38 Degrees seamlessly integrates online petitions, online dialogue and a wide variety of offline campaigning tactics to create a dynamic campaigning community.

It is extremely easy to support a petition in one step with just a name, email address and postal code. No captcha or confirmation emails are required. Personal data are not shared with outside groups.

12 Weaknesses: Since all petition supporters automatically become members, it is unclear how many members are actively involved or even aware they are members. Similarly, since the procedure to support petitions is so simple, it makes it easy to falsify supporters and thus overstate membership. This is true, however, for many platforms.

As with similar platforms, topics are often selected that specialised issue organisations have worked on for many years. Although sometimes listed on the campaign description page, these groups are rarely given sufficient credit for their work. Likewise, only priority campaigns are listed on the website.

To enhance its democratic nature, it should make it easier to find other campaigns – e.g., provide a search function by date, policy field, addressee, etc. It could also provide downloadable signature forms to allow the collection of names on paper.

4. WeMove.eu (www.wemove.eu) is a start-up platform that seeks to become the first ever European Union level virtual campaigning community. It supports a politically progressive vision of an EU of social and economic justice, environmental sustainability and citizen-led democracy. Its goal is to combine online petitions with offline campaigning actions. It is resolutely European in spirit. Initially launched with the support of Campact! and 38 Degrees, it seeks to become self- supporting within three years through individual donations and philanthropic fundraising.

Decision making: Initially, petitions are selected by a core leadership team following internal criteria and member input from a survey. In the future, they will seek to more directly involve members as does 38 Degrees and/or offer free petition services. Business model: Once established, the goal is to become self-funded through small individual contributions. Data management: Petition supporters may choose to become members. WeMove.eu uses their data to develop and promote future campaigns. However, they are still exploring the concept of membership. Legal scope: Informal petitions and diverse campaigning tactics that target EU-level government decision makers. Technical design: User-centric design. Scope of action: Combine online and offline activities.

Since WeMove.eu is not yet fully operational, it is difficult to assess its strengths and weaknesses. Its’ multinational staff consists of professional campaigners drawn from different EU member states. Given that it can draw on the experience of Campact! and 38 Degrees while remaining independent, its future looks bright.

13 B. Petition Hosting Platforms For-profit or mission-driven platforms that offer a full range of petitions services to individuals and organisations. They facilitate others petitions, rather than organise their own. These are the largest and fastest-growing sources of petitions. Examples: Change.org, We Act, Open Petition.

5. Change.org (www.change.org) is by far the largest and fastest growing petitions platform in the world with over 100 million members and 500 new petitions received per day. Anyone who signs a petition automatically becomes a member. It does not organise its own petitions. Instead it hosts petitions from diverse individuals and organisations via both free and fee-based petition services.

Decision making: Any individual or organisation (except hate groups) may launch a petition. For a fee, users get additional services and visibility. Business model: For-profit corporation. Revenues come from paid petitions, advertising and crowdfunding of petitions. Data management: Petition supporters automatically become members. Change.org then sells access to their data to outside groups. Legal scope: Informal petitions that target all levels of government and business decision- makers. Technical design: User-centric design. Scope of action: Online only.

Launched in 2007 in the United States, Change.org originally sought to promote a progressive political agenda. However, it later opted to accept petitions from anyone, except hate groups. Recently it has hosted many petitions from politically conservative groups. Its users thus represent a variety of political and ideological positions, including corporate interests. Petitions may address government or business leaders. They may be for a local, regional, national or global issue. Many are tied to personal of injustice.

Change.org is a for-profit company with a social mission (Certified B Corporation) and has over 200 employees in offices in 18 countries on four continents. Revenues come primarily from selling advertising (i.e., sponsored petitions) and access to potential supporters within its database. Additional revenue comes from a crowdfunding service that allows petition supporters to promote a petition via donations. For each dollar donated, the petition is shared with five others who have signed a similar petition.

Strengths: Change.org offers high-quality professional petitions services to practically anyone, anywhere in the world. It has allowed otherwise powerless individuals to draw attention to important issues, leading to media stories and policy change in many different countries.

14 Its website is easy to use. Texts and communications can be drafted by professionals and available in multiple languages. Petitions may be signed with one click and only require name, email, postal code and country. They represent a great diversity of issues and have attracted large numbers of people around the world.

Weaknesses: Although Change.org is a for-profit company, its .org domain name and branding make it look deceptively like an NGO. Its acceptance of almost any petition has allowed corporations to use phony citizen front groups to launch what look like grassroots petitions. Although it claims to be neutral, it does in fact promote some petitions over others, either related to fees or marketing goals. For instance, it currently seeks to attract political conservative clients by promoting petitions in line with their values.

Its protection of personal data is perhaps the weakest of any online platform. For instance, signatures and personal information have been found by search engines, even when the signer asked to hide their signature. It also sells access to its member database to almost any group that can pay its fees. Although petition supporters must click a box indicating they allow this, it is unlikely that many actually read the fine print and fully understand this.

The concept of membership is especially weak. Anyone who signs a petition automatically becomes a member. Unlike virtual campaigning communities, members do not share a similar political philosophy. Similarly, because it is so easy to support a petition, there is a real risk of signature fraud – either fake names or using people’s names without their permission.

6. We Act! (www.weact.de or weact.campact.de) is a German petitions platform launched by the German group Campact! in late 2014. It provides a full range of free petitions services to individuals and groups that support its politically progressive agenda: pro-environment, social justice and democracy. It is supported by fundraising via the overall Campact! budget. Petitions target decision-makers at the local, national and potentially EU level.

Decision making: Any individual or organisation whose petition supports progressive political values, as determined by Campact! staff. Business model: Service provided free to like-minded groups and supported indirectly via fundraising. Data management: Petition supporters choose to become members. We Act! uses member data to develop and promote future petitions. Legal scope: Informal petitions that target both government (on all levels) and business decision-makers in Germany. Technical design: User-centric design. Scope of action: Online petitions only.

15 Strengths: Petition organisers can get professional advice and support from Campact! on how to design and run a successful petition campaign. It also offers a high level of data protection and IT security, for example avoiding US-based servers that are vulnerable to state espionage. All approved petitions are treated equally. None are given priority either due to subject or funding. In fact, petition organisers are forbidden from using the petition platform for fundraising.

Weaknesses: While anyone can post a petition, those that are not in alignment with progressive political goals are removed by Campact! staffers. This limits its democratic potential.

7. OpenPetition (openpetition.de) is a politically neutral “bare bones” online petitions platform based in Germany. It provides a website and software for petitions, but no campaigning support or access to databases. Petitions may be on almost any subject and can address either government or business leaders. It can host both informal and formal petitions. Begun in 2010, it is funded through small donations and contributions from Campact!.

Decision making: Almost any individual or organisation may launch a petition on any subject. Business model: Public service provided through fundraising. Data management: Personal data is protected. Only the petition target can access data, but not reuse them. Legal scope: Both informal and formal petitions. Technical design: Simple, user-centric design. Scope of action: Online and offline petitions. Discussion forum.

Petitions can be found via a search function on the website. Petition supporters provide their name, mailing address and email address. They may choose to receive news on the outcome of that petition, as well as be contacted about related petitions. However, petition organisers may only contact them via the OpenPetition platform. They do not have direct access to their supporters’ emails.

Strengths: OpenPetition is unusually transparent, democratic and inclusive. It is available free of charge to almost anyone and for most political topics. In the rare cases where a petition is rejected (e.g., violating formal petition rules), it is nonetheless published on the website as a “blocked petition” although cannot be signed. Signature forms can be downloaded, signed on paper, scanned, and then uploaded to the site – providing a way to include those without computer access.

OpenPetitions can be used for formal petition processes, as well as informal petitions. Formal petitions, with all required information from signatories, are transmitted directly to the relevant public authorities – e.g., appropriate committee in the German Bundestag. This helps

16 to build the interest and trust of politicians in the site.

The OpenPetition website is designed in a user-friendly way and encourages debate and sharing. Petitions can be signed in one step, with no captcha or confirmation emails. They can remain open for up to six months. Links to social networks, a comment function and a discussion forum that allows the addition and ranking of arguments all enrich the public debate on the issue.

Weaknesses: While its strong data protection policies are good for citizens, they are less so for campaigners who cannot use these petitions to build their own databases for other kinds of campaigning activities or fundraising.

As with many platforms, because of the ease of use and minimal personal data required, there is a theoretical risk of fake signatures. OpenPetition attempts to identify and remove fake signatures, but may make mistakes. For example, in the case of the petition “Zukunft – Verantwortung – Lernen”, legitimate petition supporters complained that they removed in error.

Its financial ties to Campact! could be made more transparent, especially when it links its own petitions Campact! campaigns.

C. Modular Petitions Support Software

For-profit or mission-drive providers of digital tools for petitions and campaigning. Examples: Click n’Sign, Policat, Nation Builder.

8. ClicknSign (www.clicknsign.eu) was an online platform that functioned as a gateway or portal to European Union level petitions and European Citizens’ Initiatives. It stopped functioning in mid-2015. Nonetheless, it provides an instructive example of one way to use an online platform at EU- level. It included both informal and formal petitions on almost any subject from almost any individual or group. It was started around 2012 by idealistic young proponents of EU public involvement. Petition supporters provided their name, email address, postal code and country. ECI supporters were then directed to that ECI’s online collection system website where they could support that initiative by providing additional personal information.

Decision making: Almost any individual or organisation may launch a petition on any subject. Business model: Unclear Data management: Unclear Legal scope: Both informal and formal petitions (ECIs). Technical design: Weak design for both users and petitions owners.

17 Scope of action: Online petitions only.

Strengths: ClicknSign sought to facilitate citizen involvement in European Union level public policy across multiple countries. It did this by providing a neutral, NGO-run platform that highlights opportunities for citizens to express their view on EU-level policy via petitions and European Citizens’ Initiatives. It made it easy to sign informal petitions in just one step with little personal data. It claims to have tripled the number of signatures collected for ECIs over the Commission’s official platform alone.

Weaknesses: The website design, as well as the combination of informal and formal petitions, confused and/or mislead some users. For instance, ECI supporters had to sign twice: once on Clicknsign and then again on the official ECI website. Even when an ECI no longer was collecting signatures, a message appeared that gave the incorrect impression that a supporter’s name had been added to the ECI. ECIs that could only be signed on paper were not even listed on the website. Moreover, while the website strove to be multilingual, few texts were in fact available in languages other than English. In sum, while a promising idea in principle, the actual Clicknsign platform never delivered on its promises.

9. PoliCAT (www.policat.org) is an NGO that sells customisable and multilingual petition and email campaigning software as a service to civil society and political action organisations. The software is open source and respects the highest standards of data protection. Policat was founded in 2010 by a former campaigner for Friends of the Earth Europe and the German software company Webvariants. It was designed to provide affordable petitions software to small and medium-sized NGOs working together in coalition on the same campaign.

Decision making: Available to any organisation that can pay its fees. Business model: Fee for service as a support to civil society (NGOs). Data management: Use of personal data decided by petitions owner. Software itself offers high-levels of data protection. Legal scope: Informal petitions. Technical design: User and campaign-friendly. Highly customisable. Scope of action: Online and offline.

Strengths: PoliCAT’s software allows petition organisers to control and customise their own campaigns. Petitions owners have access to supporter data and can decide how to manage it. A petition may appear on multiple websites and be easily embedded into newsletters, allowing multiple NGOs to work together on the same petition. Petitions may be translated into multiple languages.

18 PoliCAT’s service is in full compliance with national privacy laws and the EU data protection directive (e.g., double opt-in, encryption). They also respect the principle of data avoidance and data economy (e.g., no tracking).

Weaknesses: PoliCAT is only available to those who can pay their fees, limiting access to funded organisations. However, it may be possible to negotiate prices. Since petition owners can use emails as they like, the software could theoretically be used for commercial purposes.

10. NationBuilder (nationbuilder.com) is an organising platform that provides users with everything they need to build websites and communicate with supporters – including a content management system, donation platform and volunteer administration system. It provides petitions software that easily integrates with its other digital tools. It was created in 2009 as a for-profit company and is headquartered in Los Angeles, USA. It serves political parties, NGOs and companies in over 98 countries.

Decision making: Available to any organisation that can pay its fees. Politically neutral, although heavily used by conservative groups. Business model: For-profit company providing services for a fee. Data management: Personal data policies determined by users. Legal scope: Informal and formal. Technical design: User and campaign-friendly. Highly customisable. Scope of action: Online and offline.

Strengths: NationBuilder provides a range of digital tools to campaigns, including but not limited to petitions software. For example, it allows organisations to integrate diverse information about its actual and potential supporters to improve the success of all its campaigns. Petitions can also be easily integrated with newsletters and social media campaigns.

Its design is user-friendly and intuitive. It can be used in multiple languages. It is suitable for both large and small organisations.

Weaknesses: Services are provided for a fee, although it is moderate.

Although it claims to be politically independent, it has been used extensively by conservative political campaigns (e.g., The Republic State Leadership Committee in the USA).

19

D. E-Government Petitions Tools Government e-services to support formal citizen involvement tools. Examples: Deutsches Bundestag ePetitionen system, Petitions of Portal of the European Parliament, European Citizens Initiative Online Collection System.

11. The Petitions Portal of the European Parliament (www.petiport.europarl.europa.eu) allows individuals and groups to submit, publish and sign petitions to the European Parliament online. A petition to the European Parliament is a formal procedure outlined in the EU treaties. It must come from one or more EU citizens, residents or legal bodies that have been impacted by the topic of the petition. Topics must be within the EU’s field of activity. After being checked for admissibility, it will be published on the petitions portal. The Parliament’s petitions committee will then decide on an action – e.g., ask the Commission to act, bring to plenary, forward to another body, invite the petitioner to a hearing, etc.

Decision making: Any petition that fits the legal requirements – i.e., EU citizen/resident/body personally impacted by an issue of EU competence. Business model: Free government service. Data management: Supporters choose if name will be made public. Personal information only used for petition. Legal scope: Formal petitions to the European Parliament. Petition committee members decide on follow-up action. Technical design: Designed primarily for needs of administrators, not citizens. Scope of action: Online and offline petitions.

Users must first register on the website with name, address, age group, email, login and password. They may then submit or co-sign a petition. They can choose if their name will be made public. Recent petitions are shown on the homepage. There is also a search function to look up petitions, although it does not appear to function correctly.

Strengths: It is fairly easy to create and sign a petition. The website is accessible to people with disabilities. All petitions are displayed, even those deemed inadmissible. This gives the impression of a high degree of transparency.

Weaknesses: The website is very basic. It seems to have been designed primarily to fulfil administrative needs to accept petitions online and legal requirements for transparency. However, much information seems to be missing, especially on past petitions. Links to committee documents do not always function. Technical support to users is limited. It is unclear how long petitions will remain open for co-signing or if they may be combined with offline support. Furthermore, the powers of the European Parliament’s petitions committee to impact policy are limited.

20

12. The Petitions Portal of the German Parliament (Deutscher Bundestag) The petitions portal of the Deutsche Bundestag (epetitionen.bundestag.de) allows citizens to propose and sign public petitions. Although citizens have an individual right to petition parliament, public petitions allow large numbers of people to show their support for an issue and in theory increase pressure on politicians to act. Petitions are open for signatures for four weeks. They are then considered by the Bundestag’s petitions committee. Begun in 2008, the petitions portal of the German Bundestag platform has been used for over 3700 petitions or an average of 500 petitions per year.

Decision making: Any petition that fits German legal requirements. Business model: Free government service. Data management: Personal information only used for petition. Supporters choose if name will be made public. Legal scope: Formal petitions to the Bundestag. Petition committee members decide on follow-up action. Technical design: User-friendly design. Scope of action: Online petitions only. Discussion forum.

Petition supporters must first register with name, address, email and a password compliant to high security standards or an electronic ID card. Supporters choose if their name will be made public. Petitions must respect rules outlined in German law. For instance, they must address issues that impact multiple people, be factually true, not violate fundamental values, etc. On average, one or two petitions fulfil the requirements and are published each day. If a petition collects 50,000 signatures, the petitions committee will host a public debate on the topic.

Strengths: The website is designed in a user-friendly way. Its search function works correctly, making it easy to find both current and past petitions. Responses from the petition committee and other follow-up actions are published. There is also an online discussion forum for users to debate the content of the proposals.

Weaknesses: Petitions are only open for signature for four weeks. Consequently, most get few supporters. Only four petitions have collected over 100,000 names and none more than 134,000.

The website excludes people without computer access and skills. Online petitions cannot be combined with paper petition. Site registration also requires the creation of a complex password, which could easily be forgotten.

Although supporters can discuss amongst themselves on the forum, government officials cannot communicate with supporters directly (e.g., via email). Politicians have no obligation to act on the petition and there is no guarantee it will impact policy.

21

Decision-making transparency is low. Petitions that are deemed to violate petition rules are not published, as they are for example on the European Parliament’s website and on openpetition.de. This raises suspicion that petitions may sometimes be blocked for political reasons.

13. The ECI Online Signature Collection System is software that allows citizens to support registered European Citizens’ Initiative (ECI) online. It is not an online platform per se. The ECI is a legal right of EU citizenship in effect since 2012. It allows one million EU citizens to invite the European Commission to propose a legal act to implement the EU treaties. Signatures must be collected in 12 months. Successful ECIs receive a public hearing in Parliament and a response from the Commission. Detailed EU regulations govern both the ECI itself and the online collection system.

Decision making: European Commission determines if the ECI meets the legal requirements for registration. Decisions may be challenged before the European Court of Justice and the European Ombudsman. Business model: Free government service. Data management: Personal information only used for petition and destroyed after verification. Legal scope: Formal process. Successful ECIs get a hearing in Parliament and response from the Commission. Technical design: Designed to meet extensive legal technical requirements and administrative needs. Neither user-friendly nor campaign-friendly. Scope of action: The ECI is available online and offline.

Strengths: The online signature collection system is offered free of charge to all ECI organisers. Recently, it has also been hosted for free on a Commission server in Luxembourg. It’s available in all official EU languages.

The ECI itself helps to bring citizens together across borders around issue of common concern such as water quality and animal rights. It has led to debates on key issues, although no legislative proposals.

Weaknesses: Unlike national government petitions platforms, there is no single platform to which an ECI can quickly and easily be uploaded. Instead, the OCS is software that must be certified in a time- consuming and expensive process for each and every ECI. Rules require the OCS to meet complex technical requirements that many IT experts deem unnecessary.

The online collection system (OCS) was designed primarily to fulfil legal requirements for data protection, promote transparency and facilitate administrative tasks. It is neither user-friendly

22 nor campaign-friendly. Campaigns cannot collect contact emails from supporters, even on a voluntary basis. It cannot be embedded within other websites or customised, is difficult to integrate with social media and does not work well on mobile devices.

Decisions on which ECIs may be registered are not always transparent. ECI supporters in some countries must provide more extensive personal data than in others, depressing support. Most ECIs collect fewer than 100,000 signatures. Only three ECIs have collected over one million signatures and none led to a legislative proposal.

E. Hybrid NGO-Government Petitions Support Mission-driven NGO supporting formal government citizen-involvement tools with both software and advice. Example: Mana Balss (Latvia)

14. Manabalss (www.manabalss.lv) is a Latvian petition platform and support service founded by an NGO in 2011 to bring citizens’ ideas before the national parliament. It administers a formal political agenda setting petitions tool which lets Latvian citizens invite the parliament to propose new laws. In addition to providing an online platform, Manabalss also helps develop and promote promising petitions with legal, campaign and media support. In four years, 800 petitions were submitted, 100 were published, 17 collected over 10,000 signatures and eight were approved by parliament.

Decision making: Any Latvian citizen may propose a petition. Staff then helps shape petitions so they ask for a concrete legal action. Those that don’t are eliminated. Business model: Free government service administered by an NGO. Data management: The use of bank IDs for signature verification eliminates the need to collect and manage personal data in databases. Legal scope: Formal process. Successful initiatives are addresses in the parliament. Technical design: Designed to user-friendly way by e-commerce experts. Scope of action: Online only, with offline support.

Any Latvian citizen aged 16+ may propose a petition. Manabalss staff and volunteers help improve them with legal, campaign and media support. The petition must ask for a tangible legal action parliament could take. Those that don’t do this, especially those that merely criticise policy, are eliminated. If a petition collects 10,000 signatures, it’s taken by the Manabalss team, along with its creators, to parliament. It’s first verified for technical requirements, then its content is discussed in committee and finally it may be put to a vote in plenary.

Strengths: The petitions platform was designed in a user-friendly way by e-commerce experts. Supporters sign using their bank IDs which are easy to use, prevent fraudulent signatures, reduce personal

23 data required and simplify signature verification. It is open to all citizens aged 16 and over, thus supporting youth civic participation. It’s been used by over 35% of the Latvian population.

The Latvian petitions process is governed by a clear legal framework that requires successful petitions to be taken seriously. All petitions that collect at least 10,000 signatures go directly to the parliament for a public debate. They cannot be ignored.

Weaknesses: The use of online bank IDs for signature verification excludes the 25% of the population that does not use online banking. About 12 % of proposed petitions are filtered out for not asking for legally possible and tangible actions. While this keeps the petitions focused on actions, it may also limit topics of public debate.

VI. Benefits of Database Ownership

One thing that becomes clear when considering these 14 online campaigning platforms is the value of owning one’s own database of past petition supporters. All “virtual campaigning communities” and some “petitions hosting platforms” do this. These databases contain not just email addresses of active citizens, but also information on their residence, issues of interest and response to past calls for action.

Large databases allow the rapid mobilisation of large numbers of people at the most politically opportune time. This can have a demonstrable impact on policy decisions and public opinion. Databases also can be used to generate income, both directly and indirectly. Database access can be sold for a fee. Solicitations for individual contributions may be sent to people in the database. Groups that demonstrate policy impact made possible by large databases can also attract foundation funding.

Sites that host petitions on the most diverse subjects have the largest and fastest growing databases. This is the case of for-profit “petitions hosting platforms” like Change.org. Virtual campaigning communities like Avaaz address diverse topics, but can’t grow as large since they promote a defined political philosophy.

A few large issue groups, like Greenpeace, have started to build their own “virtual campaigning communities” with databases they own themselves. Although they may address multiple issues, they are limited to a single subject area, such as the environment. Consequently, their databases will likely remain relatively small. It is unclear if their deep issue knowledge and willingness to invest in building issue awareness over time will compensate for their smaller numbers – especially in attracting individual and foundation donations, as well as membership. In a sense, they are challenging the idea that “bigger is better” in online campaigning platforms.

For questions and comments on this report please contact us at: [email protected].

24