Innovation in telecommunication technology has consistently been associated with speculation about how it will impact politics. Typically, preliminary forecasts are optimistic, predicting that new technology will usher in a more democratic system. It is expected that new advances will act as a conduit for political information. Unfortunately, however, no advancement has yet realized this potential. New forms of media, such as the radio and television, have had an impact on the political arena, of course. Prior to the 1960s, political parties in the United States acted as the dominant link between the public and political candidates. But by the end of the 1960's, nearly every home in the United States had a television, which allowed voters to see and hear the candidates from the comfort of their living rooms. The public now had greater access to information on which to base its vote and candidates no longer had to depend on the party for access to voters. As such, control over presidential nominations shifted away from party leaders, and elections became more candidate-centered.

How will the Internet impact the political arena? It is difficult to answer this question based solely on our experiences with older forms of media. The Internet differs from traditional forms of media in a number of ways. For example, it is not simply one medium. Instead it is a medium network that facilitates a number of forms of communication, including interpersonal communication (email, chat rooms, and instant messaging), small group communication (listserv and blogs), and mass communication (online newspapers and magazines). Its use also requires a different set of skills and knowledge not associated with traditional forms of media consumption.

Web Campaigning adds insights to questions regarding the impact of the Internet on elections by examining the evolution of campaign web sites, starting with the 2000 presidential election. The book represents an ambitious undertaking. In order to chronicle the development of candidate web sites, Kristen A. Foot and Steven M. Schneider tracked changes in candidate web sites during the primary and general election for a sample of candidates in a number of races between 2000 and 2004. They augmented this with data collected in focus groups, online surveys, and interviews of citizens who might frequent these web sites, as well as the Webmasters who produced them. Although the authors collect an extensive range of data, they use it to examine a narrow set of actors: candidates and their campaign organizations. The goal of this study is to discover how the use of the Internet during campaigns has eliminated old challenges in the election process, created new ones, and reflected changes in the evolution of campaigning?

Foot and Schneider structure their book using a practice-based theoretical approach, which allows for the book's most important contribution—a systematic investigation of changes the Internet has brought to campaigning. To begin, we have seen a significant expansion in Internet presence. In elections between 1994 and 1998 the population of candidate web sites was limited. By 2000, all major candidates for the presidency, as well as 55% of candidates for the U.S. House of Representatives and 75% of the candidates for the U.S. House, had web sites (p. 9). This change came about in part because of public expectation. If a candidate did not maintain a web presence, they were considered “behind the times” and not perceived as a serious contender. As one member of a 2000 focus group put it, “I'd wonder if [a candidate without a Web site] had indoor/outdoor plumbing” (p. 195).

While there has been a significant increase in number of candidate web sites, there has been less change in their actual use. These sites are still most widely used to simply post information about the candidate, though there has been some increase in activities, such as email signups and online donations, that promote supporter involvement. Foot and Schneider identify several reasons why candidate web sites struggle to be more then simply “virtual billboards.” These include the difficulties inherent in reaching a sufficient mass of citizens with Internet access to justify the investment in the online campaigns; the need for better resources, including support staff; and the somewhat slow speed at which necessary technology has been developed.

The main obstacle to expanding the purpose of candidate web sites, however, appears to be the campaign organization itself. Technologically, we have reached the point where supporters can easily contribute their own messages to the campaign through blogs, bulletin boards, etc. To expand the function of the campaign web site to activities that would make the process more democratic would mean giving up some control over the message. Ultimately, the evolution of campaign web sites has not followed the trajectory that telecommunication technology would lead it but has been caught up in a struggle between using the Internet to its fullest potential to reach more citizens and the desire to control the campaign message.

Observations of the current presidential primary season would suggest that campaign organizations are losing the battle to control the media message on the Web. Supporters, interest groups, and opposing candidates are taking control over the message by uploading videos on YouTube, posting rumors on bulletin boards that seem to take on a life of their own and creating their own competing and supporting web sites. These activities take us beyond those used in 2004 election and the scope of Web Campaigning. Foot and Schneider have produced an excellent book whose main drawback appears to be the narrowness of its exploration. As these examples from the 2008 election illustrate, the web campaign goes well beyond candidate web sites.