Dave Winer takes a shot at the Clark and Dean campaigns in response to their efforts at creating open-source/free software for use in campaigns. He says:
Wouldn't it be great if Dean and Clark went after Viacom, ClearChannel and Time-Warner, instead of the tiny companies that make blogging and social networking tools.
I have to say that this is something I have mixed feelings about. On the one hand, I can see Dave's point. It can be hard enough to make a living developing software without high-profile efforts at creating free versions of the same stuff. When these same campaigns talk about saving or creating good high-tech jobs, it will be easy to target them as being hypocritical-- if they're not willing to pony up themselves for software developers, can we really expect them to pull for us later on? In truth, I think the answer to this question is "yes," but that doesn't mean that you wouldn't be able to make the rhetorical point. What I think we're seeing here is an attempt to save money while at the same time appeal to a certain portion of the "geek" population.
...and that's where the other hand comes in. Free and open-source software for use in elections has the potential to lower the cost of entry for someone wanting to conduct an effective campaign. I see this as a good thing. Combine this with publicly-funded campaigns, and we have a chance to eliminate the whoring fundraising that is making such a warped mess of candidate's priorities. Then we may have a chance at taking on the ClearChannels and Viacoms of the world.