What kind of organization do you want to work for?

There are a number of places to get involved in politics, and they differ markedly in directness of impact, partisanship, and even longevity. Approximately speaking, there's a tradeoff between partisanship and longevity.

• Political campaigns: By working with the campaign that speaks to you most directly, you can have a direct impact on a cause that you care about directly. However, campaigns tend to last no more than a year; even longstanding incumbents shed most of their staff after an election is over. It's also worth noting that most political campaigns can't afford to pay for a robust staff of software developers; Presidential campaigns, and some high-profile statewide campaigns, are usually the only ones which hire a tech staff.

• Party committees: These organizations include the Democratic National Committees and "sister" committees like the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, as well as state and county parties. One thing that's nice about these organizations is that they stick around for a long time; but on the other hand, funding usually dries up after an election cycle ends, and staff naturally drift away as well. Obviously these groups are very partisan - in the strictest sense of the word. But not all Democrats are created equal, and if you're a dyed-in-the-wool progressive you may find yourself at odds with one party committee or another over time (indeed, that is nearly inevitable.) Here again, it's usually just the national party committees that hire tech staffs, though some of the more ambitious state party committees will hire from time to time. That's especially true in states where the technology sector is a large part of the economy, like Virginia and Washington.

• Advocacy groups: There's a whole world of such groups, ranging from the American Civil Liberties Union to the Sierra Club to MoveOn. Like party committees, these groups tend to be long-lived. But if you're something of a "movement progressive", they can also be more aligned with your personal ideology - in some ways they can be more partisan than the party committees! However, there can be a great deal of variance among the groups. Some of them are non-profits which are strictly prohibited from participating in electoral politics. Even the PACs and 501c4s which are allowed to participate in electoral politics may focus on a narrow slice of issues, geographies, or candidates. What's nice about these groups is that their funding tends to be a little more even from year to year than party committees, so they may have greater capacity for long-term technical planning. Writ large the newer and more ideologically-driven groups like MoveOn, ColorOfChange, and Democracy for America are also most eager to invest in organizing technology with broader impact across the progressive movement.

• Labor unions: In some ways these groups act like advocacy groups, in that they are long-lived and they have a clear ideological mission around working-class issues. They deserve something of a special categorization because they have such a healthy appreciation for the value of data and technology - approximately speaking I think they are a good decade ahead of other advocacy groups in terms of organizing technology specifically. Unions are a little different from advocacy groups in that they also act like aid organizations - in fact their central mission is to join workers together for mutual aid in contracting talks with employers. So it's in some ways easy for unions to make a difference in the world even in a tough election cycle, because they are helping their members stand up for themselves. Labor union funding is generally quite consistent, driven as it is by paycheck contributions - but the long, concerted conservative attack on labor unions has certain taken its toll as membership numbers dwindle. Some of the notable technology investors in this space include the AFL-CIO, SEIU, CWA, and UFCW.

• Political tech vendors: These are companies (and a handful of non-profits) whose mission is to provide technology solutions to the above groups. Some of the best-known examples include NGP VAN (where I used to work), ActBlue, and Civis Analytics - but there is a wide range of others, and there seem to be more and more every year. These organizations tend to behave like any other software shop, with agile practices and a healthy attitude towards long-term investments in cutting-edge technology. They tend to be long-lived and to have a handle on maintaining a consistent funding stream (or in any case, if they don't maintain a consistent cash flow, they're not likely to be long-lived.) In terms of partisanship, their impact can actually be a little muted since they tend to serve a broad cross-section of the political landscape, including all flavors of Democrats. Some vendors are more committed to partisanship and a broader progressive mission than others, and even explicitly progressive vendors may differ in terms of who they will serve. Still, it's fair to say that the aggregate impact of these groups is to empower Democrats and to give them an edge against Republicans.

• Civic tech vendors: These are companies which are focused on improving civic involvement in one way or the other. Some of them pursue a "business-to-consumer" (B2C) model of engaging citizens directly, e.g. to make it easier to register to vote or to find good sources of news. Others pursue a "business-to-business" (B2B) model of working with governments and other relevant enterprises. By and large their mission is non-ideological and in some cases they're explicitly neutral politically. However, improving civic involvement is in some ways a bona fide progressive cause in its own right. In cases where civic tech increases participation in the political process, it can give progressives an edge even if that's not the express intention. Some good vendors in this space include TurboVote and BallotReady.

• Government: Clearly, government tends to be one of the most stable and long-lived institutions around, and it can make investments in technology that dwarf those of all the other groups above - combined. As a general rule, government tech spending is not ideologically inflected, nor should it be! That said, there are some agencies whose mission tends to have a progressive impact - think of the EPA under a Democratic president. There are also cases where improved efficiency and technology in a strictly neutral agency can be a progressive cause - that's the case with most secretaries of state, for example, where improved efficiency means broader access to voting. Finally, there are a handful of governments, particularly at the municipal level, which have an appetite for moving the needle on progressive policy. So while government tech can be a very mixed bag, it can also include some innovative and interesting places to work. Two noteworthy agencies in this space include 18F and the US Digital Service, both of which have purportedly non-partisan missions - except in that they improve the relationship between citizens and government, which is itself something of a progressive cause.