#StartupsEverywhere: Chris Madden, Founder, Stump
This profile is part of #StartupsEverywhere, an ongoing series highlighting startup leaders in ecosystems across the country. This interview has been edited for length, content, and clarity.
Platforming candidates for local office
Chris Madden is utilizing his background working with startups to build Stump, a platform for local political candidates to reach voters in an individualized, AI-powered “Ask Me Anything” style. His mission is to democratize democracy. We sat down with Chris to discuss his company, determining a candidate's eligibility for the platform, and the looming threat of hate speech on content platforms.
Tell us about your background. What led you to Stump?
I started Stump as an outsider without a background in politics or government. I’m the average frustrated voter trying to solve my own problem of making an informed decision about the candidates vying to represent me in local government.
After completing my undergraduate studies, I had no plan. I had an offer to join the staff of a member of Congress from my home state of Maine, but I knew sweating through my suit during the hot summer months in D.C. was not the right fit. Instead, I began my career at a boutique valuation consulting firm just outside of Boston, helping entrepreneurs, startups, and large companies monetize their intellectual property.
Ultimately I didn't see myself as a career consultant and decided to join a venture-backed startup called Forge. Forge’s mission is to build and power the next generation of trades workers. It was an awesome learning experience about building, scaling, and navigating the complexities of a new business.
Over the last few years, I’ve felt a gravitational pull to the problem of political awareness, particularly in local government. The city I live in has a major rat problem. I spent hours reviewing the campaign websites, social media pages, and interviews of the candidates who were running for City Council, but they were all silent on the issue. It’s silly, but there was no Batman equivalent (or “Ratman”) on the ballot to save the city from this problem.
I asked myself, 'Why is it so difficult to figure out who and what is on my ballot?' That led to a second question: 'How do any of these candidates align with what each voter cares about?' As I dug deeper into those questions, I was inspired to create Stump.
What is the work you are doing at Stump?
Stump is a starter kit for local political candidates and a location-based, chat-first interface for voters. There are just so many hurdles for new down-ballot candidates trying to run a competitive campaign, and so much friction for voters trying to learn about the candidates, so Stump is an effort to tackle both of these problem sets. Existing social media platforms have strong distribution and therefore are the default home for local candidates today, but they’re polarized channels and not a great experience for this use case.
There's minimal support infrastructure for new, non-partisan candidates for office. The two dominant parties have a robust, top-down infrastructure, but at the local level, it's usually uncontested elections and partisan vendors that aren't interested in candidates with a small budget. Stump is focused on helping all candidates—especially new, local, non-partisan candidates—with wins on big early problems like mobilizing a team, securing endorsements, and quickly building an asynchronous digital presence without hiring a communications director or needing personal media savvy.
Compliance and regulation are challenging in the pre-revenue stage. The ultimate vision for Stump is to create the home for local elections nationwide. I’m very aware that the idiosyncratic regulatory requirements of certain states will be challenging to navigate.
Currently, the platform is live and I’m focused on working with more candidates, so it’s a lot of cold outreach. Stump is open to anyone who is running for office and wants to be on the platform. Enough platforms have gatekept and isolated other perspectives, and that's how we've ended up in this fragmented landscape.
What kind of policies do you have about the content candidates can post on Stump?
Candidates are going to have a wide range of positions, but there needs to be accountability. I see one of the biggest accountability measures as empowering voters on the platform with an opportunity to push back. If a candidate is spewing hate or misinformation, voters and other platform participants can check that and provide a feedback loop that reinforces constructive discourse. In the future, I see Stump facilitating fact-checking against campaign promises and additional data-driven context on local issues.
How do you structure policies to govern what voters can say on Stump?
I need to establish better terms of use and user authentication, but this will be a collaborative effort that includes the voices of candidates, voters, and other stakeholders. It’s very much still a work in progress given where Stump is today, and there’s a trade-off between removing friction for users and shaping an ecosystem in which everyone wants to participate in.
Each group of users on Stump has different priorities. Candidates want to spend time in the most efficient channel to reach their “qualified leads” – registered voters wherever they are running for office. Voters want a quicker and easier way to assess their choices and feel heard. Both groups depend on one another being in a given channel, but if Stump is rife with negativity or toxic language, it undermines the platform’s long-term viability. There’s a lot to learn here looking at recent history, especially from social media platforms and other companies in this space that have undertaken similar endeavors like Brigade Media.
How do you ensure those policies are enforced?
I am currently manually reviewing user content, but having me call balls and strikes is a problematic solution. Priority number one is expanding the user base of candidates and voters. I believe as Stump grows, the shape of policy definition and enforcement will come into focus through organic conversation. Again, I believe it’s critical that this discussion includes voices from all ends of the political spectrum and blooms from the least common denominator of shared values and beliefs.
One benefit of working on local elections is that they’re typically less susceptible to being dominated by culture wars or hate speech. People can more clearly see a common interest in improving the infrastructure and schools that they share with their next-door neighbors.
I’m fully aware that this will be a challenge for Stump, but for now, I’m hoping—and praying—that day isn’t here quite yet. That's something I need to prepare for and build parameters around.
There was an instance recently where users were asking the Ballot Bot questions with vulgar language. I was able to speak with these users, and it turned out they were campaign insiders affiliated with one of the two major political parties testing the bounds of the platform to see how it handled “limit-pushing questions.” Unfortunately, this instance indicates that the need for robust policy and enforcement is coming sooner rather than later.
Are there any local, state, or federal startup issues that you think should receive more attention from policymakers?
I think one big problem that nobody is discussing is the widespread vacancies on city and county boards and commissions across the country. Municipalities do not do a great job of broadcasting vacancies. If anything, there’s an incentive to not highlight these vacancies. Existing board and commission members consolidate power with the status quo, and it’s a bad look for the city administration to say they can’t convince people to work with them.
I think Stump could be a catalyst in getting the word out about vacancies and creating positive peer pressure to nudge more people into pursuing board and commission positions. We all have friends, family, and colleagues who would be excellent public servants and have valuable expertise in applicable domains for local government, but they haven’t heard the chorus of people in their lives encouraging them to share these gifts with their neighbors.
The pipeline of candidates for local elected office is thin, and the journey for candidates often includes prior service in a city board or commission position. If we want more competitive elections, it starts with inviting more everyday people to participate in local government, especially on local boards and commissions.
What are your goals for Stump moving forward?
My goal is to work with as many local candidates as possible, get feedback on their most acute pain points throughout the lifecycle of a campaign, and iterate with solutions that address these needs. Right now the sample size is small, so I’m always thinking about ways to bring more candidates onto the platform and in turn make Stump a more valuable resource for voters to learn about their choices and participate in local elections.
All of the information in this profile was accurate at the date and time of publication.
Engine works to ensure that policymakers look for insight from the startup ecosystem when they are considering programs and legislation that affect entrepreneurs. Together, our voice is louder and more effective. Many of our lawmakers do not have first-hand experience with the country's thriving startup ecosystem, so it’s our job to amplify that perspective. To nominate a person, company, or organization to be featured in our #StartupsEverywhere series, email advocacy@engine.is.
