You Don't Have to Pay to Speak, or Even be Heard

Today (March 16th), the Huffington Post linked to the video of a CBS investigation GOP Freshman and Fundraisers. This somewhat salacious piece suggested (wait, no, actually stated) that people who attend fundraisers gain the kind of access to legislators that regular citizens can only dream of. While this may seem like a "dog bites man" kind of story, it concerns me because it perpetuates the myth that you can't talk to your elected officials unless you attend a fundraiser. Believe it or not, your power of constituency is all you need to meet with, bend the ear of and, yes, even influence legislators.

How do I know this? For practically every minute of every day from about February through May, someone in my office is making appointments for advocates from all around the country to meet with policymakers. There are no fundraisers involved. The magic words are "we have a constituent in town who would like to meet with you." When we say those words, we get a meeting. Don't believe me? Here are some stats on the percentage of constituent-based meetings with legislative offices that we were able to schedule, without bribery, manipulation or lying. These are just a few of our events, but the statistics hold true for our other groups as well:

• American Association of Museums 2011: 96% of the meetings requested
• Lupus Foundation: 100% of meetings requested
• Synthetic Turf Council: 100% of meetings requested
• American Planning Association: 98% of meetings requested
• American Association of Museums 2012: 99.8% of the meetings requested
• YWCA: 100% of the meetings requested
• National Association of Electrical Distributors: 100% of the meetings requested

To me, these stats point out that you don't have to pay to speak. And if everyone keeps thinking that it will become a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Oh, and speaking of the National Association of Electrical Distributors, here's a link to a video outlining THEIR point of view on meeting with Capitol Hill. Pretty good stuff.

The Players in The Influence Game

To win the “Influence Game,” you must be able to effectively place those you’re seeking to influence into one of four categories, specifically champions, supporters, rank and file (or neutrals) and opponents. Knowing this will help you figure out where and how to focus your resources. Following are a few ideas for managing each:

Champions will carry the water for you within the influence arena. This is especially important in legislative venues where individual citizens cannot take specific actions like introducing or voting on bills. Focus early and with some vigor on finding or developing these people. You won’t move very far without them.

In general, supporters will vote with you and may take small actions (such as signing on to a letter or cosponsoring legislation). Don’t get complacent about their support and certainly don’t ignore them. You don’t want them to wander off. One of the most common things you hear in an elected official’s office is “well yes, I support issue X, Y, Z, but no one asked me to [sign that letter, make that statement, vote for that amendment].” This often marks the difference between success and failure.

The “rank and file” or “neutrals” often don’t have a strong opinion about your issue. Direct your advocacy effort toward convincing them that, when it comes down to a decision they must make (such as a vote), it’s to their advantage to vote with you. There’s always a possibility of turning neutrals in to supporters or champions. However, the real danger is that without adequate pressure from those who influence them, they may turn into opponents -- possibly even through apathy. In legislative environments, it’s often much easier to say “no” than “yes.”

In terms of the opposition, don’t focus on trying to get them to change their mind. If you can “coopt” them from the outset, for example by giving them something they want in exchange for their silence on an issue, try that. Otherwise, your time is best spent understanding and responding to their arguments.
More on “The Influence Game” in upcoming posts! And see what it's all about at www.theinfluencegame.com

Not Again! More Good People Leaving the Congress

From 1993 to 1994 I worked for Congressman Mike Kreidler, a Democrat from the 9th district of Washington State. If you don’t remember his Congressional career, that’s OK. Unfortunately he was in office for only two years. He lost his bid for re-election in the famous 1994 elections, when the House switched hands for the first time in 40 years. Fortunately for the citizens of Washington State, he is now their health insurance commissioner, so it worked out for everyone.

One of the members of Congress I had the chance to interact with during my years in the Washington delegation was Representative Norm Dicks (D-WA). When I say “interact,” I mean I’d be behind the scenes in hearings or meetings he was in charge of. I’m sure Rep. Dicks will not be writing in his memoirs “I got to interact with Stephanie Vance.”

What I remember about “Norm” (as everyone, friend or foe, knows him) is that he seemed very scary and acerbic. However, behind his gruff demeanor hid a caring for his district, the state and the people around him unparalleled by anyone in the U.S. Congress. Sure, he could scare the crap out of anyone in his way, and he definitely let his colleagues know when he wanted their support for an issue or funding level. But I never got the impression that any of this was done for “power” or for the “good of Norm.” It was all about a love for Washington state and Congress as the institution representing government “by the people.”

Now, I don’t mean to make it sound like he’s dead. He’s very much alive (in fact, if anyone is, it’s Norm). It’s just that, like Olympia Snowe and other reasonable legislators before him, he recently announced his departure from the House of Representatives. His statement came as quite a shock to D.C. insiders. As the ranking member of the House Appropriations Committee, Norm holds one of the most powerful positions in the Congress. He was expected to easily win re-election. So why leave now?

He is quoted as saying “At some point you have to retire. I just decided that now is the right time.” And it may all be little more than that. But I do wonder if the institution has just become a lot less fun for someone like Norm who worked well with both sides of the aisle and always sought bipartisan solutions. I can’t put words in his mouth or assume that he’s retiring for reasons other than, in his words, a desire to “see Husky games and go fishing.” I can be concerned that this is another example of what the extreme bipolarization of the institution is doing to the future of our democracy. If we don’t have good, thoughtful, reasonable people who understand the nature of compromise to run it, it’s not going to work all that well.

Most Recent Senate Retirement a Loss for Us All

There’s an adage that says “moderation in all things.” Apparently the U.S. Congress did not get the memo on that, as evidenced by the latest example of rational, thoughtful people feeling compelled to leave the Senate. I’m talking about the recently announced retirement of Olympia Snowe (R-ME). In this Washington Post opinion piece, she points to “dysfunction” and “political polarization” of the institution as her main reasons for leaving.

Although she and I are of different political parties, her decision saddens and discourages me. In my 20 years in Washington, D.C. (yes, I’m old) Senator Snowe has always impressed me as one of the “good ones.” Every person I’ve ever spoken to from Maine (believe it or not, we get a fair amount coming to D.C. for lobby days) shares that view, even when they don’t agree with her. They have always told me that it’s clear she cares about both her constituents as well as what she sees as the best way to move the country forward in a balanced way. She’s been a champion of everything from libraries to improving access to health care services to reducing regulatory burdens on small business. And Senator Snowe has, despite all its problems, always been supportive of the U.S. Congress as an institution designed to express the views of citizens.

Senator Snowe’s retirement is just one symptom of a much bigger problem. This problem stems from the incivility and anger that has seeped, sometimes insidiously, into our political process. Unfortunately, with the election season in full swing, I think the acrimony will get even worse this year. It’s up to “we the people” to make sure this doesn’t happen. I’m probably not going to convince the real “haters” to stop being hateful. I hope, though, that I can convince some of the more reasonable citizens to speak up. Too many of us (and I say “us” because I’m guilty of it myself) are abdicating our responsibility to say “hey, enough is enough. Stop acting like 4-year olds.” We do this through voting (be sure you’re registered!) and speaking out, politely but firmly, when we see antagonism from either side of the aisle or from citizens themselves.

I still love the idea of Congress as an institution. I still love the idea of citizen engagement. But I say “idea” because in practice lately it’s not working out so well. The only way we can move forward (or at least stop moving back!) is to recognize that even when you believe others are horribly misguided in their views, we are all joined together as part of a larger “we.”

Knowing the Nature of What You’re Selling: Part 4 – Timeframe

In the last few posts I’ve talked about how effective lobbyists understand the nature of what they’re selling in Washington, D.C.. They identify the intent (action vs. inertia), the scope (controversial or not), the importance (must do vs. may do) and the timeframe (short vs. long term). This post covers the final factor, timeframe. When a policy decision must be made quickly, it’s easier for special interests to “pile on” their pet projects. Policymakers are likely to just “go with the flow” because they simply do not have the time to consider an alternative option. Look at the example of the emergency payroll tax cut and unemployment benefits extension passed on Friday February 17th, 2012. Tucked into the bill were provisions to “study the use of state and local 9-1-1 service charges,” as well as funds to conduct research into wireless public safety communications. Believe it or not, these telecommunications-related sections of the bill were considered “germane” because proceeds from the sale of wireless spectrum were one means used to pay for the tax break and benefit extension. Oh, and because the “Next Generation 9-1-1 Advancement Act,” which was the genesis for this section bill, was originally introduced by Rep. John Shimkus (R-IL), a member of the House Communications and Technology Subcommittee.


Whether you agree with this “piling on” approach or not, it’s effective. Clearly, the timeframe of passage impacts both the types of strategies you use in your influence campaign, as well as how extensively you use them. A couple hours of research might be appropriate for a decision to be made within a few weeks, while several weeks (and, indeed, ongoing analysis) would be appropriate for causes that will take several years to finalize one way or another. At the same time, you may need to build a foundation over time in order to take advantage of a “spur of the moment” opportunity. Rep. Shimkus introduced the 9-1-1 improvement act in July of 2011. He and his allies were well positioned – and early on.

Overall, when playing the influence game recognize that some “yeses” are easier to get to than others depending on all these factors. The easiest tend to be short term “must do” decisions that are non-controversial and not action-oriented. On the more difficult end of the spectrum are controversial, optional decisions that require your decision maker to take proactive action. If you know the nature of what you’re selling, you can find where you are on this spectrum, and plan your strategy accordingly. If your idea is a little on the controversial side, look for opportunities to connect it with those on the “easier” end of the spectrum. This is a tried and true legislative strategy that works.

Five Things Advocates Need to Know About the Budget and Appropriations Process

Happy Budget Day!  If you’re intimidated, confused or even just bored by the federal budget process, read on for a few things we think citizens should know – without getting all bogged down in D.C. jargon (OK, maybe a little jargon).

It’s important now because your voice matters more than anyone else in the political process.  Clearly, the 112^th Congress is focused on cutting spending, which means that some program you like (whether it’s foreign aid, domestic education or business tax credits) will be cut.  Or perhaps you believe that everything should be reduced or eliminated – as many people do these days.  Members of Congress focus with intensity on the view of their constituents.  If you want your perspective to win out – you better speak up.  If you are going to speak up, though, be sure you know what you’re talking about.  Nothing screams “I haven’t done my homework” like someone saying, for example, “let’s balance the budget by eliminating all foreign aid programs.”  Foreign aid programs make up ½ of 1% of the budget.  Eliminating them won’t even balance my yearly coffee budget (yeah, I drink a lot of coffee).  Follow these four tips to learn a little more – and use this wisdom to become a lot more effective.

First, know the difference between the Presidential budget process and the Congressional budget process.  The Administration’s proposal, which comes out every February, is simply that – a proposal.  What Congress, as the branch that has the true “power of the purse strings,” decides is a totally different matter.  When the person occupying the White House and the leadership of the House and Senate are of the same political persuasion the budget numbers may be somewhat similar.  However, when the President and the Congress don’t see eye-to-eye, the President’s proposal becomes less a signal of where there are agreements and more a sign of what items will be most in contention

Second, know the differences between “budget,” “appropriations,” and “authorization” bills.  The first is a budget blueprint, the second type of bill allows a program to exist (authorization) and the third type provides actual funding for that program (appropriations).  The processes work in tandem and are equally important to the overall outcome.  Effective advocates understand the differences and develop their policy asks accordingly.

Third, know the differences between discretionary and non-discretionary spending.  The VAST majority of federal spending is on what are known as “non-discretionary” programs, such as Medicare, Social Security and interest on the national debt.  In essence, these programs are not truly non-discretionary: Congress could pass policy language making changes that would reduce or increase spending in these areas. However, major changes to these programs are few and far between.  Most yearly funding battles are oriented around the one-third of the budget that is considered “discretionary.”  Advocates need to understand that the funds available for domestic discretionary programs are decreasing, while demand is increasing, thus increasing the need for citizen voices.

Finally, know where to learn more.  In addition to the materials available on your own organization’s website, there are many other sources of information.  Consider Look at the Office of Management and Budget (www.omb.gov), the Congressional Budget Office at http://www.cbo.gov/, which has a primer on the budget process, and the National Priorities Project at http://nationalpriorities.org/, which also has a primer on the budget process has an interesting “where do your tax dollars go” calculator.

Armed with this information you’ll be ready to make a real difference.  So go forth!

Love your government – Or at least don’t hate on them for a while

I recognize the likely futility behind this advice.  But hey, it’s Valentine’s Day and I just have to put in a good or at least neutral word for Congress.  I’m not suggesting that you buy your legislators flowers or chocolate (that’s not allowed under the ethics rules unless the flowers are less than $50 and the chocolate is eaten standing up.  Long story.  Don’t ask.)  Conversation hearts might be possible, but I’m too concerned people will add a “you suck” message to those before sending them so I’m not going to really suggest that either.

No, my simple way of asking advocates to show the love is to at least stop showing the hate for a few days.  I’ve been surfing a lot of legislator social media sites (Facebook, YouTube, Twitter, etc.) lately as part of an effort to encourage citizens to advocate online.  These sites are a really effective way to get a sense of what the legislators is interested in -- a key to effective messaging.  But WOW, the vitriol out there is amazing.  I found very few sites where anyone said something like “hey, I agree with that” or even “I respectfully disagree.” Sure, less than 15% of Americans approve of the job Congress is doing – and they certainly need to know that we’re not really thrilled with what’s going on.  That said, could we all dial down the anger?  Seriously.  It’s not helping.

You don’t have to ask your representatives to “be mine” (some might take that too literally).  But how about a “Let’s Talk” to indicate you’re willing to have a conversation with them?  The good news is that you can have those conversations in-person while they’re home during next week’s district work period.  Most elected officials schedule forums and town hall meetings where they can connect with constituents and hear their views.  And I can’t tell you how many times one conversation at a town hall meeting has resulted in a member of Congress supporting a bill or program.  It’s certainly far more likely to be successful than some of the approaches I’m seeing out there right now.  Just look up their district offices through a site like www.congress.org (enter your zipcode on the top right side) and call.  It's that easy.

I hope this plea for just a little bit more love (or a little bit less hate) doesn’t fall on deaf ears.  Or, at least, I hope I don’t get a bunch of really cranky responses – a prefer chocolate.