Where Are They Now: Tracking Down Former Members and Staff

If you spent several years working as a mechanic and then decided to become a car designer, wouldn’t it be a good idea to use your expertise as a person who used to fix the cars in helping your former employer build better ones?

Or, if you spent several years working as a magazine writer and then went to work for a company as a media specialist, wouldn’t it be smart to use your connections in the magazine industry to help get stories placed about your new employer?

Or how about this – if you spent several years as an admissions officer at a school, would a viable future job choice be helping college bound students through the application process?

In all of these circumstances, people have built a level of understanding on how a process works and then applied that understanding for their future employers. It’s called earning a living.

Why, then, is it so unforgivable for former members of Congress and their staff to earn a living post-Congress working as lobbyists? And yet that seems to be the gist of a new Sunlight Foundation project called “Where Are They Now.” The project is tracking down the post-Congress job information of former members and staff to see if they have filed any lobbying registrations.

Now, before we get all personal here, let me clarify that I am not a lobbyist. I have no clients that pay me to present their views to Congress. I actually train others how to effective citizen lobbyists. This may be even worse, you be the judge. In full disclosure, I will say that I have contributed to Congressional campaigns, and you can read all about that at www.opensecrets.org
That said, I know what you’re thinking. You’re thinking that members of Congress and former staff shouldn’t become lobbyists because they have special access to and expertise in the Congressional system – access and expertise that no one else has.

Umm, isn’t that what we’re supposed to do in developing our careers? Learn about something, build contacts, get really good at it and then earn money? Obviously, I agree 100% that people should be prevented from peddling that influence in a dishonest way (through bribery, trickery or other nefarious schemes). But should they be shunned and/or ridiculed for honest efforts to influence Congress on policy issues they care about?

Critics might suggest that the Sunlight Foundation is simply shedding light on this phenomenon and, to be honest, I have no problem with this in theory. However, the context in which it has been presented, complete with the tongue-in-cheek references to “jailed” members of Congress makes me think that this is more than a simple effort to keep people informed.

If we simply want to keep people informed, why not set up a true “where are they now” process that does not focus exclusively on lobbying registrations? Sure, that would be useful information, but I’d also like to know if there are former members of Congress and/or their staff that are doing other great things. My point is that in shedding light on just this one aspect of “where are they now”, the Sunlight Foundation may be doing even more harm to the public’s perception of Congress than good.

New Report on Congressional Communications

New Report on Congress

I want to be sure tipsheet readers know about a new report on Congress that runs counter to everything I’ve ever said about effective advocacy. Among other things, this report suggests that:

• Members of Congress pay most attention to the people that live outside their district, not to their constituents.
• Citizens should never send personal letters. Petitions and form communications work just fine.
• The staff people for elected officials actually like it when you treat them badly and suggest that you’re disappointed to be meeting with or talking to “just them.”
  
  April Fools!

OK, there is no such report. In fact, all the evidence suggests the contrary. But, in honor of April Fools day I thought I’d imagine what the world of advocacy would be like if we turned some of the fundamental rules on their head. For more, check out the April Fool's edition of the tipsheet.

What Clinton's Schedule REALLY Says

Everyone is talking about the schedule Hillary Clinton kept as first lady and whether that translates into certain level of expertise in policy issues, both foreign and domestic. Detractors argue that her various meetings and ceremonial activities were purely "fluff", while others point to speeches, meetings and other events that required a clear, calm and collected intelligence (as well as diplomacy and, in a couple cases, bullet proof vests). You can read some about these perspectives through coverage in the Washington Post.

What no one has really said about these schedules, however, is the apalling environment in which serious, complex and sometimes life-or-death decisions get made! Imagine a schedule where from 4:35 to 4:40pm you are presented with a gift, from 4:40 to 4:50pm you are told to give a speech thanking the giver and then from 4:50 to 6:00pm you're meeting with a Congressional committee about health care. Who can make rational decisions when they are hopping back and forth between audiences, issues and tasks?

Rarely do I see in an elected officials' schedule something along the lines of "2:00pm to 4:00pm: Thoughtful contemplation of the potential solutions to our nation's health care problems." Or, "3:00 to 4:30pm: learn something about the budget process before I go out and vote on it." This is not the fault of opinion leaders. Anyone who trys to disappear for a few short hours to undertake some research is often seen as lazy. In DC, as in other major cities, the rule is "go, go, go."

Sometimes, it's better to stop and smell the roses (or the tax code as it were). Less scurrying about and more thoughtful contemplation might make for more rational decisions.

Just a though -- now I'm dashing off to sleep!

March Madness on Capitol Hill

Well, I've had quite an exciting week. First of all, the team here at the Advocacy Associates empire organized hundreds of Congressional meetings for two different Washington, DC fly-ins, both of which occurred on March 11th. That wouldn't be notable in and of itself except that one of them took place at the Mayflower Hotel here in Washington, DC.

Yes, THAT Mayflower hotel - the very one where Governor Spitzer, ummm, "stayed" in February. So yours truly had the joy of being at the Mayflower the day the news broke. We were so swamped with phone calls and meeting changes during the day that I didn't even hear the news until I called my husband at 6:00pm to say, without understanding the humor at all, "well, I just finished my day at the Mayflower and now I'm going home."

Really. That's what I said. The silence on the other end of the line was deafening (although perhaps he was laughing so hard he couldn't speak).

More important though is the fact that March 11th was perhaps one of the busiest days I have ever witnessed on Capitol Hill. There were literally tens of thousands of advocates in town all seeking meetings with their elected officials. Unfortunately, many offices simply couldn't accommodate all the requests, and some advocates were turned away.

If you want to find some ways to avoid the March Madness and get your message heard, check out our latest tipsheet on the topic!

The New Lobbying: It's not Just for the Rich and Powerful Anymore!

It is established wisdom that special interests use campaign funds to buy access to lawmakers and that lobbying is akin to the world's oldest profession. However, a couple recent articles in the Washington Post suggest that this knee jerk reaction to the goings-on in Washington, DC may not be 100% accurate.

First, on Feb. 14th came an article entitled "Home Builders Halt Campaign Funds After Setback"which chronicled the decision by the home builders PAC to stop making contributions to members of Congress after not getting certain policy provisions in the emergency economic stimulus bill. The message that some people are taking away from this is "See, there you have it. Lobbyists give campaign contributions and expect favors in return." In my opinion, the more important message is "See, you can be one of the biggest PAC contributor and lobbying organization on the planet and you still can't buy yourself in to the legislative process."

My perspective, which some may call naive, was confirmed in a recent article in the Post magazine entitled "How Lobbyists Always Win." In it, the efforts of the Disney corporation to increase congressional support for tourism were discussed at some length. Interestingly, the article talked more about the advetising, marketing, grassroots and networking components of lobbying than campaign contributions. In fact, the author Jeffrey Birnbaum points to a "new breed" of lobbyists more likely to find success through a combination of non-traditional factors as opposed to just "access by powerful people" and "strategic campaign funding."

The good news is that one of the pillars of this new approach is plain, old ordinary citizens like you and I. We don't have to be leaders of industry or big campaign contributors or even relatives of an elected official to have an impact -- as long as we care about an issue and make an effort to participate, we can be more powerful than all the homebuilder and mickey mouse PACs combined.

Super Duper Tuesday

I have long argued that the most important reason to vote is that it gives you the right to whine about the outsome. Given the high and, in some cases, record turnouts in the recent primaries, we're going to see a whole lot of whining come 2009.

It's great to see so many people getting out there to vote -- now if we could get them to extend their involvement to encompass ongoing communication with government then I, as the Advocacy Guru, would be happy. Maybe we should get little buttons that look like those "I Voted" buttons that say "I Advocated" and give them to everyone who visits with, writes, calls or otherwise expresses an opinion to their elected officials.

Hmmm, that actually sounds like an interesting idea. I'm on it...

In the meantime, while you're waiting for the buttons, if you want to keep an eye on delegate counts, check out the CNN Election Board It will keep you entertained at least through March.

New Year New Advocacy Podcast

Our new podcast "New Year New Advocacy" is now available for download

In this podcast from Stephanie Vance, the Advocacy Guru at Advocacy Associates, we offer three New Year's Resolutions for more effective grassroots in 2008.

Repeat after me...

I resolve to focus your efforts on fewer personalized communications (vs. form e-mails);
I resolve to utilize grassroots advocacy techniques effectively during the election cycle;
I resolve to learn more about effective advocacy techniques.

Listen and feel rejuvenated, refreshed and ready to make the world a better place for your issues!

(Oh, and if you're old fashioned, you can read the podcast transcript online)