... And More on AstroTurfing

Sorry to anyone who is tired of fake grassroots, but it's just such a hot topic lately. Today's Post had an article about how UPS employees were forced to lobby against FedEx. The article suggests that rank-and-file UPS workers (drivers, office personnel, etc.) were told by their managers to send letters to members of Congress in support of more stringent labor rules for FedEx.

If true, this is certainly an example of astroturfing at its most egregious. Informing employees of an issue and allowing them to make their own decisions is one thing: sitting them down with a pen, paper, talking points and some not-so-veiled threats is entirely different. There is a right way to encourage employee and other citizen involvement in advocacy. What's described in this article is NOT it.

Perhaps even more significant is the fact that given how these letters were generated, I'm not even sure how effective they would be anyway! I mean, if you're going to strong arm employees in to writing letters you might as well have them be effective. Some key problems with these:

• Umm, handwritten letters? So last century. Pieces of paper going to Washington, DC go through an irradiation process. They come out of that process brown, crunchy and smelling bad (not to mention 3 weeks late). Personalized e-mails or faxes are often a better way to go.
• Apparently managers told employees to choose from a few "key arguments" that they were to copy verbatim. A more effective letter would incorporate personalized arguments and stories from the writer about how they've been harmed by the status quo and how the proposed policy change would benefit them.
• Employees were apparently pulled from work activities and told to write these letters while on the job. While that's not illegal, it's certainly suspicious. Anyone wanting to solicit employee engagement should encourage them to participate in "off hours."

Again, engaging employees in legislative initiatives can be both effective and ethical. The key is to consider this work in the context of helping employees understand the issues and giving them the tools they need to participate should they choose to do so.
In short, follow these basic rules for better corporate advocacy -- Foster the efforts of your internal champions to tell a positive story, yes. Force people who don't want to be involved and don't want to write letters, no.

More on AstroTurf Lobbying

There's more on the recent "astro turf" lobbying scandal in the Washington Post today. Turns out it was the pro-coal "American Coalitions for Clean Coal Electricity" who hired Bonner and Associates to generate grassroots / grasstops support for changes to the climate change legislation. The ACCCE did not, obviously hire the firm to do fake letters, but to me this just demonstrates what happens when organizations focus almost exclusively on the NUMBER of letters going to the hill on an issue as opposed to the QUALITY. In this case, at least 12 of the 47 or so letters generated by Bonner were fake. That's a 25% fake-to-real ratio.

Nothing excuses the firm in question or the staff person who allegedly put together these fake letters. But would this have happened if someone had said "hey, we don't care about the number of communications. We just want to be sure they come from people who really feel strongly about this issue?" The truth is that just one high quality, thoughtful communication will have more of an impact on a legislator than 10 or 20 or 100 luke warm communications -- no matter whose name is on the letterhead.

The practice at Bonner and Associates (according to some bloggers) appears to be the opposite. Clearly, the premium is on getting as many letters out as possible without regard for their accuracy or adhering to the basic principles of enhancing true citizen communication with Congress.

The silver lining here is that this demonstrates to me that generating grassroots / grasstops support for an issue CAN be a useful tactic for advocay success if done right. And by done right, I mean focusing on helping truly engaged citizens connect in a meaningful way with legislators. I do not mean making stuff up.

Astroturf Ruins it for the Rest of Us!

There's a debate going on in Washington, DC (and has been for years) on whether so-called "grassroots lobbying" efforts should be included in lobbying disclosure regulations. This issue has come up again most recently in the context of organized grassroots campaigns, where an organization hires a company to generate grassroots communications into an elected official's office (full disclosure: our firm frequently helps organizations run these kinds of campaigns).

Sometimes a bad actor (or two or two hundred), generates grassroots communications that are less than genuine -- and gets caught, as noted in this Sunlight Foundation blog post. There's no way to defend this practice, of course. The whole POINT of grassroots organization is to inspire the delivery of quality, relevant and, most important, personalized communications from constituents. It is NOT to send fake communications in to a legislator's office. Not only is that unethical, it's not even effective. So why do it?

However, I do not think that the fact that there are some bad actors should automatically mean that anyone who does any grassroots lobbying should register. Naturally I would think that: it's in my firm's best interest not to have to go through the hassle of registering.

But, it's more than that. Believe it or not, I think that the vast majority of organized grassroots campaigns have honorable intentions. In most cases, their main goal is to give citizens the tools they need to connect in a meaningful way with their elected officials on issues those citizens truly care about. This, to me, is a practice that should be encouraged, not discouraged.

The problem with requiring some sort of registration for these types of campaigns is that if the net is cast too wide, such a requirement might limit true citizen participation in the political process. Imagine the citizen advocate who wants to rally people in his or her neighborhood to argue for (or against) health care reform. They decide to show people what to do, set up a "do it yourself" website and make some flyers to encourage people to attend townhall meetings. Should that person be required to register as a "grassroots lobbyist?" What if they take small donations of $20 bucks per person to defray expenses? Or hire a web consultant to help them put together a website? Would other people be less likely to participate if they thought they had to register with a government entity?

Sure, there are a lot of big players out there, some of whom are spending millions of dollars on these efforts (not with us, unfortunately :)). But how do you draft language that gets at just the "big guys" and leaves the smaller, citizen-based coalitions alone?

It seems to me that the danger of limiting citizen participation is much higher when it comes to registration requirements for grassroots campaigns. Therefore, it makes significantly more sense to tread much more lightly, to combat bad actors where they are found, and to redouble our efforts to encourage open and honest citizen to government communication.


http://blog.sunlightfoundation.com/2009/07/31/when-lobbying-is-fraud/

Transparency, Accountability and Citizen Responsibility

I just attended a terrific presentation by Julie Germany of George Washington University's Institute for Politics, Democracy and the Internet (http://www.ipdi.org). She offered a range of useful facts and figures designed to make the point that in today's super-charged, technological world, citizens expect more relevant information and more interactivity from their elected officials than ever before -- and they want it about 100 times faster than they've ever wanted it. Anyone who has worked in a Congressional office (and lived to tell the tale), can attest to the truth of these increasing and some might say overwhelming expectations.

Increased government transparency, specifically in the form of getting more information about what government is doing (dollars spent, meetings held, bills introduced and considered, etc.), is catering to that desire. Let me start by saying I have no
objections to sharing this information. In a "government by the people," (believe it or not, we're still that) citizens have every right to all the information they want about what government's up to (or isn't). It shouldn't be a secret.

At the same time, though, I think it's incumbent upon those demanding the information (or complaining about all the "secrets" in Washington, DC), that they make an effort to understand the content and relevance of the information once they get it and have some sense of what to DO with what they've learned.

All too often there's an "Emily Litella" quality to citizen communications with elected officials. For those under the age of 40 who are reading this, Emily Litella was a fictional character played by the late, great Gilda Radner on Saturday Night Live (back when it was funny). She would get absolutely OUTRAGED about things like "violins on TV," until someone told her it was "violence on TV" and then she would say, as only she could, "oh! well, never mind." Believe me, it's funnier when you see it, which you can on You Tube.

How many times a day do people misinterpret what they read on the Internet (or believe without question) and then decide to contact a Congressional office in an outrage? Enough to shake the foundations of Congress with a loud chorus of "never minds."

Granted, fear mongering is a tactic sometimes used by the unscrupulous to inspire action -- but don't succumb! The next time you're tempted to be outraged about something, make sure you really should before you call all in a huff. And if you have ample reason for outrage, then figure out how to approach your legislators in a way that will capture their attention. If you need some help with that, check out articles on my site at http://ping.fm/YH5sZ

Hope this helps, and happy (thoughtful) advocating!

No Senate vote on health care before the August work period: what does this mean for you? It means there will be some perfect opportunities to share your views on this and other critical legislative initiatives (financial services, for example) while members of Congress and their staff are at home during the August district work period. Here are three quick and easy things you can do in the next few weeks to enhance your advocacy efforts by leaps and bounds.

1. Attend a townhall meeting: If history is any guide, your legislators will be holding what are called "townhall meetings" left and right during August. These are two to three hour sessions hosted in the community where the legislator provides information on what is happening (or not happening) in DC and constituents have an opportunity to comment and ask questions. Call your legislator's office (you can find contact information at www.congress.org or call the Capitol switchboard at (202) 224-3121) and ask them when they will be holding these meetings. And then go!

2. Ask your legislator or a staff person to visit your facility, group or project: Pictures often speak louder than words, so consider whether you can actually show a legislator something in the district that demonstrates why you feel so strongly about the policy issues you're advocating on. If you can't get the legislator, get a staff person -- they actually handle most of the day to day work and it's essential to build a positive relationship with them. For tips on setting up site visits, visit my FAQs page at http://ping.fm/f7HkJ

3. Do your homework: August is almost always a good time to "catch up" on paperwork, projects, etc. Why not use a few minutes of that catch up time to learn about your legislators? Go to www.congress.gov, for example, to look up the bills they've introduced. Once you know some of the policy issues they care about, you'll have a much better shot at drafting a message they might find compelling.

Don't get caught up in the "Dog Days of Summer" (unless there are actual puppies involved). Instead, take some time to connect with legislators while they're home. You'll be ready to hit the ground running in September after taking a few steps today to prepare.

The SPIT Technique for Advocacy

I'm a big fan of acronyms as, frankly, they're the only way I remember things (I used to be better about remembering, but something has happened to me in the last few years). Knowing that people of my generation may have the same problem, I figured it would make sense to share this with you and see if it's useful. So here goes!

S is for Specific. When developing a message for legislators and their staff, you should be very clear about what you specifically want them to do. It might be a legislative ask, like sponsoring a bill, or it may be a relationship building ask, like attending an in-district meeting. Whatever it is, have a goal for your communication. Otherwise, you won't get the attention you deserve.

P is for Personal: Advocates bring a great deal to the influence equation including, perhaps most importantly, their personal stories. Telling an elected official why a proposed policy change is important to you personally can have a tremendous impact.

I is for Informative: Legislators and staff are looking for solid, reliable information and citizens are some of the best sources because they know how a certain policy change will impact people on the ground in the legislator's district. The most important thing to remember about the "informative" rule is that if you don't know the answer to a question, just say "I don't know, but I'll get back to you" -- and then do it!

T is for Trustworthy: It hopefully goes without saying that you should never lie to a legislator. Consider taking your "trustworthiness" a step further by actually telling them about what the other side has to say about an issue. They're going to hear it anyway -- wouldn't it be better coming from you?

Another Example of the Cash / Votes Conundrum

So, the Washington Post had an article today highlighting how Kay Hagan, a Senator from North Carolina, was the only Democrat to vote against the recently passed tobacco regulation legislation (N.C. Tobacco Farmers Find Friend in State's New Senator.) Now, before I go too far down this path, let me make it clear that this is not a post about the merits or demerits of tobacco legislation. Personally, I'm for regulating tobacco. I support efforts to reduce the burdens on our health care system caused by this product.

However, as long time readers of the blog might suspect, I do NOT support the ongoing speculations and cynicism in media reports about the motives of elected officials in their voting decisions. Sure, there are many examples of wrong doing by elected officials and we're all a little jaded by the political process. But does every story really have to try to tie an elected official's voting record to campaign contributions?

In this example, the Post notes that Kay Hagan took $19,200 from tobacco interests to help finance her Senate race. What the Post does not point out is that she raised a total of over $8.5 million for that cycle. Her tobacco money equaled approximately .2% of her overall funds. The same article notes that there are 50,000 people directly employed by tobacco in the state, which is about .8% of the employable population (assuming people under 18 and over 65 aren't working). This is a $7 billion industry in the state. Does it even make sense to suggest that she voted the way she did because of the money for her campaign, as many people have? (although this is not, I should be clear, what the Post said). Why can't we believe that she did it for her constituents?

In fact, she raised more money from individuals associated with EMILY's List, MoveOn.org and the health care industry than she got from tobacco. Her going against these "monied interests" seems to be a bigger story here and clearly those groups are not happy with her position on these issues (although she has been known as a long time tobacco supporter, so I'm not sure they're surprised).

The point here is that we already have an electorate that feels beaten down by special interests and powerless in the face of money and lobbying in the political process. These types of stories and inferences aren't helping. We can disagree with the decisions some politicians make -- and I do, frequently. But I really wish we wouldn't ALWAYS paste everyone with the "bought off politician" label simply because they disagree with us or they represent a part of the country with different interests from our own.  

It sounds terribly naive, I know, but I believe it is possible that many politicians do truly believe that what they are doing is in the best interest of their constituents. That's my story and I'm sticking to it.