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.

Are members of Congress bought off by cash or votes?

I was struck by Dana Milbank's sarcastic and, let's face it, somewhat snarky description of the recent hearings on DOD appropriations issues on Capitol Hill (see Defending the Nation From Common Sense from today's Washington Post).

In it, he feeds into the common perspective that those terrible members of Congress in Washington, DC represent the corporate interests of their particular state far more than its citizens, much less the citizens in the rest of the nation. In referring to Senator Murray, for example, as the "Senator from Boeing" and picturing poor, beleaguered Defense Secretary Gates as ". . .(pleading) with the lawmakers to rise above the powerful contractors that fund their campaigns and influence their elections" (sniff) Milbank clearly points to greed and (possibly) corruption as the main drivers of defense spending in Washington, DC.

Now, don't get me wrong, I love a bit of satire as much as the next person, and I certainly appreciate all the fodder for it in Washington, DC. And Senator Murray and others don't need me to make excuses for them. But, let's try to be a little fair here. Sure, Senator Murray (and Senator Shelby and Senator Cochran and anyone else with a defense contractor in their state) wants to be sure that the devices made by those contractors continue to be made. But here's the question -- are they protecting these contracts in exchange for the campaign contributions? Or are the doing it to protect tens of thousands of jobs in their states -- jobs held by constituents -- jobs held by constituents who may vote -- jobs held by constituent who may vote and who are struggling through tough economic times?

Let's look at the numbers. According to opensecrets.org, The Boeing PAC, for example, has given $10,000 to Patty Murray in the current cycle (2005-2010). Overall, she has raised $5,385,000 in this cycle. The Boeing contribution represents LESS THAN .2% of her overall dollars. Even if you add in individual Boeing PAC contribution to that number, it's still less than .4% overall. That's "point" 4, NOT 4.

On the other hand, Boeing employs over 76,000 people in her state, which has a population of just over 6.5 million. In other words, 1.16% of the people in Washington State are Boeing employees. At a time when unemployment in the state is running 9%, you better bet she's going to fight to keep Boeing jobs, regardless of whether she gets money from the Boeing PAC or not.

Although I can't guess at Senator Murray's motivations any more than Dana Milbank can, I can offer up another and less sinister perspective on this story, and that is this: constituents DO have a powerful voice and level of influence in Washington, DC. Anyone who can demonstrate a constituent connection to a legislator can get in to their office and be heard -- not necessarily agreed with, but heard. I encourage people to read articles like Milbank's for fun (because it is funny), but to not let it fuel the cynicism that is keeping citizens away from the political process.

In short, the Senators insisting on keeping certain Defense spending in place could just as easily be doing it for the people they represent as the people that help finance their campaigns. For those who still find it appalling that elected officials would represent the interests of their own constituents over the good of the country, well, the truth is that's what representative democracy is all about.

Citizen Advocacy Interview with Mike Markarian of HSUS

I had a great time chatting with Mike Markarian of the Humane Society Legislative Fund about my new book, Citizens in Action.  You can read all about it (and see an absolutely adorable photograph of Ozzie, my infamous Australian Cattle Dog) on the HSLF's Animal and Politics blog. If you're feeling really cool, you can even read the same article on the Huffington Post.

Happy advocating!