Scandals, Twitter and Congress

Unless you've been living under a rock (and no, I don't want to insult rock dwellers) you've probably heard that a certain Congressman used a certain social media outlet to send pictures of certain parts of his anatomy to certain women. I realized that I can't type all the particulars because so many of them contain words that might be censored, particularly the Congressman's name.

In this whole situation there is one entity that I think needs defending -- and that is Twitter. To paraphrase an adage about guns (i.e, guns don't kill people, people do), "Twitter doesn't embarass people: people do." If there is any lesson to be learned from this whole sordid affair, it's that we all should be careful about a) what we post on the Internet and b) monitoring what others post because it's out there forever. The alternative is to not do embarassing things, but that doesn't seem like a very viable option for most of us.

I'm guilty of this too, of course. There are certainly unflattering pictures of me all over the Internet. I thought I was safe because these were taken before digital cameras (yes, I'm that old), but it turns out you can scan these pictures into a digital format and post them. Who knew?

All that said, social media approaches can be incredibly useful in grassroots advocacy efforts (as the advocacy guru you knew I'd get around to this). Once you stop snickering at the recent scandals (I admit, I'm not there yet), take a few quick and easy steps to use some of these outlets to promote your policy cause, including:

1) Facebook: Find your legislators on Facebook and "like" them. You don't have to actually like them, but it's a great way to keep track of what those legislators are up to as well as their general perspective on the world -- always good to know when you're advocating at them.

2) Twitter: As we've seen, sometimes legislators send out something totally inappropriate and that's always fun. But Twitter is also a good way, like Facebook, to learn more about their representatives' policy views.

3) You Tube: I learned recently that YouTube is the number two search engine after Google. Not only did this make me feel old (what are the kids doing these days?) but it made me realize my current videos are terrible. We're fixing that, but I think you'll find that many members of Congress have already figured this out and have many useful videos posted on their YouTube channels.

4) Linked In: Always a great resource for finding connections between your network and those you're trying to reach. Imagine the power of contacting a legislator through a mutual friend. The legislator is far more likely to take your call and perhaps even meet with you.

5) Two Way Street: No, that's not a social media channel, but it's always a good idea to ask legislators and their staff to follow you on all your own channels. You can make it even more appealing to them by posting videos of your meetings with them, positive updates about their work on your Facebook page and notes on your Twitter feed.

Take just one of these steps and you'll be using social media for good, not evil, in no time!

Tips from Congressional Staff

I had the opportunity to attend a Women in Government Relations breakfast this morning where four Congressional staff offered their insights into what works and what doesn't on Capitol Hill. Following is my own list of "Top 7 Do's and Dont's" based on their insightful comments:

1. Identify the purpose of the meeting before going in: Whether it's helping them understand an issue, inviting them back to the district or making a specific policy ask, staff appreciate it when you know what you want to get out of the meeting.

2. Do your homework: Staff and members alike want to know how your issue relates to the state or district they represent. You must be able to answer the question that is in your audience's mind, which is "why would I want to meet with this person?" The reason they want to meet with you is because you represent the interests of constituents. As one staffer put it "I will always find a time to meet with a constituent: with a lobbyist? Not so much."

3. Don't be scared to talk about what the opposition is doing: Congressional offices will always find out what the other side is saying. Getting that information from you leaves them with the impression that your arguments are strong enough to stand up to criticism.

4. Start with the proper legislative staff: As on staffer put it "[a] request for a meeting with the member of Congress should come last, not first." You want to build your relationship with the staff person who handles the issues, as they will be the ones the member of Congress turns to at the last minute to make a decision.

5. Don't bring in a large group: Every staffer mentioned this rule. Congressional offices are tiny. There's no space for a large group and certainly no time for 30 people to talk at once. If you do have a large group, be prepared to have one or two people act as spokespeople.

6. Don't ignore district offices: Important relationships can be formed with the staff in the district offices. If they think well of you and your issues, it's far more likely that the DC staff will as well.

7. Remember that Congressional staff are people too: Staff people are eager to learn about the issues, but they need to have technical issues explained, as one staffer put it, in "clear simple English." Imagine you were explaining this issue to a vary smart person who has no experience with it -- because that is often the case. In addition, turn your meeting into a conversation. If you're a constituent, or you represent the interests of constituents, they want to know you, not just your issue.

Use these tips to build quality relationships with Congressional offices. If you do, you'll be an effective advocate in no time!

Budgets, Budgets Everywhere!

You've probably heard that the government was going to shut down. Then not. Then it would. Then it wouldn't. Well, Congress has finally APPEARED to reach a deal for the current Fiscal Year (FY2011)(emphasis on "appeared") and you can read the text at www.congress.gov. To access it, under the search button select "bill number" and then type in H.R. 1473. There's also a PDF version at http://tinyurl.com/3c33wuv, but it's a PDF which, frankly, I find a little hard to read.

In addition, the text of the proposed budget resolution for FY2012 (the fiscal year starting on October 1st), is available at http://tinyurl.com/3dwmhah. Yeah, I know: which one means what? Following is a brief summary of three things it's good to know about the budget process:

The difference between the Presidential budget process and the Congressional budget process

First of all, 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

The differences between “budget,” “appropriations,” and “authorization”

Frankly, advocates and professionals alike are often confused by the differences between a) a budget blueprint, b) language allowing a program to exist (authorization) and c) the actually funding for that program (appropriations). Just think of it as it applies to your personal life: your budget gives you a sense of what you might spend on various items throughout the year; your bills (utilites, car payment, etc.) are your "authorizations" for programs to exist and the checks you write (or the wire transfers you authorize -- for those who don't remember checks) are your "appropriations."

Discretionary vs. Non-discretionary Spending

As anyone working on Federal funding issues knows, 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 these differences for two reasons. First, to help rationalize (if the word “rational” can be used as it relates to the budget process) the yearly battles over funding for favored programs and second, to emphasis the fact that the funds available for domestic discretionary programs are decreasing, while demand is increasing.

In addition, it's important to recognize that when we propose cutting funding for programs like public broadcasting or the arts, we're not making even a dent in the budget deficit. We're barely making a discernable scratch. To make real progress, we'll need to look at those "non-discretionary" items, which will be extremely difficult politically.

So it will be a fun few months in Washington, DC as they rangle all this out. Hopefully, these few points about the budget process are useful as you "go forth and advocate," even in this confusing (and frustrating) process.

Civic Discourse

Many will say the shooting spree at Rep. Giffords' "Congress on your Corner" session in Arizona was not the direct result of a specific political perspective and I'm not going to argue with that. That this was the act of one crazed person cannot be disputed. Nor should anyone suggest that one party or another condoned yesterday's tragedy.

That said, there are those, from both sides of the aisle and from all walks of life, who must take some responsibility for allowing and even establishing an environment where unstable and confused people think it's OK to walk into a building and start shooting because they are angry at government.

In the coming days there's going to be a lot of talk about the toxic political tone in Washington, DC and around the country. Some will wave the banner of "free speech" to suggest that there's really nothing we can do to tone down the vitriolic rhetoric.

I love free speech. I'm doing it right now. I agree that we should "defend to the death" (as Volatire would say) the rights of others to disagree with us. We should even defend the rights of others to really, really hate government or individuals in government or anyone for that matter. Passionate, vehement, biased, incorrect and even angry rhetoric can and must be tolerated.

At the same time encouragements toward violence and death threats need to stop. We may not be able to stop them through legislative or judicial action, especially merely implied suggestions of violence. So we'll have to stop them through the powerful instrument of public opinion. In short, we all have the responsibility to challenge those who take their disagreements to that next level of violence.

Clearly, whether it was the attempt on Republican Tom DeLay (or, really, anyone who happened to be in the Capitol) that resulted in the tragic death of a brave Capitol Hill security guard in 1998 or the attempt on Giffords that killed six people in Tucson yesterday, those who argue that the populace should be in a state of war with anyone in public office occasionally get what they want. And for these people to step back and say "oh, wait, that's not what we meant" is unconscionable.

The founding fathers set up our current system of government to avoid exactly this type of vigilantism. One of their many goals was to make these brutal actions unnecessary because people would be given the right to express their views in an open and fair environment.

I recognize there are those who feel this goal has not been met or that the system has become so corrupt that we must have another violent revolution to "take back our country." I disagree. I think we -- as in "we the people", not "we the pundits" or "we the political establishment" -- should take back our country from those who encourage not-so-random acts of violence.

It makes me sad that I am questioning whether it is good advice to suggest that constituents attend Congressional townhall meetings. Clearly this is a free speech issue. It's OUR free speech issue. I, you, the guy or gal down the street should be able to support or oppose a candidate or a policy position without fear of death or physical injury. It's incumbent upon us to protect that right. If we don't, we will all lose the ability to speak openly, freely and without fear.

Never Too Young to Start Advocating

I attended a climate change forum a couple of weeks ago hosted by Climate One to discuss how younger people are taking action to cut carbon emissions in their communities. The students that were participating had unique approaches to how they were taking on climate change in their community but they all understood the power of advocacy and raising awareness for their issue. Advocacy can take many forms from doing student projects that raise awareness for their issue to talking to the decision makers in their community about making changes that will help reduce their carbon footprint. Take a look at how these students are making a difference in their communities through their innovative advocacy efforts.

Grassroots Code of Ethics: Round 2

A couple months ago, I posted information about a grassroots advocacy code of ethics that I and several colleagues in the community are developing, in concert with anyone who wants to be involved. A recent column in Roll Call, authored by Amy Showalter and Kelton Rhoads expresses their point of view. The piece, titled "Mis-Trust Unavoidable in Grassroots Efforts" suggests that a grassroots code of ethics that stifles free speech won't help either the industry or civic discourse.

I couldn't agree more, which was why I was completely mystified by their arguments. While they have suggested a more nefarious motive for our work, those developing the code are interested only in stopping egregious practices that make everyone look bad, such as sending fake letters to Capitol Hill -- a subject of recent Congressional hearings -- or creating coordinated campaigns where citizens make death threats to legislators in townhall meetings.

Because we have a difference of opinion on the basic point of whether mistrust is avoidable or not, and because there were some factual errors in the column, several leaders in the grassroots advocacy community joined together to co-author a response. The letter (which you can access here) was signed by myself, Anne Darconte (in her role as a long-time leader on these issues), Les Francis of the Washington Media Group, and Christopher Arterton in his role as a Professor of Political Management at GW.

In addition, our friends at the Congressional Management Foundation's new Partnership for a More Perfect Union crafted a response based on their unique perspective and scientific research on this issue. You can read their response here.

I hope you'll take a moment to review ALL the arguments and, if you feel so inclined, to comment on the code itself at www.gspm.org/ethics. All perspectives, whether complimentary or not are very welcome.

To Paraphrase Stephen Colbert: I AM The Government -- And So Are YOU!

Over the weekend President Obama delivered a commencement speech at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor in which he, in the words of reporters covering the story, offered a "spirited defense of government."

Personally, I think that headline doesn't tell the whole story. Duh. It's a headline. Of course it's not going to tell the whole story. What I mean, though, is that Obama didn't just offer what some people are saying was a spirited defense of his government, or this particular iteration of government. No. He gave a spirited defense of the very concept of government -- of the idea that "...there are some things we can only do together, as one nation."

If you think about it, the people who formed our current system of government had reason to be pretty skeptical of the idea that a centralized authority would be anything but a big bunch of trouble. They may even, dare I say it, have been more skeptical than tea party advocates are today. As you may recall, our founding fathers had just fought a war to get rid of a monarchy they weren't all that fond of.

Yet they went ahead and formed this suspicious organization called a "federal government" anyway and, one can argue, this bold act marked the turning point of our history as a nation. Why did they do it? Because they recognized that together -- even when we disagree with each other -- we're stronger than when we're divided.

Now, I'm not saying that we shouldn't remain vigilant or that we shouldn't question whether "government" is doing the right thing. But we should remember that this "government" thing we're often frustrated with is us -- it's you, it's me, it's your neighbor and it's your cranky Uncle Bob who you never agree with but you tolerate for the sake of family unity.

If you haven't reviewed the speech, I hope you'll take a minute to do so -- and I hope it will make people on BOTH sides of the aisle think about how they present their heartfelt, passionate views that, believe it or not, other people will have the audacity to disagree with.

As citizens, I think we have a responsibility to recognize that we're all in this together. And we should ask ourselves, as Obama asked the Michigan class of 2010, "[a]t a moment when our challenges seem so big and our politics seem so small, how will you keep our democracy alive and vibrant?"

To quote the kids these days, IMHO we can all keep our democracy alive and vibrant by continuing to express our views. At the same time, we must remember that others have every right to disagree with us. And, as the founding fathers discovered, somewhere in the middle is a solution everyone can agree with -- or at least equally hate.