|
|
Archive for the ‘Advocacy’ Category
Friday, February 3rd, 2012 by Nicholas
Last night S.2038, the Stop Trading on Congressional Knowledge Act of 2012 (better known as STOCK), passed the Senate in a 96-3 vote. Introduced by Sen. Lieberman (I –Conn.) just over a week ago on the heels of the State of the Union, STOCK will introduce new regulations on Members and select staff regarding the insider information they receive during the course of their jobs. As insiders expected before the amendments began, it also doubled as a referendum on the lobby industry.
Over 40 amendments were offered to the bill (and that was with the limited number set by Maj. Leader Reid), most dealing more with lobbying than insider trading by those on Capitol Hill. As usual with Congress there were some good/interesting ideas introduced and were promptly voted down. So, without further ado, here are the top 5 good ideas that didn’t make it in to STOCK (and were D.O.A. anyways):
5. SA. 1480 – Sen. Heller – No Budget, No Pay. Despite how hard I’ve tried to the contrary, like a lot of Americans I don’t get paid for not doing my job. The populist in me loves when I see bills or amendments like this that will “stick it to those fat cats in Washington.” This amendment would have stopped Member’s pay for as long as they didn’t pass a budget, which has become an increasingly common occurrence. The realist knows that the budget and Approps process isn’t really the fault of individual offices when these things don’t get passed. Additionally, not all Members are rich enough to work for free (though that seems to be quickly changing) but those that do have money would have the upper hand in negotiations because they would have the ability to hold out. That aside, the reason 1480 made the list was because I love the message it sends to people: “not even Congress thinks Congress will do Congress’s job.”
4. SA. 1472 – Sen. Toomey – Earmark Elimination. Ever notice how we always seem to keep talking about the same issues over and over again each year? Like the above, this is one of those things that comes up on the campaign trail when you say how you’re trying to change the system but the old guard won’t let you. For most Members, earmarks are kind of like the cool party. You don’t like them till you can get past the bouncer, but once you get through the door you don’t want to leave. And you sure aren’t about to let someone kick you out once you get in.
3. SA. 1474 – Sen. Coburn – Legislation online at least 72 hours before votes – Talk about the ultimate double edged sword. Everyone has had a situation where this would help out and another it would kill their issue. It doesn’t seem like expanding the timeframe would really help most offices out (it is already required to be online, just buried on the House Rules website), but it would help outside activists and organizations organize their groups for letters and calls. The insider in me thinks a good compromise here would be required the bills to be printed up in a short run with first-come-first-serve and online earlier, just make them harder for outside sources to find.
Interestingly, they set-up this amendment so that it can be ignored if either body has a 2/3 vote, which just shows how both bodies still want the ability to push things through in the middle of the night.
2. SA. 1473 – Sen. Coburn – Preventing Duplicative and overlapping government programs – I firmly believe that Coburn got robbed on this one, which actually did end up with 60 votes (though it required 66 under a technicality about changing Senate rules). I think what gets under people’s skin the most about Coburn (aside from, of course, his politics) is that in a very short time in the Senate he has acquired an incredibly good grasp of the rules and procedures. He’s not afraid to take on popular issues or projects, even those that would give dollars to his own state. And Lord knows he has no problems with being unpopular, either among his colleagues or the press, which I think he feeds off of at times.
Having said that, I really wish he would pick his fights better. I get that part of his “charm” is that he’ll always fight any fight that needs fighting, but would it kill him to be a little less contrarian sometimes? I felt like 1473 was kind of an example of his reputation coming back to haunt him. If he was a different senator, I feel like the 66 (Senate rule change needs aside) would have been waived and the amendment gone through. But his relationships with other senators didn’t afford him this generosity, and the requirement to require the 66 kind of felt like a “haha, back at you.” It gave people cover to vote for it while knowing it would never go anyplace. That it even got to 60 made it feel like a taunt.
For the record, I haven’t really heard a good counter-argument to the amendment, though I will admit cleaning up duplicate programs would take a large amount of time and effort when the Congressional Research Service has little to spare. In this election year where we are trying to watch government and spending, it just seems like bad politics to be against this. Maybe the solution is to just not introduce bills for things that are already working…
1. SA 1490 – Sen. Paul – To require former Members of Congress to forfeit Federal retirement benefits if they work as a lobbyist or engage in lobbying activities. I know the idea and similar ones have been floated before, but it seems like kind of a $1,000 solution to a million dollar question. If Members want to lobby, fine, but make them spend at least a minute considering the decision. As written, it is one of those bills that looks much better than would actually work out, and sounds better as a campaign line. Also, with the income an ex-member can make in the private sector, it also would have a muted impact on their bottom line.
If this was going to be more seriously considered, I would consider changing the threshold around a little bit. Maybe set a cap for how much you can receive through lobbying activities before you get kicked off the benefits. Also, do away with trying to pass waiting laws so that ex-Members can maximize their value if they do decide to go that way. Either way, this is a topic that should be brought up and discussed but any answer needs to be decided fairly, both for the public and the Members. It would never in a million years get passed by itself and I respect Paul for trying to ride this one, after all, you can only shoot what is in front of you. But it needs to be work-shopped before it has a chance of passing.
BONUS: SA.1493, Sen. Grassley, DID go through (with 60 votes) and requires the disclosure of “political intelligence activities.” I couldn’t have supported this amendment anymore wholeheartedly than I currently do. Anything that makes being a staffer or lobbyist sound more like something out of an Ian Fleming novel should always be a Congressional priority and being involved with something as shady as “political intelligence” (though the phrase itself might be an oxymoron) perfectly fits that bill.
Tags: American League of Lobbyists, funny, Lobbying, S. 2038, STOCK Act, Top 5
Posted in Advocacy, Congress Views, Just for Fun, Lobbying News | Comments Off
Friday, January 20th, 2012 by Nicholas
In the 1980s the National Rifle Association pulled off one of the great lobbying/advocacy moves that is still remembered to this day. In an effort to defeat Congressional action, the NRA was able to organize over a quarter of a million calls and letters to Congressional offices within a 48 hour period. And this was during the 1980s! Before the Internet, before email, even fax for the most part! Since they proved their ability to organize members and generate interest, they have rarely had to do so again on such a mass scale. While there is debate as to whether they are still capable of organizing the required numbers of constituents to affect legislation, few offices in swing districts want to call their semi-bluff. Since it happened once, it can happen again. This week Congress saw the 2012 version of that NRA plan, and moving forward there are going to be some important lessons to be learned about grassroots advocacy and organization structure.
First, grassroots, like most legislative activity, can be divided into defensive (for example: trying to organize to prevent Congressional action) and offensive (trying to make changes to the current situation that will require some kind of active action). Offensive action is more technically complicated, since everyone needs to be on the same page, asking for the same thing, giving the same reason why it needs to happen, etc., but has the advantage of usually choosing the time it is required. This allows thing to be planned out and, more importantly, gives the upper tiers of the organization time to mobilize their members. Therein lays the weakness of most defensive grassroots organizational efforts: you don’t get to choose the time they are required.
The dirty little secret to real grassroots political power isn’t the number of members your organization actually has, but what you can do with those members and whether those members can be used at critical legislative times. If you have 10 million members that aren’t actually going to do anything and can’t be mobilized, then they really aren’t going to make a difference in your legislative agenda when you need them. The number helps you get into meetings or maybe access to more resources, but when it comes down to generating letters or votes then the cat is out of the bag and the group can lose one of their main legislative tools.
However, a smaller group with a good top-down structure that can generate calls, letters, and e-mails, hold town hall meetings, contact other constituents, etc., in a timely basis can be much, much more effective. The question has always been how do you find a balance between an organization large enough to make a difference, but nimble enough to come together quickly, when needed?
This past week might answer that question. The opposition to the Senate’s Protect IP Act was able to passively organize a defensive grassroots movement. People go to Wikipedia on a daily basis, and when it blacks-out, they then want to know why. All Wikipedia had to do is shut down and post some info on what they want to be done, the site’s users do the rest. Google didn’t even have to shut down to generate interest and action; they just needed to black-out the site’s name. Most of the sites didn’t really provide facts or briefings for their users, just the message “Protect IP Act = BAD”. When people contacted their Congressional offices, they often didn’t have the correct facts on the phone or e-mail, but they were able to register their opinion with the legislation.
By shutting down, Wikipedia and others fulfilled the dream of every grassroots organization: they activated their members, and changed legislative policy. While black-outs aren’t a long-term legislative strategy, like the NRA they only need to be done once and then everyone knows that you can. Maybe the real lesson moving forward is the best way to organize your grassroots is to not go to work the next day.
Tags: Advocacy, Communications, grassroots, PIPA, SOPA
Posted in Advocacy, Congress Views, Legislative Strategy, Lobbying Communications, Lobbying Communications, Lobbying News, Lobbying tips | Comments Off
Wednesday, January 18th, 2012 by Nicholas
A common mistake is to overvalue the recent past. It is easy to look at the last action or series of actions, and say that was the cause of success or failure for a given issue, when in fact the seeds may have been planted long before the legislation is ever actually introduced. As a result, the planning that was put into the introduction of legislation is rarely re-evaluated since it happened at the beginning of the process. One of the aspects of that planning that is often over-looked is the process of gathering co-sponsorships and that a genuine strategy needs to be developed, rather than just trying to get as many as possible as fast as possible. Because most issues aren’t going to lead the 6:00 news or become the point of major partisan policy, what determines their success or failure is the plan that is put in place at the beginning. To avoid getting bogged down, buried in a committee schedule, or become part of the partisan debate, a plan needs to be in place from the beginning that keeps these factors in mind when soliciting co-sponsors for your topic.
First, figure out where you are, where you actually need to go legislatively, and how many co-sponsors you need to get there. From that number, set your goal for 10 more offices than you need as your minimum in the House, 5 in the Senate. Throughout the year members that support you are going to retire, resign, etc., and you want to make sure you have enough lee-way to still pass your issue. Knowing from the start how broadly you need to craft your legislation to reach your goal will make life easier down the road and give you guidelines for all the co-sponsor decisions you will be making. If you make a deal that gets you one co-sponsor at the cost of not getting two down the road, it only makes sense if you are at or near your goal and not at the very beginning of the process. Sticking with a goal will keep you from mortgaging the future for the short-term, a more temping thought in the heat of the moment that people expect. It is an extremely dangerous game to start adding or subtracting things after introduction to get more co-sponsors and still keep the ones already on it happy. REMEMBER: you don’t need everyone! You just need enough to win and no one piece of legislation is ever going to make everyone happy.
Alright, so we have a number, how do we get to it? Getting co-sponsors is a lot like throwing a party. You’re going to want to make sure that everyone you want comes and, most importantly, you aren’t stuck with a bunch of pizzas by yourself at the end of the night. Therefore your first goal is going to be to introduce the bill with as large a number of initial co-sponsors as possible. In every Congress thousands of bills are introduced, sent to committee, and die. The initial co-sponsor offering and constant follow-ups are what is going to separate your legislation from those other dead pieces of legislation.
To do this, you’re going to have to consider the order in which to solicit co-sponsors. First, who are the friends of your issue and of the legislation’s sponsor? Consider those your first picks, they should be easy and added upon introduction. Who is on the committee of jurisdiction for the topic? Usually the Chair and Ranking Member won’t co-sponsor legislation in their committee, but you’ll want as many of the other members as possible, if for no reason other than they are easy to approach and “cold sell” as well as allowing potential legislative maneuvering later down the road.
Continuing on that train of thought, an often overlooked resource is the Congressional caucuses. People tend to forget about caucus membership (even those who actually belong to the caucuses), as well as “axillary” committees, for example Veteran Affairs for an Armed Services issue. Next, look at other members of the sponsor’s state or region of the country, especially if it is a rural issue. Lobbyists.info’s US Congress Online database of members will allow you to quickly locate good targets, especially the ones that fall under more than one of your groups.
Another good target group are the Freshmen Members. They tend to be “cheap dates” as they are eager to get their name out, do favors, and like being asked to help more than some of the more senior offices do. Finally, seek out the more “popular” members. People in leadership positions tend to make the issue “safe” for the rest of their party and makes recruiting other co-sponsors easier. Using the party analogy, people will often ask “is XYZ on it” when first contacted and you want as many people out of the gate since it is easier to keep the ball rolling than it is to jump-start it.
So while that gives you a good list of targets, there are a few pitfalls to avoid. First, make sure you don’t go heavy on either Dems or Reps early. Try to keep the ratio as close to even as possible and it will be much easier to recruit on both sides. Stray too far to one direction and you might pick up the “partisan” tag when it isn’t necessary. Same thinking for regional issues, make sure everyone isn’t just from the Mid-West or cities. Also, avoid anyone who might be seen as “toxic,” which I loosely define as “would you cringe if you saw their name next to your issue in the paper.” Very controversial members can sometimes cost more co-sponsors when other offices see their name attached to an issue than having their one co-sponsorship gains.
Keep in mind, even though adding their name to a bill doesn’t technically “cost” a Member anything, they are free to co-sponsor as many pieces of legislation as they want, most offices are hesitant to actually co-sponsor anything without getting something in return. This is primarily for two reasons. One, co-sponsoring something is basically a favor and it is rare in DC that favors are done without getting something in return. Two, because so many bills aren’t successful, offices feel that the odds of any one thing going through are low so why support a failure? Get ready to hear “we can’t help now, but come back when you have the required number and we will join then.”
After all, success has many fathers while defeat is an orphan. A good co-sponsorship strategy will often lead to an overwhelming victory, as it is not uncommon to see something like 90+ Senators on a winner. However, a poor effort with no plan or momentum will add yet another “Cosponsors (12)” tagline to the thousands of other lost bills on Thomas.
Tags: co-sponsors, congressional communications, Congressional strategy, government relations, legislative strategies, lobby, Lobbying, solicitation
Posted in Advocacy, Legislative Strategy, Lobbying Communications, Lobbying Communications, Lobbying tips | Comments Off
Thursday, January 12th, 2012 by Nicholas
Too often, individuals and their organizations jump feet first into a new session of Congress without getting an idea of where they ultimately want to end up. That isn’t to say they don’t know what they want to do, certainly if you are taking a check you should know what your organization’s goals are, but rather they don’t know what they are realistically able to accomplish OR they don’t have a firm grasp on how they are going to accomplish it. When starting a new session of Congress, especially during an election year, it is important to sit down and come up with a legislative strategy for the year. Here are some things to keep in mind:
- What are the exact legislative objectives I am trying to achieve? Something as vague as “improve Metro transportation between Maryland and DC” will cause individuals and organizations to waste time once the Session gets busy trying to define and explain what is to happen. Make sure that your legislative language is good to go and ready to be shopped at a meeting. If not, sit down within your organization and start hammering out the specifics as soon as possible. Second Session Congress is more about doing than debating. By the end of the year, legislation should always have been introduced or discussed among Congressional offices so that, worst comes to worst, next Congress already has a kick-off point.
- What is the required legislative mechanism to achieve the above? Does it require a separate bill? Can it ride a larger piece of legislation or be added as an amendment? If so then must it be on the same topic? Approps bill? Executive Order? Write down everything that can possibly house your language and keep track of the movement status for each. Luck is preparation plus opportunity and this is one way to create your own luck.
- Is it the issue’s “turn” in the cycle? Some issues are brought up simply because they are required to be addressed every few years. Education is a perfect example of this. Just this week new language has been introduced on the House side to reauthorize ESEA (NCLB for some) because it is expiring. If it isn’t handled this Congress, it will have to be done at the beginning of the next. Thus is it going to education’s “turn” for discussion and major Congressional focus. It is easier to get on the schedule if it is an issue’s turn than if it isn’t.
- How time intensive is the topic going to be? Is every Congressional office going to require some kind of outreach? Does it need to get 2/3 co-sponsors in both the House and Senate? If you only look at the legislative calendar, is there enough time to meet with all the required staff? In an election year, always pretend that no one is going to be around except for days on the legislative calendar. While this obviously isn’t the case, the staff you’ll be required to meet with and who make decisions are going to be out this year more than usual. If time is short, try to think of larger meetings. Staff briefings aren’t always well attended or offer the individual impact of a one-on-on, but they do allow for talk with multiple offices at the same time.
- Risk vs. Reward Because there is less time available to exert influence there is less time to manipulate each part of the process. Take this into account when determining each risk vs. reward. Asking for less money might secure a few more votes quickly, but you will still end up with less money. Changing 10 regulations can be easier to accomplish than changing 15, but the 15th might be a deal breaker for someone in the coalition. Weigh the potential gains of asking for less to get more done vs. not doing enough to make the difference that is being aimed for.
- Political Capital While planning, try to get a sense of the amount of political capital that will be expended during the year. If it is decided that this is going to be the make or break year, then prepare to call in IOUs as needed. If not, then make sure not to start burning through favors in what turns out to be a half-hearted pursuit.
Plan for a major sit-down during the first week of August for a frank evaluation of where the topic is at and what needs to be done. That way during the rest of the Recess, adjustments can be made and you can be ready for a huge push out of the gate. Then, act like Congress is going to end in mid- September. After that point everyone will be home campaigning and it will be nearly impossible to get everything (or, for that matter, anything) done in a timely fashion.
Following the election, there might be a lame duck session, but never bank on it. Depending on the outcome, one party will usually hold-up a lot of work because they will be in a better position to negotiate next year when their new members get into office. Either way, consider lame duck sessions like Overtime in the NFL: yes the game is still going on, but it could be over before your team even gets a chance with the ball. Regardless of what happened, remember the following: there is always another Congress coming up, so final victories are few and far between. Luckily, so are the defeats.
Tags: capitol legislative strategies, Congress, Congressional strategy, legislation, Lobbying
Posted in Advocacy, Legislative Strategy, Lobbying tips | Comments Off
Wednesday, November 9th, 2011 by Brittany
 Election Activities
What is it?
In some cases, it may be appropriate to engage members of the advocacy network in election-related activities. Note, however, the restrictions on election-related activity discussed in Chapter 2. Nonprofits organized under certain IRS “501” designations, in particular, may not engage in partisan election activity, such as endorsing a particular candidate for office. Individual states and localities may also have restrictions of which advocate leaders should be aware.
Why is it useful?
Engaging advocates in election-related activities serves a number of purposes, including:
- Raising the profile of an organization’s issue, both during the campaign and long after
- Offering a new and often invigorating way for advocates to get involved in the policymaking process
- Enhancing an organization’s access and reach in the legislature
When should it be used?
Members of the U.S. House of Representatives are up for election every two years and U.S. Senators must stand for election every six. In addition, most states and localities have elections for various state and local offices at least every other year. Some localities have elections every year for both candidates as well as to address ballot questions, such as sales tax or funding initiatives. Any election offers an opportunity to engage advocates, to the extent allowed by law. Advocate leaders should consider, though, which level of government the organization hopes to build relationships with and choose the election cycle for participation carefully.
PAC / Fundraising Efforts
What is it?
As noted in Chapter 1, advocacy efforts should be coordinated in tandem with other government relations activities, include political action committees (PACs). In fact, organizations will generally find a great deal of overlap between the most active and committed members of their advocacy network and the most consistent donors to their political action committees. This section provides a few details on PACs and how they can be successfully integrated into an overall advocacy network plan.
Organizations form PACs to finance political education and to make contributions toward the election or defeat of candidates. They can contribute up to $5,000 per cycle per election to a candidate’s committee and $15,000 to national political parties. They may receive up to $5,000 from individuals.
Most organizations will establish a connected PAC that can solicit contributions only from members. More information can be found on the FEC site at www.fec.gov. Key materials on this site include:
Political action committees can also be formed at the state level. Rules for establishing state PACs vary from state to state. Organizations should look to their state’s Board of Elections for more information.
Why is it useful?
Overall, political action committees allow organizations to support the election of candidates who support their issues. Some advocate leaders suggest that PAC contributions give advocates and government relations staff better access to policymakers, in that advocates will have the opportunity to attend fundraising events and be seen as supportive of the candidate.
Political action committees can also enhance an organization’s advocacy activities and vice versa. By coordinating existing programs or forming a new PAC to complement an advocacy network, organizations can reduce duplication, reach out in a more focused, targeted manner to politically active network members and possibly reduce overhead and cost.
When should it be used?
Any organization that already has a PAC should look for opportunities to, at a minimum, coordinate and possibly merge activities. Organizations with advocacy networks but no PAC should determine whether a PAC would assist in meeting legislative and policy goals.
For more information or to purchase the Advocacy Handbook click here.
Tags: Contributions, election activities, elections, fundraising, PACs
Posted in Advocacy | Comments Off
Friday, October 14th, 2011 by Autumn
A new Congressional Management Foundation report entitled “Communicating with Congress How Citizen Advocacy is Changing Mail Operations on Capitol Hill“ found that constituents are contacting their Congressmen far more frequently than they were 10 years ago: Senate offices reported a 548 percent increase in mail volume since 2002 (including one office that experienced a 1,422 percent jump), and representatives in the House received 158 percent more mail. Despite receiving overwhelming amounts of constituent mail, 90 percent of congressional staff surveyed still say that constituent communications remains a “high priority.”
Offices that embrace technology find responding to constituent communication much easier than those that don’t, but the report found that in many cases, “‘old school’ habits on Capitol Hill are inhibiting the potential for Congress and citizens to have a more robust, active and meaningful relationship using online technologies.” In the past, many offices refrained from sending emails, resorting to phone calls and snail mail instead because they were afraid their messages would be altered. Even still, 86 percent of congressional offices are answering email messages with emails, a rise from 37 percent in 2005.
However, if you’re feeling like an office isn’t getting much done, or is taking forever to respond to your scheduling request, it’s because staff is also spending an increasing amount of time sifting through the influx of constituent mail. The survey found that on average, staff spend 58 percent of their time on constituent communications, and 46 percent say they have had to shift resources to manage the increased mail volume. Response time seems not to be dependent on the request: 42 percent of staff surveyed say it takes more than three weeks to draft and approve a response to an issue that previously has not be raised, and 41 percent say they need “more than a week to respond to a constituent email even if a prepared text response has been drafted and approved.” All of this with the same resources; Congress has not increased office staff sizes since 1979. In 2009, Congress debate a high number of high profile issues, and as a result, offices also experienced the greatest jump in constituent communications that year.
Senior managers in congressional largely believe that the biggest challenge they face as it pertains to responding to constituent mail is mail volume (35 percent), but 41 percent of “mail staffers” state “the review and approval process” is the mostly responsible for the delay.
Tags: Congressional Management Foundation report, constituent communications, contact members of Congress, contacting congressional offices, email advocacy
Posted in Advocacy, Lobbying Communications, Lobbying Communications, Lobbying News | Comments Off
Wednesday, October 12th, 2011 by Brittany
 Depending upon the issue and the nature of the network, advocate leaders may occasionally find themselves needing to either encourage more people to actively participate in advocacy efforts or encourage more quality communications with the target audience. Outlined below are a few of the key barriers to participation, options for overcoming those barriers and ideas for recognizing advocates’ efforts.
Barriers to Participation
Advocates often cite one of the following reasons to explain why they might be unwilling or unable to participate in efforts to make policy change:
- Lack of time
- A feeling that their participation doesn’t matter
- A feeling that the organization should do the lobbying, not them
- Unsure what to do / intimidated
- Advocate fatigue / over-activation
- Lack of progress
- Disagreement over policy direction
Overcoming Barriers
- Quick and Easy Activities: Advocate leaders should look for ways to draw potential advocates in to the network through some quick and easy activities. These might include sending an e-mail to a legislator through an action alert site, signing a petition, responding to a poll or survey or sending a postcard. This might be viewed as the “crawl before walking” approach. Once advocates become familiar with and comfortable with these simple activities, advocate leaders can work to encourage these individuals to engage in more substantive and effective communication strategies.
- Cultivating the Active: It’s not the number of communications that have an impact on policy outcomes, it’s the quality. Hence, it may make sense for advocate leaders to focus more attention on the powerful 5 to 20 percent of the network willing and eager to take substantive action, without, of course, ignoring the rest of the network.
- Training: The following components of a training program will help address some of the more common barriers to participation: why their voice matters, role in the GR campaign, long-term focus, and how to advocate.
- Engaging Champions: Legislative or regulatory champions of an organization’s issues can help deliver the message to advocates that their voice matters. In some cases, advocates may be more apt to believe a legislator than an organization’s government relations staff. Advocate leaders should consider asking policy champions to speak at events or make public statements about the importance of citizen advocates to the policymaking process.
- Strategic Activation: Advocate fatigue can be managed, in part, by being as strategic and focused as possible when activating the network. Organizations that frequently issue high-priority action alerts, particularly when those alerts aren’t warranted, may find their advocates becoming immune to their requests – and unwilling to take action when truly needed.
- Change the Definition of Victory: In developing advocacy plans, advocate leaders should identify internal goals that can be achieved regardless of external events. These might include targets for numbers of advocates in the network or developing a pilot program for coordinating a few site visits during a recess. These aspects of the campaign may be more within the control of the organization than, for example, whether a bill moves forward to the hearing stage or not.
- Managing Set-backs: How an organization manages the inevitable set-backs associated with any advocacy effort can make or break their future success. Advocate leaders should look to be as up-front as possible about set-backs, while identifying future plans of action.
- Setting the Policy Agenda: Organizations that set their policy agenda in concert with the advocacy network will likely have fewer disagreements with members about policy direction than those that adopt a more hierarchical approach. Before asking advocates to communicate with policymakers on a critical issue, it is imperative to ascertain that most members of the network are in agreement on the overall message.
- Agreeing to Disagree: In some cases, organizations may need to take controversial positions that may be unpopular with some percentage of their members. Advocate leaders should identify these potential disagreements as soon as possible and be prepared to address questions about the decisions made by the organization.
For more information or to purchase the Advocacy Handbook click here.
Tags: advocates, participation, set-backs
Posted in Advocacy | Comments Off
Wednesday, September 14th, 2011 by Brittany
 What is Advocacy?
According to the American Heritage Dictionary, advocacy is: “the act of pleading or arguing in favor of something, such as a cause, idea, or policy; active support.”
Under this definition, there are many types of advocacy, including:
- Legal Advocacy: Arguing on behalf of a client in the legal environment
- Child Advocacy: Making the case for children in a child-oriented venue, such as a school or in the context of child protective services
- Patient Advocacy: Helping individuals navigate through the increasing complex medical arena and safeguarding their rights
- Casework / Social Welfare Advocacy: Working with low-income or otherwise disadvantaged individuals to be sure they have the services they need
- Corporate Advocacy: Efforts by corporations to promote a specific cause or idea for the benefit of the general public (also related to the idea of “Corporate Social Responsibility”)
In each of these circumstances, one person or a group of people pleads or argues in favor of a particular cause, idea, or individual. The difference between these types of advocacy and advocacy in the policy arena are matters of topic, scale, and audience.
Advocacy in the policy arena can be defined along the following lines:
- Topic: Improvements to public policy or funding for public programs at the local, state or federal level
- Scale: Focused on benefits for a group of people as opposed to an individual
- Audience: Primarily targeted at policy makers at the local, state or federal level. Secondary targets may include opinion leaders, business interests and citizens in an effort to elicit change with relevant policy-makers.
In addition, the use of the term advocacy refers specifically to advocacy that is done by non-professionals as opposed to the “direct lobbying” done by government relations professionals across the country. A fourth area of differentiation, therefore, would be:
- Advocate: An individual, such as an association member, company employee or citizen, who pleads the public policy case to a policy maker, often in concert with a larger organization.
For more information or to purchase the Advocacy Handbook click here.
Tags: advocacy definition, policy, types of advocacy
Posted in Advocacy | Comments Off
Wednesday, August 10th, 2011 by Brittany
 It’s recess time for Congress, but while “recess” sounds like fun and games, these times are district work periods for congressional members. Congress will be in recess for the month of August, and advocates can be involved in several types of activities to connect with their elected officials while they are home.
District-Based Lobby Days / Weeks
What is it?
Under this approach, advocate leaders work with advocates to coordinate meetings with policymakers in their own district offices. An organization might, for example, ask members of the advocate network to set up meetings with relevant members of the U.S. House when those members are in their legislative district during a district work period.
Why is it useful?
District lobby day / week events can be a great way to connect advocate network members with their policymakers, but without extensive travel expenses. Meeting with policymakers while they are home also further strengthens the message about the impact of state or federal level policy issues on the home district.
When should it be used?
As with traditional lobby days, any organization with a core of committed advocates can benefit from coordinating a district lobby event, either individually or in concert with a coalition partner. Lobbying events are most successful, however, when the organization has a specific policy agenda and core ask. Advocate leaders should work to coordinate the timing of the event with key legislative initiatives as well as other advocacy activities. For example, holding a district lobbying event during the work period directly after a national lobby day can serve to reinforce messages that were delivered in conjunction with the national event.
Site Visits
What is it?
A “site visit” is an in-person visit by a policymaker or member of his or her staff to facilities, groups and individuals in their district or state. These might include visits to:
- Manufacturing facilities
- Business headquarter offices to meet with key personnel
- Hospitals, school, libraries, recreation centers or other community service providers
- Local chapter meetings of interest groups
- Special events held by local groups
In essence, a site visit occurs whenever a policymaker or staff person goes to see something or meet someone in the district. These are different from district lobby events only in that the policymaker generally goes to see the advocate, as opposed to the other way around.
Why is it useful?
These visits help policymakers connect what sometimes seem like esoteric policy issues to the needs and concerns of individuals in their districts or states. When conducted properly, site visits help “bring the issue alive” for the policymaker.
When should it be used?
Any organization with a core of committed advocates can benefit from coordinating some type of site visit program. Those organizations with a network that already has some experience with other advocacy techniques, such as lobby days or written campaigns, may have more success. This is because arranging a site visit often takes a bit more time and commitment on the part of the advocate.
Townhall Meetings
What is it?
Policymakers often arrange what are called “townhall” or “community” meetings to hear from people in their districts and states. They generally occur when the legislators are at home, such as during the district work periods of the U.S. Congress, although “telephone townhalls” (see notes below) are gaining in popularity. The meetings may be scheduled to address specific topics, such as economic issues or a local concern, or they may simply be arranged as general “listening sessions.”
Why is it useful?
Townhall or community meetings are generally pretty sparsely attended. Those advocates who do attend can often get some one-on-one face time with both the policymaker and key staff people. This face-to-face connection serves to build a strong relationship with the policymaker and delivers the message that the advocate really cares about the issues. Attending a townhall meeting is a relatively easy way for an advocate to raise the profile of an issue and make the connections necessary to achieve change.
When should it be used?
Any organization with a core of committed advocates can benefit from coordinating some type of townhall attendance program. The commitment on the part of the advocate can range from simply attending (either in-person or through a telephone event), to connecting briefly with the policymaker and staff before or after the event, to raising an issue publicly. It should be noted, however, that a public townhall meeting may not be the best venue to raise new or controversial issues. Advocate leaders should provide detailed instructions and talking points to ensure that messages are delivered as efficiently and effectively as possible. In some cases, this may mean talking directly to the staff as opposed to raising the issue with others.
For more information or to purchase the Advocacy Handbook click here.
Tags: Lobby Days, recess, site visits, townhall
Posted in Advocacy | Comments Off
Wednesday, July 13th, 2011 by Brittany
 When training advocates, it is important to bear in mind that these individuals do not need the same level of policy or process expertise as a professional lobbyist. In most cases, advocates will not be determining strategy, negotiating delicate matters of legislative language or counting votes. As such, much of the basic information about “how a bill becomes a law” or the section-by-section ins-and-outs of a particular policy issue will be of little relevance. Yet, many advocacy training courses focus on legislative process and procedure as a means to introduce advocates to government. Unfortunately, this approach sometimes leaves advocates feeling overwhelmed and under-motivated.
To avoid this situation, advocate leaders should focus on the following key elements in their training curriculum and avoid long discussions about bicameralism, the subcommittee process or how the appropriation level of Program X has changed over the last 20 years. These more minute details of legislative process and policy can certainly be addressed in advanced courses for those advocates interested in more information, but should not form the core of a basic course.
- Why citizen voices matter: Many individuals simply do not believe that their voice matters, in part because they do not fully recognize why an elected official or staff person might pay more attention to them than to anyone else. Citizen advocates need to understand that most elected officials and their staff are eager and excited to meet with real, live constituents and will respond more readily to their requests than those of non-constituents.
- A corollary – what influences elected officials: Most participants in a training session will immediately answer this question with one word: “money.” Advocate leaders should make clear that policymakers are influenced by a variety of factors, including their own principles and passions, their friends, family and staff, their party leadership and, most important, their constituents.
- The importance of asking for something specific: Having a vague or even positive conversation is ultimately far less useful than asking a policymaker to take a specific action, whether it is to support a piece of legislation or visit a facility in the legislator’s district. Advocate leaders should help participants understand and practice the key policy asks as well as other “easier” asks (such as site visits and public statements) that will both capture a policymaker’s interest and support.
- Understanding the audience and framing the message: Advocates should have both a macro- and micro-level understanding of the audience with whom they are communicating.
- Effective messages from advocates: Advocates should recognize that their job is to make sometimes esoteric policy issues real for the policymaker. They can achieve this goal by telling a personal story. Hence, any advocacy training session should include opportunities for participants to develop their own compelling stories.
- The importance of following up: Most advocates do not follow-up on their communications with policymakers — and then wonder why their representatives don’t do what they were asked to do. Advocate leaders should impress upon network members the context in which decisions are made in the legislature, pointing out that initial requests for action may not be followed up on.
- Working with staff: Most state legislatures and the U.S. Congress, along with their related executive branch agencies, utilize staff people to assist policymakers. Advocates should understand that staff people are critical to the process of effective policymaking. In too many cases, advocates are disappointed to meet or work with “just the staff.” Instead, staff should be viewed as critical components of the policymaking process.
For more information or to purchase the Advocacy Handbook click here.
Tags: advocate training
Posted in Advocacy | Comments Off
Monday, June 13th, 2011 by Brittany
Ignore at Your Own Risk:
How Social Media is Becoming a Driving Force in Grassroots Lobbying
A webinar on June 23 from 2:00-3:30 EST
Join us for a 90 minute interactive webinar on grassroots lobbying that will teach how all of the newest technological tools can help advance your message.
Our grassroots advocacy experts, Alan Rosenblatt of the Center for American Politics and Amy Showalter from the Showalter Group will set out a step-by-step plan for launching your online grassroots strategy to help you effectively engage your audience and promote a sense of community while effecting real change in Congress.
Discuss best practices for online strategies and employing real-time tactics and answer these three fundamental questions BEFORE you go social!
- WHY exactly should you go online
- WHAT is your organization trying to accomplish
- HOW can you leverage the various platforms for the most benefit
Register now In addition to learning the myriad of options and how-to’s for social media engagement, you will learn how to maximize your online presence by increasing online trust, and using that trust to move your online advocates offline. The rules of trust in digital discussions aren’t much different than in-person networking, but the tools have changed.
In just 90 minutes you’ll find out:
- How to promote a truly interactive online community
- How to leverage a Congress member’s online presence as a virtual office when getting through to the official offices
- What is meant by the statement “Message control is dead.”
- Three elements of face-to-face credibility and how to engage audiences online
- Two actions that will hurt your online credibility
- Five mistakes that can undermine your web site’s integrity (and how to avoid them)
- How to gauge which online advocates have offline potential
- The psychological tools that motivate volunteers to offline interaction
- The ideal offline structure for maximum volunteer engagement and ownership
Webinar Details
June 23, 2011: 2:00-3:30 EST
Have multiple staff members listen in on the same line!
Register now
Posted in Advocacy, Lobbying News, Training & Events | Comments Off
Wednesday, June 8th, 2011 by Brittany
 Just like in high school when we encouraged our friends to “K.I.T.” (“keep in touch”) with us during the summer months when signing yearbooks, organizations should be engaged in keeping in touch with their advocates on a year-round basis. However, there is a strategic element to the types of messages that are sent out to particular advocates…
Advocate leaders will need to communicate with a variety of audiences within the advocate network, including:
- Existing or potential grassroots network members
- Existing or potential grasstops network members
- Existing or potential coalition members
Within these broad categories, an understanding of the following details about advocates will be essential to effective communications.
- State / District of residency or work: In order to facilitate effective advocate actions based on constituency, advocate leaders must be able to match members of the advocate network with their relevant policymakers. This includes, where possible, both residency connections as well as corporate connections.
- Connections to legislators: In addition, the work done in early network development stages to identify “grasstops”-style connections (i.e., that an advocate has a friendship or business relationship with an elected official) will be helpful in better targeting messages to relevant advocates.
- Expertise / anecdotal connections to issues: Advocate leaders should also be able to identify quickly and easily those advocates with a compelling story to tell and/or those with a strong expertise in the issues. This information can be used to identify potential grasstops advocates and/or advocates that can testify in front of committees or help draft responses to regulatory rulemakings.
The effectiveness of the communications can be further improved by segmenting the audience based on the following measures:
- Level of interest / involvement in the advocacy effort: Advocates that are more active may be more willing to receive multiple communications.
- Topics of interest: If an organization manages a wide range of policy issues, it may be appropriate to ask advocates what topics they are most interested in hearing about.
In short, different audiences may receive different types of communications (for example, potential members of the network will receive recruitment communications whereas existing members will not). In addition, certain strategies may work with one type of audience, but not another (for example, grasstops members may be far more receptive to a “pull” approach, such as a social network). Having a strong understanding of the audience will enhance the advocate leader’s success in communicating messages.
For more information or to purchase the Advocacy Handbook click here.
Tags: advocates, communication, network
Posted in Advocacy | Comments Off
Wednesday, May 11th, 2011 by Brittany
 Lobby days are a good way to connect with elected officials and their staff at their offices in Washington, D.C., or at the state capital. Although advocates are ultimately responsible for making those connections, a lot of planning and effort must be undertaken by the organization hosting the lobby day – as well as the advocates!
What are they?
For purposes of this manual, the term “lobby day” is used to refer to any effort to connect advocates with policymakers through meetings, either physically or virtually, on a given day or week. Some organizations might refer to these events as “advocacy days,” “fly-ins” or “Capitol Hill days.” Members of the legislative branch are usually the target audience for these events, although some organizations arrange meetings with regulators and other members of the executive branch, such as staff of the governor’s office.
Why is it useful?
Recent reports suggest that in-person meetings from constituents are one of the most effective ways to influence elected officials.
When should it be used?
Any organization with a core of committed advocates can benefit from coordinating a lobby day event, either individually or in concert with a coalition partner. Lobbying events are most successful, however, when the organization has a specific policy agenda and core ask.
Asking advocates to get involved
Asking advocates to participate in a lobby day effort generally involves more than simply sending out an action alert and hoping people respond, particularly for those situations where advocates will be investing their own time and money. Options for marketing the event include:
- Conference marketing materials, including brochures, mailers and web site information. Marketing materials should include links to online and hard copy registration materials
- Press releases about the event to industry publications
- Outreach through coalitions
- Articles / columns in the organization’s own publications
- Web 2.0 outreach techniques, such as setting up a Facebook or MySpace page for the event
Key points to consider in developing the materials:
- Outline the value of direct constituent communications in influencing the policymaking process. Advocates need to understand why their direct participation is critical to policy success.
- Be sure that advocates know what they are agreeing to do when registering for the event. Unless advocate leaders are very specific about what the event entails, some advocates may not understand that they will be meeting individually or in small groups with their policymakers.
- Ensure that the registration form captures all relevant information, including the address to be used for matching advocates with policymakers and cell phone numbers.
- Establish an early bird deadline that allows those scheduling the meetings enough time to initiate meeting requests and coordinate schedules.
For more information or to purchase the Advocacy Handbook click here.
Tags: Advocacy, Capitol Hill, Lobby Days
Posted in Advocacy | Comments Off
Wednesday, April 13th, 2011 by Brittany
Differences Between Lobbying and Advocacy
There is much confusion in the government relations community about the differences between “advocacy” and “lobbying.” This is in part because the terms are used one way in the legal and tax context by the IRS (as applied to non-profit organizations) and another in the practical development of advocacy networks. Following is an overview of these differences:
2.2.1. Legal / Tax Differences
- “Advocacy” is often seen as arguing for a cause without referring to a specific piece of legislation. This definition is important to any organization structured as a private foundation because they are, for all intents and purposes, restricted from direct lobbying but may undertake “policy education” or “advocacy.”
- “Grassroots Lobbying” is defined by the I.R.S. more specifically as encompassing the activities that an organization undertakes to ask the public (not members) to support or oppose legislation.
- “Lobbying” or “Direct Lobbying” is defined by the I.R.S. as encompassing the activities that an organization undertakes to communicate its position on legislative proposals directly to elected and executive branch officials and staff. This includes communications an organization sends to its own members asking them to communicate with an elected official about legislation.
Nonprofits are limited in both the amount of grassroots lobbying and direct lobbying they may carry out and still maintain their exempt status. The rather vague term “substantial” (as in whether an organization’s lobbying work constitutes a “substantial” part of its activities) has led many organizations to seek further clarification.
The 1976 Lobbying Law provided this clarification. Non-profits that elect to come under this law (by filing a Section 501 h form) have very specific monetary limits on their lobbying-related expenditures, as follows:
1976 Lobbying Law Limits
| Annual Expenditures |
Direct Lobbying Ceiling |
Grassroots Lobbying Ceiling |
| Up to $500,000 |
20% of expenditures |
25% of the direct lobbying costs |
| $500,001 to $1 million |
$100,000 + 15% over $500K |
$25,000 + 3.75% over $500K |
| $1 million to $1.5 million |
$175,000 + 10% over $1million |
$43,750 + 2.5% over $1 million |
| $1.5 million to $17 million |
$225,000 + 5% over $1.5 million |
$56,250 + 1.25% over $1.5 million |
| Over $17 million |
$1 million |
$250,000 |
Note that these limits are based on actual monetary expenditures. The advocacy activities of volunteers do not count toward these expenditures, although any funds the organization spends to solicit action would.
In Practice Definitions
Standard government relations practice defines these terms in slightly different ways. These are the definitions that will be utilized in this manual:
- Advocacy: The act of pleading or arguing for a cause, or more specifically for or against a piece of legislation, through the use of grassroots, grasstops or coalition networks. These networks may be comprised of members of the organization itself or the general public.
- Lobbying: Communications with elected officials and others conducted on behalf of an organization by professional staff or directors of the organization.
Note, however, that because the question of what constitutes lobbying (whether direct or grassroots) is so important to the functioning of nonprofit organizations, care is taken throughout this manual to highlight when an organization needs to be aware of the potential tax ramifications of a particular activity or advocacy network structure.
For more information or to purchase the Advocacy Handbook click here.
Tags: Advocacy, definitions, direct lobbying, Lobbying, lobbying law limits
Posted in Advocacy | Comments Off
Wednesday, March 9th, 2011 by Brittany
 In identifying the issues that the organization will address, successful advocate leaders must manage both the expectations and interests of their advocates as well as the agendas of policymakers. As a result, they must be prepared to establish both proactive and reactive policy agendas.
- Proactive agendas are those designed to further the legislative, regulatory or other policy interests of the organization. They are usually comprised of specific initiatives the organization wishes to advance, such as legislation or a change to regulatory rules.
- Reactive agendas are developed in response to the initiatives put forth by policymakers or others.
Almost all policy agendas will have both proactive and reactive elements. Proactive elements are often the easiest to develop, in that organization leaders will hopefully have a good sense of the policy changes necessary to benefit their stakeholders. Difficulties with proactive agendas may arise when there are competing priorities or stakeholders have unrealistic expectations.
The formation of reactive agendas can prove more difficult. This is in large part because it is often difficult to know what a policymaking body is planning. Many organizations with well-thought-out proactive agendas find themselves scrambling to manage policy changes proposed from an external source. To avoid surprises and last-minute policy panic, it is essential to consider what issues your organization might need to address in a reactive manner from the outset.
Options for identifying potential reactive agenda items include:
- Informal discussions with key legislative and regulatory champions
- Ongoing review of relevant periodicals, newspapers and other publications
- Discussions with appropriate state and national associations and interest groups
- Analysis of legislative and regulatory history, including existing laws up for reauthorization and review
- Intelligence from well-situated stakeholders
For more information or to purchase the Advocacy Handbook click here.
Tags: advocacy strategies, proactive agenda, reactive agenda
Posted in Advocacy | Comments Off
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
