|
|
February 14th, 2012 by Nicholas
 Jocelyn Bissonnette speaks at a NAFIS conference. It’s been more than a year, but Lovable Lobbyist is back with a special Valentine’s Day Lovable Lobbyist edition!
With education reauthorization being worked on this year, we wanted to introduce you to one of the people that will be helping to make a difference in the lives of students across the country. Meet Jocelyn Bissonnette, the Director of Government Affairs with the National Association of Federally Impacted Schools, a non-profit that works to ensure that students across the country get the education they deserve, particularly those from military families.
Do you have a personal connection to the nonprofit you work for?
Education has long been a passion of mine. I studied economics and political science in college, but my interest in federal education policy was piqued by a course on social mobility and social change and reinforced through my participation in a literacy-focused tutoring program. I spent a summer teaching middle school in Providence, RI and while that was an incredible experience, I realized that although I wanted to pursue my interests in education, teaching was not for me. I’m fortunate to work for an organization that advocates for and protects the interests of school districts.
What positive things would you like people to know about lobbying and advocacy?
My organization lobbies on Impact Aid – an education program that reimburses school districts for the lost local tax revenue associated with the federal presence in their district (anything from military installations to Native American reservations to national parks). I see myself as an advocate: the voice of these school districts on Capitol Hill, protecting their interests and ensuring their voices are represented. NAFIS provides district-specific analysis and legislative expertise vital to the policy-making process. Our members are busy running school districts, and my organization exists to monitor congressional activities on their behalf.
What can people do to get involved in advocacy activities with Impact Aid schools?
NAFIS has a website (www.nafisdc.org) and a Facebook page where we post advocacy activities and action alerts. You can donate to the Federally Impacted Schools Educational Foundation, which provides workshops and training to school personnel. NAFIS also works with the Committee for Education Funding, a broad coalition of educational groups (www.cef.org).
What else makes you lovable outside of your regular work?
I love cooking, cheering on New England sports teams, and seeing shows at local theatres in DC and Northern Virginia. Because of my Armenian heritage, I also enjoy discussing Armenian history and culture.
Tags: Advocacy, advocates, Jocelyn Bissonnettee, Lovable Lobbyists
Posted in Just for Fun, Lovable Lobbyists | Comments Off
February 10th, 2012 by Nicholas
While Super Bowl news usually fills the front page and sports section, rarely does it reach the political pages. This year, the superbly done Clint Eastwood ad for Chrysler did just that. “It’s Halftime in America” might be the best political ad that isn’t really a political ad at all. To find out, Lobbyblog constructed a list of the top 5 Presidential Campaign Ads since 1984.
5. 1988 – “Willie Horton” – One of two H.W. Bush ads to make the list, Willie Horton is something that belongs in any 80’s political time capsule, right next to a picture of Gary Hart and the “Monkey Business.” Very contemporary, it perfectly meshed with crime spikes of the 80’s and the public fears that came with them, which everyone at the time knew was entirely due to liberals. However, what really gave the ad staying power was how controversial and racially charged it was (and the fact that it got a second life when claims that it violated FEC laws were filed).
Use of controversial ads continues to this day (why not, Bush did win after all) with ads such as Jesse Helm’s (won) “Hands”, Corker’s (won) anti-Harold Ford Jr. ad, and Rep. Hoekstra’s (may win?) new “Spenditnow.” Aside from running the gauntlet of “kind of racist” to “did I just see that?!?” for the most part what bothers me is that unlike Willie Horton, they are really just poorly constructed campaign ads. However, the fact that we’re talking about them (Spenditnow has well over 1 million hits in less than a week) might just prove the saying there’s no bad press. NOTE: Of course it was never be mentioned in the ad, the furlong program that release Willie Horton was signed by a Republican governor of Mass, not Dukakis.
4. 1984 – “Morning in American” – When I saw the Clint Eastwood ad this past weekend, this ad was the first thing that went through my head. In my opinion, the brilliance of this one is that you can remove Reagan’s name and it would fit perfectly for a majority of politicians in almost any election. It is a great example of an ad that brands a candidate and creates positive emotions. While attack ads can help erode support for an opponent, they rarely motivate volunteer work on the ground outside of one or two groups that might be directly affected by the attack ad. Reagan, with his background in advertising, perfectly understood that a positive brand would (and did) translate into a very strong volunteer numbers. “Morning in America” was less about voting for Reagan and more about voting for an idea.
3. 2004 – “Swift Boat Veterans for Truth” – There were really three that I wanted to put here, this, Kerry Windsailing (hit home the flip-flopping) and Wolves (one of the best last-minute ads and taken directly from Reagan’s successful “Bears in the woods”). However, this one won out for three reasons: it was incredibly successful for what it was aiming to do, it helped to launch a national debate on 527 Groups (a debate that we are currently having and will have for the rest of the year) and, most importantly, my editor made me pick it.
The Swift Boat ads (there were a series of commercials) was so successful it made it seem that one of Kerry’s strengths going into the election (his wartime service) was actually one of his liabilities. If Willie Horton shows how to use an ad to hit an opponent’s weakness, the Swift Boat series showed how to nullify one of their strengths.
2. 2008 – “Yes, we can” – The only Democratic commercial on the list, (I can’t tell if that is good or bad) I consider this the evolutionary “Morning in America,” another great example of voting for an idea over a candidate. The star-studded ad based upon President Obama’s New Hampshire primary speech, much like the campaign itself, became as much a cultural phenomenon as a political one. This kind of simplicity was an easy, positive message that was missing from previous Democratic candidates Gore and Kerry. “Yes, we can” and the culture that it created showed that a good, positive message can win a campaign much better than a negative one. So why isn’t it #1 on the list?
1. 1988 – “Dukakis in a Tank” – There is a centuries old saying in American politics, don’t get in a tank or land on an aircraft carrier unless you are sure you are going to look awesome while doing so. (ed- I’d stress the ridiculous helmet over the tank. Tanks are cool, comically big headwear isn’t) Candidates that don’t heed this advice can watch as their own media stunt is turned into an effective ad for their opponent; and it is times like that things can go horribly wrong. And when Dukakis got in a tank, things went horribly wrong. Things went so wrong that even 14 years later the cartoon Futurama was making jokes about the tank incident. Though often used as a punch line now, it is easy to forget that at one point Dukakis was ahead in the polls by as many as 20 points at one time. However, by the end of the race, his VP candidate Lloyd Bentsen had appeared more presidential, even receiving one of his Electoral College votes.
BONUS: 2008 – “Rock” – I dare anyone to watch this ad and “Fire” and not ask themselves “How is Mike Gravel NOT the president right now?”
What did you think of the list? Love it? Hate it? Confused? Let us know by e-mailing the writer here.
Tags: 1980s politics, campaigns, Chrysler, Dukakis tank, Halftime in America, mike gravel, political ads, presidential ads, presidential campaigns, spenditnow, Top 5, Willie Horton
Posted in Campaigns, Executive Branch | Comments Off
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
January 25th, 2012 by Nicholas
Every time I watch the State of the Union address, I always wish I was a more optimistic person. I remember being genuinely excited when President Clinton used the line (not very original) “the state of our union is STRONG” in 1998. I have always believed, whether a Democrat or Republican is speaking, that the State of the Union address should be used to inspire and present the ideas that we should aspire to. Basically, I think the perfect State of the Union should make me want to sing out a certain “Team America” song whose name I can’t print here. Last night, while listening to President Obama, I kinda, sorta felt that way.
And I don’t mean that in a partisan way. Like most of the people now on the outside looking in, I’ve always believed that for President Obama to maximize his potential in office, he needs to be more combative. Even when I disagree, I’d rather he or the Republicans in Congress take a bigger chance; it isn’t like either side’s poll numbers are that great now. At the moment, it feels like I am watching a football game where both sides are so scared of turning the ball over they punt every 1st down.
What’s more sickening is the idea that we need a rebuttal response from the opposition. The idea that it is even needed in the first place just rings of two kids going “No, you’re wrong!” Can’t we put aside partisan bickering for one night and let the President, whichever party they are from, have the limelight? Even when President Obama said something that traditionally is “right of center” he couldn’t catch a break. I really don’t know why you’d even want to respond. It seems like the better political strategy is to just let it go, not seem contrarian, and move on to the next thing. Also, because it airs right after the State, there is no way for them to truly prepare to “respond” to whatever the President actually says.
Why do I say that? Because the rebuttal is just another chance to make a mistake when you don’t have to. Michelle Bachmann’s ‘tea party’ response last year was a great example of this. Also, despite popular opinion, it isn’t like it really makes a difference in the polls. The historic “bump” that people believe the State of the Union gives the incumbent (especially during an election year) is minimum, if at all. Gallup did a great break down in 2010. (Already two years ago!)The biggest bump since the ‘70s came from that ’98 Address, though granted it was the first time in most people’s lives they were hearing or remembering the President announcing a balanced budget.
One last thought. Legislatively, it seems like the big issue the President pushes for each State of the Union has just around a 50/50 shot of working out well. Just ask President Bush about Social Security. Even when it does work, like Obama’s health care plan, it can seem like a Pyrrhic victory. I think it is just hopeful thinking that in the Halls of Congress we’d all have a “come to the light” moment where everyone goes “Oooooohhhhhh, that’s what we should be doing! OK”.
While President Kennedy didn’t declare we would end up on the moon in his State of the Union Address (I’m cheating here because it was still a joint session when he did it) that is what I believe the Address should be about. It is supposed to be a night where we come together and say “ok, this is where we are as a country.” Now we can’t even agree what our problems are, much less the solutions. As an American, I want to hear the unbridled and hopeful optimism regardless of the “political lean” of the idea. For me, the State of the Union has always been about defining the impossible: and how we will turn it into possible.
Tags: President Obama, speech, state of the union, state of the union address
Posted in Congress Views, Executive Branch | Comments Off
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
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
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
January 2nd, 2012 by Autumn
Maricopa County (Ariz.) prosecutors were investigating claims that Arizona politicians violated state lobbying gift laws by accepting tickets to College Football’s Bowl Championship Series Fiesta Bowl. County Attorney Bill Montgomery reported just before Christmas that he had found that the evidence presented was not enough to determine that the law had been broken.
Montgomery blamed the state’s lobbying ethics laws, saying, “Despite the public’s legitimate expectations that current laws ensure a reasonable degree of open and honest government, Arizona’s statutes governing receipt of gifts and reporting requirements fall short of meeting those expectations.”
State Sen. Russell Pearce allegedly received tickets and travel totaling over $40,000, and was voted out of office during a recall election in November, in part due to his connection to the Fiesta Bowl scandal. Pearce was also a staunch Montgomery supporter.
Also implicated in the investigation was Gov. Jan Brewer, whose top political strategists lobbied on behalf of the Fiesta Bowl for six years, beginning in 2005. Brewer was not, however, a subject of investigation.
Montgomery put the onus on legislators to hold public officials accountable, saying via emailed media statement, “I trust that members of the legislature, sharing my concern for upholding the integrity of our respective offices, will address these recommendations in an appropriate manner.”
A federal grand jury is also investigating charges related to Fiesta Bowl impropriety, though no charges have been brought against Arizona state politicians.
Tags: Arizona politics, BCS, Bill Montgomery, fiesta bowl, Jan Brewer, Sen. Russell Pearce
Posted in Lobbying News | Comments Off
December 27th, 2011 by Autumn
The Kentucky Legislative Ethics Commission has hired Jack Abramoff to teach an ethics class to state legislators. Howard Marlowe, president of the American League of Lobbyists, calls this decision “disgusting,” saying in a statement, “How in the world do people think this man has any credentials to teach ethics to lawmakers? Not only does he not know a thing about ethics, he has never apologized or accepted responsibility for the crimes that sent him to jail.”
Abramoff, who will earn $5,000 for the gig, says, “I have not only reduced my speaking for this event, but like all income I earn, it will enable the victims of my case to receive restitution payments.”
Abramoff took issue with Marlowe’s statements, saying “Does Mr. Marlowe find that objectionable? Or is he just acting as the lobbyist for the lobbyists in trying to silence the messenger?”
According to Politico, Abramoff continued, “It must be particularly galling to him to have someone with my experience and knowledge of the tricks of their trade spilling them in my book and in speeches. Undoubtedly he is petrified that I am addressing the state Legislature in Kentucky, as they have been most effective in reducing lobbyist corruption and political foul play.”
Tags: American League of Lobbyists, howard marlowe, Jack Abramoff, lobbying ethics
Posted in Lobbying News | Comments Off
December 21st, 2011 by Autumn
Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington filed an FEC complaint against GOP presidential candidate Newt Gingrich, alleging that his film company, Gingrich Productions, masked campaign events as film screenings, and that the campaign paid Gingrich $42,000 in funds that should have been directed to the company.
“We based our complaint on ABC News and Washington Post stories about these joint events and they seem to be for a dual purpose, for promoting his candidacy and promoting books,” said Melanie Sloan, executive director of CREW. “Gingrich Productions is a corporation and this would violate the rule of not receiving a corporation’s aid,” said Sloan. “In turn, the campaign was accepting an illegal contribution.”
The campaign responded, saying, “If the FEC considers the complaint, they will find that the rules are being followed and published regulations are being enforced.”
Sloan contends that mailing lists and other services Gingrich received thanks to his connection to the production company and a nonprofit once run by his former spokesman constitute impropriety on his behalf, and that “The FEC needs to investigate this…and get some answers from Gingrich and they should fine him if he’s found to be in violation.”
Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off
December 19th, 2011 by Autumn
The American League of Lobbyists hosted its annual Holiday party at K&L Gates Wednesday.
Clockwise from top left: ASAE’s Robert Hay stands with the ALL’s new executive director, Danielle Abe; Lobbyists.info’s Tim Teehan is with Elva Smith of Applied Global Research and Michelle Ly of the National Telecommunications Cooperative Association; Julie Strandley of Julie Strandley Advocacy, Prudential’s Ralph Tyler, Lobbyists.info’s Brittany Carter, Eric Weissmann of the Original U.S. Congress Handbook, Justin Meyers of Nelson Mullins Riley and Scarborough, and Matt Nese of Stateside Associates take a moment to smile for the camera; Tara Galvin and Kaithyn Kawlett of Levick Strategic Communications pose with Patrick Hardy; we caught Applied Global Research’s Elva Smith again! This time with Bernadette Walker of Carr Workplaces; recent Lobbying Certificate Program presenter Anthony Dale, Dale Consulting, stands with new LCP registrants Arielle Eiser of the American Psychological Association and Robert Whittemore of 4Site, and James Kahrs; Food Marketing Association’s Liz Garner is shown with Nathan Smith of the American Traffic Safety Services Association and Daniel Ulloa.
Posted in Lobbying News | Comments Off
December 7th, 2011 by Brittany
 Food and beverages offered to congressional members and staff in a social setting, if paid for by lobbyists or lobbying entities, must conform to the restrictions of the rules, which provide an exception for:
“Food and beverages of nominal value, not as part of a meal.”
This is known as the “reception exception.” The rules in this instance clearly envision that nominal value means more minimalist – and that the phrase “not as part of meal” means no heavy hors d’oeuvres that could be considered a substitute for a meal by hungry interns or low-paid Hill staffers.
As the ethics staff advised one House staffer, “pitcher of margaritas, yes…plate of sliders, no.”
Parties and Receptions — Menus
The House and Senate ethics staff have spent ample time reviewing, editing and discussing catering menus for events hosted or paid for by lobbyists or lobbying entities. Below is a checklist of do’s and don’ts:
NO:
- low-cost food that could still be considered a meal item, such as hot dogs, pizza slices, sliders (tiny hamburgers)
- food that requires a fork
- carving stations
- pasta stations
- dining tables
- martini or vodka bars
YES
- appetizers
- passed hors d’oeuvres
- finger foods or food eaten with toothpicks
- beverages, including wine, beer and cocktails (but keep it simple and less expensive)
- desserts
Invitations and Ethics Approval
The House and Senate Ethics Committee staffs have been gracious about reviewing and approving menus and reception plans in order that hosts and sponsoring organizations can provide comfort to Members and staff that there is no criminal conduct involved in attending a reception. The ethics staff may require changes in the type of food or beverages to be served prior to granting approval.
A reception is not a widely attended event as that term is defined in the gift rules. A widely attended event requires an educational component or some element that a Member or staffer can claim to fall within his/her official duties. Although attendance at social events is clearly business-related in most instances, the widely attended event exception is not the one that is envisioned by the gift rules to be applied if the occasion is a reception or party to which Members and staffers are invited.
Don’t ask the ethics staff to approve a “widely attended event” that is, in fact, a “social gathering.” Approval will not likely be forthcoming.
An event that is planned within the spirit and letter of the ethics rules regarding the menu of food and beverages to be served can be denoted as such on the invitation by stating:
Cocktails and Reception Fare Only
or
Cocktails and Light Appetizers
or
Cocktails and Light Hors d’oeuvres
An indication on the invitation that only appropriate reception food and beverages will be served will demonstrate to an invitee that the host is familiar with the rules and is intent upon following them. That will provide comfort to any guests who are Members and congressional staff and should also help document that the event was in compliance with applicable provisions of the ethics and gift rules.
For more information or to purchase the Lobbying Compliance Handbook click here.
Tags: food and beverages, menus, parties, reception exception
Posted in Lobbying News | Comments Off
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
November 8th, 2011 by Autumn
Jack Abramoff sat down with 60 Minutes’ Leslie Stahl in a segment called “The Lobbyist’s Playbook,” and had a lot of criticism about the current political system, saying nothing has changed to improve ethics since he worked on K Street, despite HLOGA and other reforms enacted largely in response to the scandal that erupted around him.
Early in the interview, Abramoff responded to an astounded Stahl, who inquired whether his actions were legal, “We would certainly try to make the activity legal if we could. At times, we didn’t care.” He went on to tell her that the problem with our system is that “our system is flawed and has to be fixed. Human beings populate our system. Human beings are weak.”
Abramoff suggested that one way to improve ethics is to close the revolving door between K Street and Capitol Hill. “If you make the choice to serve the public, public service, then serve the public, not yourself. When you’re done, go home. Washington’s a dangerous place. Don’t hang around.” He explained how the revolving door benefited him as a lobbyist trying to wield influence over congressional offices:
“When we would become friendly with an office and they were important to us, and the chief of staff was a competent person, I would say or my staff would say to him or her at some point, ‘You know, when you’re done working on the Hill, we’d very much like you to consider coming to work for us.’ Now the moment I said that to them or any of our staff said that to ‘em, that was it. We owned them. And what does that mean? Every request from our office, every request of our clients, everything that we want, they’re gonna do. And not only that, they’re gonna think of things we can’t think of to do.”
Tags: 60 minutes, congressional hires, Jack Abramoff, Revolving Door, the lobbyists playbook
Posted in Lobbying News | Comments Off
November 4th, 2011 by Autumn
The L.A. Times reported last week on a study that suggests that in this post-Citizens United world, companies are regulating their own spending in political campaigns. The study, conducted by the Center for Political Accountability and the University of Pennsylvania’s Zicklin Center for Business Ethics Research, evaluated companies based on board oversight of political giving, disclosure practices and company restrictions on political spending.
The study found that “voluntary disclosure of political spending is becoming a mainstream corporate practice, and [a] growing number of companies are putting restrictions on the political use of their money.” According to its research, 57 of the S&P 100 index companies voluntarily disclose their political spending and have adopted board oversight over spending. Just under half, 43, of the companies voluntarily disclose some of their independent spending through associations and nonprofits.
One in six do not allow funds to be spent directly on candidates or political committees. It also found two companies, Colgate-Palmolive and IBM, prohibit spending entirely. Nearly one-third (30) of companies “place some prohibitions on using corporate funds for political activity.”
“Our findings are striking. They offer hope for increasing corporate political transparency and accountability at a time when everyone expects massive hidden spending to influence elections,” CPA President Bruce Freed said in a statement.
Twenty-four of the companies have explicit statements on their websites letting Super PAC committees know that they will not spend on independent expenditures. The study ranked the top-ten companies based on political transparency:
- Colgate-Palmolive Co.
- Exelon Corp.
- International Business Machines
- Merck & Co. Inc.
- Johnson & Johnson
- Pfizer Inc.
- United Parcel Service Inc.
- Dell Inc.
- Wells Fargo & Co.
- EMC Corp.
In 2003, the Center for Political Accountability started a campaign to urge corporations to voluntarily disclose political spending and exercise greater oversight in this area. “Few, if any, companies disclosed their political spending then,” the report says, going on to note that the results of this study “[reflect] significant progress. [They] also [reflect] troubling gaps that leave many shareholders, and citizens, in the dark.”
Tags: Campaign Finance, Citizens United, colgate, colgate-palmolive, corporate spending in campaigns, Dell, EMC Corp, exelon, IBM, Johnson & Johnson, Merck & Co., palmolive, Pfizer, UPS, Wells Fargo
Posted in Campaign Finance | Comments Off
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
