|
|
Posts Tagged ‘Advocacy’
Tuesday, 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
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, 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
Thursday, December 2nd, 2010 by Brittany
If you’re starting fresh with advocacy or trying to catch up with organizations that already have highly motivated networks in place, the handbook helps you plan and implement a comprehensive program. Or, simply zero in on specific aspects of your existing plan, like shoring up HLOGA compliance, creating multi-level networks, or dealing with opponents.
Table of Contents
Part 1: Overview
Chapter 1: Background on Advocacy
1.1 Introduction 1-1
1.2 What is Advocacy? 1-1
1.3 Who Will Benefit from this Manual? 1-3
1.3.1 Types of Groups that May Undertake Advocacy 1-3
1.3.2 Job Titles / Individuals 1-3
1.4 How this Manual is Structured 1-4
1.5 Core Elements of Advocacy in Government Relations 1-5
1.5.1 Topic 1-5
1.5.2 Scale 1-5
1.5.3 Advocates 1-6
1.5.3.1 Grassroots 1-6
1.5.3.2 Grasstops 1-8
1.5.3.3 Coalitions 1-10
1.5.4 Audience 1-11
1.6 How Does Advocacy Fit into a Larger Campaign? 1-12
1.7 Conclusion 1-13
Chapter 2: Legal and Tax Issues Associated with Advocacy
2.1 Introduction 2-1
2.2 Differences Between Lobbying and Advocacy 2-1
2.2.1 Legal / Tax Differences 2-1
2.2.2 In Practice Definitions 2-2
2.3 Non-Profit and Corporate Structures and Advocacy 2-3
2.4 Legalities 2-4
2.4.1 Electioneering Communications 2-4
2.4.2 Lobbying Disclosure 2-5
2.5 Conclusion 2-6
Part 2 Structuring the Advocacy Network
Chapter 3: Setting Advocacy Goals and the Policy Agenda
3.1 Introduction 3-1
3.2 The Advocacy Mission Statement 3-2
3.3 Identifying Issues 3-3
3.3.1 Formation of Policy Ideas 3-3
3.3.2 Strategies for Soliciting Stakeholder Involvement 3-4
3.3.2.1 Policy Committees 3-4
3.3.2.2 Focus Groups/Informal Discussions 3-5
3.3.2.3 Staff Meetings 3-5
3.3.2.4 Organization-Wide Survey 3-5
3.3.2.5 Social Media Approaches 3-6
3.4 Prioritizing Issues/Developing Goals 3-6
3.4.1 Prioritizing Issues 3-6
3.4.2 Developing Goals 3-6
3.5 Outlining Policy Agenda Item s 3-8
3.6 Determining Strategies 3-9
3.7 The Policy Advocacy Document 3-9
3.8 Budgeting 3-10
3.9 Case Studies 3-11
3.10 Conclusion 3-12
Chapter 4: Network Building Blocks
4.1 Introduction 4-1
4.2 What is a “Network?” 4-2
4.2.1 Network Structure Options 4-2
4.2.2 Multi-level Networks 4-4
4.3 Criteria for Choosing a Network Structure 4-4
4.3.1 Mission 4-4
4.3.2 Perception 4-5
4.3.3 Policy Environment 4-6
4.3.4 Interest Level 4-7
4.3.5 Message 4-7
4.3.6 Budget 4-8
4.3.7 Capacity 4-9
4.3.8 Structure 4-10
4.4 Creating and Naming the Network 4-11
4.5 Case Studies 4-11
4.6 Conclusion 4-13
Chapter 5: Building and Organizing the Network
5.1 Introduction 5-1
5.2 Building a Network of Individuals 5-1
5.2.1 Identifying Advocates 5-2
5.2.2 Finding Potential Grassroots and Grasstops Individuals 5-3
5.2.2.1 Finding Grassroots Individuals 5-3
5.2.2.2 Finding Grasstops Individuals 5-2
5.3 Advocate Recruitment 5-5
5.3.1 The “Must-Opt-Out” Strategy 5-5
5.3.2 Large Scale Person-to-Person Outreach 5-6
5.3.3 Targeted Person-to-Person Outreach 5-6
5.3.4 Each-One-Reach-One Campaign 5-7
5.3.5 Easy Access to Registration Information 5-7
5.3.6 Event Recruitment 5-8
5.3.7 Assistance from Affiliated Entities 5-9
5.3.8 Small-Scale Public Relations 5-10
5.3.9 Large-Scale Public Relations 5-10
5.3.10 Web-Based Advertising 5-11
5.4 Collecting Information about Advocates: The Advocate Intake Form 5-11
5.4.1 Grassroots Network Members 5-11
5.4.2 Grasstops Network Members 5-12
5.4.3 Issues to Consider in Maintaining Network Information 5-13
5.4.4 Technological Options for Maintaining Network Information 5-14
5.5 Assigning Advocate Responsibilities: The Advocate Job Description 5-16
5.6 Building a Coalition 5-18
5.6.1 Why Utilize Coalitions? 5-18
5.6.2 Types of Coalitions 5-19
5.6.3 Joining vs Creating a Coalition 5-19
5.6.4 Criteria for Identifying and Selecting Groups to Participate in a Coalition 5-20
5.6.5 Approaching Potential Coalition Partners 5-21
5.7 Case Studies 5-22
5.8 Common Recruitment Problems/Scenarios 5-24
5.9 Conclusion 5-27
Chapter 6: Communicating Directly with Your Network
6.1 Introduction 6-1
6.2 Who Will the Organization be Communicating With? 6-2
6.3 What Messages Should be Communicated? 6-3
6.3.1 Recruitment 6-3
6.3.2 Information 6-3
6.3.2.1 Newsletters/Ongoing Communications 6-4
6.3.2.2 Special Updates 6-4
6.3.2.3 Training 6-5
6.3.2.4 Follow-ups 6-5
6.3.3 Action Alerts 6-6
6.3.4 Thank Yous 6-7
6.3.5 Assessment 6-7
6.3.6 A Note on Communications to Coalitions 6-7
6.4 How Will these Messages be Communicated? 6-8
6.4.1 Push versus Pull Strategies 6-8
6.4.2 Considerations for Effective “Pull” Communications in the Web 2.0 World 6-8
6.4.3 Specific Organization-to-Network Communication Tools 6-11
6.4.3.1 Mailings 6-12
6.4.3.2 Phone Trees/Phone Banks 6-12
6.4.3.3 E-mail 6-13
6.4.3.4 Websites 6-14
6.4.3.5 Blogs 6-17
6.4.3.6 Podcasts 6-19
6.4.3.7 Texting/IM-ing 6-20
6.4.3.8 Social Networks 6-21
6.5 Common Problems and Concerns 6-23
6.5.1 Frequency of Communication/Reducing Advocate Fatigue 6-23
6.5.2 Negative Posts/Editorial Tone 6-24
6.5.3 Not Finding the Right Tool for the Right Audience 6-25
6.6 Case Studies 6-25
6.7 Conclusion 6-27
Chapter 7: Communicating Through the Mass Media 7-1
7.1 Introduction 7-1
7.2 Types of Messages 7-2
7.3 Types of Media 7-4
7.3.1 Paid Media 7-4
7.3.2 Tips for Paid Media 7-4
7.3.3 Earned Media/”Press” 7-7
7.3.4 Four Steps to Effective Earned Media 7-8
7.3.5 Hybrid Approaches 7-9
7.4 Managing Your Media Approaches 7-10
7.5 Dealing with Opponents 7-11
7.6 Case Studies 7-12
7.7 Conclusion 7-13
Part 3 Activating Your Network and Others
Chapter 8: Training Your Advocates
8.1 Introduction 8-1
8.2 What Advocates Need to Know to be Effective 8-1
8.2.1 Additional Training Topics for Grasstops 8-6
8.2.2 Additional Training Topics for the Network 8-7
8.3 Training Delivery Options 8-7
8.3.1 Active Training 8-7
8.3.1.1 In-Person 8-7
8.3.1.2 Online 8-9
8.3.2 Self-paced Training 8-11
8.4 Creating a Comprehensive Training Program 8-13
8.5 Case Studies 8-14
8.6 Conclusion 8-16
Chapter 9: Activating and Motivating the Network 9-1
9.1 Introduction 9-1
9.2 Activating 9-2
9.2.1 When to Activate 9-2
9.2.2 How to Activate 9-3
9.2.2.1 Grasstops Activation 9-3
9.2.2.2 Targeted Grassroots Activation 9-3
9.2.3 Full-Scale Grassroots Activation 9-5
9.2.4 Coalition Activation 9-5
9.2.5 Combination Strategies 9-6
9.3 Motivating 9-6
9.3.1 Barriers to Participation 9-6
9.3.2 Overcoming Barriers 9-7
9.4 Recognizing Advocate Effort 9-10
9.5 Case Studies 9-11
9.6 Conclusion 9-13
Chapter 10: Implementing Specific Advocate Actions 10-1
10.1 Introduction 10-1
10.2 Lobby Days 10-2
10.2.1 Setting the Stage 10-4
10.2.2 Gathering Information 10-6
10.2.3 Initiating Meeting Requests 10-8
10.2.4 Scheduling Meetings 10-9
10.2.5 Scheduling Other Lobby Day Activities 10-9
10.2.6 Reporting 10-11
10.2.7 Staffing the Event 10-12
10.2.8 Creating Cohesion 10-13
10.3 District-based Lobby Days 10-13
10.4 Virtual Lobby Days 10-15
10.5 Site Visits 10-18
10.6 Townhall Meetings 10-20
10.7 Form Letters, Petitions and Postcard Campaigns 10-22
10.8 Personalized Written Communication 10-23
10.9 Phone Campaigns 10-26
10.10 Social Media Approaches 10-28
10.11 Media Outreach 10-29
10.12 Public Hearings/Testimony 10-31
10.13 Election Activities 10-33
10.14 PAC/Fundraising Efforts 10-36
10.15 Case Studies 10-38
10.16 Conclusion 10-40
For more information or to purchase this product click here.
Tags: Advocacy, Lobbying, network
Posted in Lobbying News | Comments Off
Tuesday, November 9th, 2010 by Elise
 Tap the power of your roots! When the grassroots get all fired up, watch out! Most lobbyists would like to tap the power of grassroots advocates – but do you know what exactly qualifies as “grassroots”? And how do you report those activities on your LDA forms?
The official definition of grassroots lobbying is the Internal Revenue Code (IRC) definition: “a call to action to the public or segment of the public asking them to contact a designated official, state, federal, local on a specific item government action, specific legislation, or a nomination, etc.”
What activities are considered “grassroots”?
Grassroots lobbying is: “communications to the general public that refer to and reflect a view on the merits of a specific legislative proposal and a ‘call to action’ directly or indirectly encouraging legislative contact.” So, for example, if you’re XYZ Association, and you ask your members to write Representative Smith on H.R. 1234, that is grassroots lobbying.
Reporting grassroots lobbying
There are two different ways to report – you must make a designation. If you are filing under the Lobbying Disclosure Act (LDA) definitions, grassroots lobbying is not disclosed on your forms. Under the Internal Revenue Code (IRC) definition of lobbying the expenses of grassroots lobbying are combined with the total reportable expenditures. The key thing to remember is that whichever method you chose, you must use it consistently in your filing. Note also that registrants reporting lobbying income (i.e. lobbying firms, including lobbyists acting as sole proprietors) must use the LDA definition and reporting structure. Registrants reporting lobbying expenditures may elect to use the IRC or LDA.
Resources
Amy Showalter, at the Showalter Group, writes an excellent blog on keeping your advocates motivated and engaged.
Another great speaker on advocacy and citizen participation is Stephanie Vance, at Advocacy Associates.
Tags: Advocacy, compliance, grassroots, Grassroots advocacy
Posted in Advocacy, Ethics Tip | Comments Off
Friday, October 29th, 2010 by Brittany
 An excerpt from the Advocacy Handbook:
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.
The Advocacy Handbook, written by the “Advocacy Guru” Stephanie Vance, and its insight into helping your advocates shake off their anxieties will help your advocacy mission become a success. Click here for more information on the Advocacy Handbook.
Tags: Advocacy, advocacy handbook, Lobby Days, stephanie vance
Posted in Advocacy | 1 Comment »
Friday, October 1st, 2010 by Elise
GOP members of the House Ethics Committee want Rep. Zoe Lofgren to just schedule trials for Reps. Waters and Rangel already! (Roll Call)
Jack Abramoff was spotted in Dupont Circle on Tuesday, having a discussion with some friends about “writing a book,” according to Roll Call.
Rep. Zack Space (D-Ohio) has been a public proponent of cutting lobbyists’ ability to give campaign contributions, and has also pledged not to accept any lobbyist campaign contributions himself. The GOP is hitting Rep. Space by claiming that his acceptance of “special interest” PAC money and contributions from lobbyists’ family members constitutes the same thing.
State and Federal Communications has a new e-newsletter up – “Compliance Now, October 2010.”
Good government groups point out the continued absence of the Ethics.gov website. Article from The Hill.
Advocacy is all about customization, according to Amy Showalter.
Rep. Chellie Pingree (D-Maine) was getting in hot water from several groups for her use of a private jet… but the airplane was cleared for her use by the Ethics Committee, since it is owned by her fiance.
Quote of the Week:
“There is definitely a big distance from President Obama’s Ethics.gov campaign promise and what they have done so far… They are failing to live up to their promise, but their promise was aimed very high.” – John Wonderlich, policy director for the Sunlight Foundation, The Hill, 10/1/10
Tags: Advocacy, amy showalter, ethics.gov, House ethics, Jack Abramoff, John Wonderlich, Rep. Chellie Pingree, Rep. Zack Space, State and Federal Communications
Posted in Weekly Lobbying News Round-Up | Comments Off
Wednesday, September 15th, 2010 by Brittany
An excerpt from the Advocacy Handbook.
 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.
Tags: Advocacy, advocacy handbook, stephanie vance
Posted in Advocacy | 1 Comment »
Monday, August 30th, 2010 by Elise
I know this is a bit older (it was published almost a month ago!), but here’s an interesting report for your edification - Burson-Marsteller did a study on “Social Media Use By U.S.-Based Political Advocacy Groups.”
The report, downloadable on SlideShare, covers social media use and its effectiveness in partisan political advocacy groups, as well as non-partisan advocacy groups. Check out the slides below.
Tags: Advocacy, Burson-Marsteller, social media
Posted in Lobbying Research | 2 Comments »
Tuesday, August 24th, 2010 by Brittany
an excerpt from The Advocacy Handbook
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.
Tags: Advocacy, advocacy guru, district visits, site visits, stephanie vance, the advocacy handbook, townhall meetings
Posted in Advocacy | Comments Off
Monday, May 24th, 2010 by Brittany
On June 15 Lobbyists.info is hosting an audioconference on developing a district-based lobbying program. Speaker Stephanie Vance of Advocacy Associates will reveal a step-by-step plan for creating a district-level advocacy program that engages members of Congress in discussions about how new policies will affect local interests and the future of the community. You’ll come away with practical guidance on everything from the logistics of planning events, to strategies for getting time on representatives’ busy schedules.
For more information and to register click here.
Tags: Advocacy, advocacy associates, district lobbying, grassroots, stephanie vance
Posted in Training & Events | Comments Off
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
