Are you currently using Mobile to reach your organization’s assets? Find out more and sign up here.

Date: Thursday, November 10, 2011, 6:00 p.m.

Location:
Adfero Group
1666 K Street NW, Suite 250
Washington, D.C.

Schedule:

6:00 – 6:30 Meet & Greet
6:30 – 6:40 Introductions
6:45 – 7:30 Sue Zoldak (Adfero Group) & John Craig (Purple Forge)
7:30 – 8:00 Q&A

More about Sue Zoldak (Adfero Group):

Sue Zoldak is a Vice President at Adfero Group. Sue provides strategic counsel for integrated issue advocacy and branding campaigns. She succeeds by combining message discipline with political insight while bringing together the right communications tools for each client.

Sue brings not only her expertise in issue advocacy and public affairs advertising, but also her ability to manage social media campaigns, build grassroots coalitions, provide the leading edge in digital communications tactics, and leverage a keen understanding of website design and usability.

More about John Craig (Purple Forge):

John Craig is the Vice-President of Sales and Marketing of Purple Forge.  Mr. Craig is an award winning market expert in the application of social media and mobile technologies for collaboration and communication for grassroots organizations, associations, politicians, governments and interactive marketing firms. 

Purple Forge has recently developed mobile applications for the American Petroleum Institute, Americans for Prosperity, and recent Royal Tour of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge to Canada.  Mr. Craig has over 19 years of experience in the telecommunications industry, with the last 11 years in the development and design of mobile applications.  Mr. Craig holds a Bachelor of Applied Science (Honors) in Electrical Engineering from the University of Waterloo, an Ontario Professional Engineer and a member of the AAPC.

Then the Post mentioned an important detail in the seventh paragraph of the story. It seems that “Congress does not have direct oversight over the deal.” In fact, AT&T needs approval from the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and the Justice Department, not from Congress.

Yes, Congress holds the purse strings to the FCC and can weigh in on the proposed merger. But this is not shaping up to be an old-fashioned lobbying battle. The proposed merger, and the process that will be followed to determine its fate, are far more complicated than that.

Yet reporters and activists continue to trot out lobbying and PAC spending numbers to disparage corporate political activity. This is true whether it’s the AT&T/T-Mobile deal, a regulatory issue (“Oil Lobbyists Focus New Attention on Regulators”) or a corporation’s decision to launch a new product (“Apple’s iLobby”).

Last year I wrote about the unfairness of this story line – especially in a political system that supposedly protects “the right to petition government.” But that’s not the focus of this post.

Today I’m ready to claim this story line is more than an over-simplification. It’s a myth. That’s because there are fewer and fewer old-fashioned lobbying battles. Public affairs professionals, just like their cousins in public relations and marketing, are increasingly taking integrated approaches to communication that build support – and certainly not buy support – for their cause.

In 1996, in his best-selling book The Death of Competition, James F. Moore noted “the central game of strategic management is moving from managing oneself to leading a community of allies.” The visible assets of a company, he said, “are often far outweighed by the innovation-driven power of its invisible assets – community goodwill, shared vision, enthusiasm of customers.” These assets extend the influence of the firm.

At about the same time, author Rosabeth Moss Kanter wrote an article for Harvard Business Review called “Collaborative Advantage” that made a similar argument. Companies that understand personal relationships and know how to get the most out of their business alliances are more successful than those that don’t, she said.

How do these ideas apply to public affairs in the 21^st century? When a company faces a crisis or seeks to take advantage of a new market opportunity, it can no longer rely on its size or financial strength to win the day. Its community of allies is often more important than its paid lobbyists or PAC.

We see this trend in the rise of grassroots activism, the engagement of suppliers in legislative outreach, the formation of alliances with advocacy groups, the use of issue advertising, and the growth of social media as a communications strategy.

Everyone involved in the public policy process – from labor unions to corporations to associations to activists – is taking a more wide-ranging approach to getting their message across. Why?

Here are five major reasons:

1. Constituents matter more than lobbyists. A new survey of congressional staff by the Congressional Management Foundation (CMF) shows that 46% believe personal visits from voters have “a lot of positive influence” in persuading an undecided member of Congress, while only 8% say lobbyist visits have the same impact.
2. Voters listen to political messages from employers and interest groups.Companies have become a trusted source of political information for employees, says BIPAC, a business-oriented grassroots network. And an earlier CMF studyshowed that most Americans who contact Congress are asked to do so by a third-party organization.
3. Washington is getting noisier. Every year, a growing number of groups and individuals – representing every conceivable cause – clamor for the attention of Congress and the White House. Smart advocates know they need to be engaged, but in most cases their engagement can’t be limited to direct lobbying and PAC contributions.
4. Inside deals are becoming scarce. Recent political scandals have taught elected officials there’s little upside associated with granting special favors to old friends, former colleagues and large campaign contributors.
5. Long-term, strategic campaigns work. Successful companies and non-profits start early, find common cause with others, develop a positive reputation and build public awareness of their issues. Their goal is to create a favorable environment for their public policy priorities, not to gain a “quick win.” If they do their job well, they’ll win far more often they they’ll lose.

As AT&T begins the long process of trying to convince the FCC and the Justice Department that merging its wireless network with T-Mobile’s will be good for America, we’ll witness a case study in this new approach to public affairs. Because the stakes are high, conventional politics will play a role. But so will every other strategy that can be used to win the hearts and minds of the public.

Just this week, for example, AT&T CEO Randall Stephenson told the Council on Foreign Relations that the merger would enlarge the company’s network capacity and improve iPhone service. Was he lobbying the FCC or the Justice Department with those comments? Not really. Was he hoping to gain the support of influential members of the Council on Foreign Relations and millions of iPhone users across the country? Absolutely.

E-mails to congressional representatives are the common currency of online advocacy campaigns, but a new study shows all advocacy e-mails are not created alike. In a report published earlier this month, the Congressional Management Foundation aimed to determine how much influence e-mail, social media channels, and traditional media channels have on U.S. House Members and Senators.

The CMF survey of more than 250 congressional staffers showed that e-mails with individualized messages are far better received than form e-mails, which are often automated through advocacy campaign websites. Nineteen percent of respondents said e-mails including more personalized messages had “a lot of positive influence” on office holders who had yet to firmly decide on an issue, and 69 percent said they had some influence.

“What matters most is the content, not the vehicle,” suggested the “Communicating with Congress” report, which showed that postal mail featuring personalized messages is seen as almost equally influential to personalized e-mails. Twenty percent said they had “a lot of positive influence” and 70 percent said they had some.

Form e-mails, on the other hand, were seen as having “a lot of positive influence” by just 1 percent of participants and “some influence” by 50 percent. Social media site comments were also attributed less value. Just 1 percent said social site comments had “a lot of positive influence,” and 41 percent said they had “some influence.”

To read the entire article on ClickZ, click here.

Average citizens can have more influence on congressional policy than they think, says a new study from the Congressional Management Foundation (CMF). In fact, in many cases they have more influence than lobbyists or editorial page editors.

The report, Communicating with Congress: Perceptions of Citizen Advocacy on Capitol Hill, was released this week at the Public Affairs Council’s National Grassroots Conference. It is based on a survey conducted late last year of 260 Senate and House staffers.

“The most influential advocacy strategies for swaying an undecided Member of Congress depend on personal communications from constituents,” says the study. “Whether individuals make contact face-to-face, by phone, or through personalized email or postal mail, Senators and Representatives are influenced by their constituents’ own views about the public policy issues before them.”

The key word here is “personal.” In an age when technology allows an issue group to shut down Capitol Hill servers with thousands of identical emails, it’s refreshing to hear that taking the time to visit a congressional office in person is worth the effort.

When asked how influential various strategies are in persuading an undecided member of Congress, staffers give the highest scores to Washington office visits, district office visits and contacts from a constituent representing other constituents. Forty-six percent say in-person visits from voters have “a lot of positive influence.” Other influential strategies are individualized postal letters and emails, phone calls and comments made during a telephone town hall meeting.

Only 8% say visits from lobbyists have a lot of positive influence, though 74% say these visits have some influence.  At the bottom of the list are form letters, identical emails and faxes; postcards; and comments on social media sites.

The big losers in this study are grassroots campaigns that spew out thousands of indistinguishable messages in hopes of swaying a vote. Not only are such communications largely ignored, they arouse suspicion. More than half of the congressional staffers conclude that “most advocacy campaigns of identical form messages are sent without constituents’ knowledge or approval.” In other words, if grassroots supporters don’t customize their messages, their campaigns are often written off as “Astroturf.”

The Internet has allowed more citizens to participate in the public policy process and has made lawmakers more accountable, says CMF. Yet electronic communication has reduced the quality of constituents’ messages. Only 41% of Hill staffers think that email and the Internet have increased public understanding of what goes on in Washington.

A House legislative director, talking about the challenges of keeping up with email, sums up this lack of public understanding:

The ease with which constituents can communicate with their Member has really diluted the quality of communications overall. We get way too many email inputs that forward the Congressman some email or YouTube link with “is this true” as the only message.

But YouTube – and other social media – have a constructive role to play as well. More than 60% of staffers think Facebook is an important medium for understanding constituent views and nearly three-quarters consider it important for communicating their members’ views. Facebook beats identical form messages as a way to get voter input and it out-polls printed congressional newsletters as a way to reach constituents.

YouTube is valued almost as much for congressional communication, but not as highly for understanding constituent views. Even Twitter, which limits messages to a mere 140 characters, is quickly gaining acceptance as a communications tool.

What do these new data mean for political advocates? Here are a few takeaways:

- Generating “noise” through a grassroots campaign is not the same thing as generating influence.

- Showing up in person still counts.

- Meeting members and their staffs in their district offices is just as effective – and probably easier to schedule – than conducting a legislative “fly in” to Washington, D.C.

- Personal stories about how an issue affects an individual voter resonate with congressional staff.

- Telephone town hall meetings may provide new opportunities for grassroots supporters to get their message across. Participants in these gatherings have roughly the same influence as those who make phone calls or send personalized letters and emails.

- Citizens and members of Congress who ignore social media do so at their own peril. A conversation about your issue, your employer, your district and your elected representatives is taking place right now on the Internet – whether you’re there or not.

Let’s acknowledge that, in the first three months, it will be a bit difficult  to deliver your messages to Congress. What do you do when some offices haven’t been filled yet (some Senate offices won’t be filled until March) and many House offices aren’t yet fully staffed?

That said, the first quarter also brings tremendous opportunities to educate and engage members of Congress, particularly the freshman class, early on.

As Brad Fitch rightly noted in his post, New House Calendar Benefits Grassroots Advocates, the 2011 House calendar currently has 13 District Work periods – more than double from 2010. This means your organization and members have more opportunities to engage with your member of Congress at home, and your member of Congress has more face time with constituents from the district. This is a win-win situation.

The House freshman class is likely to embrace these home meetings, and will be eager to not only get out of Washington (which so many of them campaigned against just a few months ago) but to also engage with their voters where they are most comfortable – in the district.

Knowing they will be home more frequently will also  help these Congressional members  feel better about spending quality time with your group. In 2010, they were home so infrequently there was too much pent up official business to leave much time to meet with constituents. Now, with almost 21 weeks of District Work Periods scheduled, they won’t feel rushed and neither will you – which, again, is a win-win situation.

Additionally, it is important to make an effort to get to know the staff in these early months. So many people overlook establishing good relationships with both the D.C and the district staff, but these individuals can be some of your greatest allies if you take the time. Keep your meetings with them friendly, relevant and informative, and you will discover some of the best partners you could imagine. And don’t forget the most important rule of all – say thank you. When you get home, send an email or a note re-iterating what you covered in the meeting and thanking them for their time. A little thoughtfulness will go a long way.

The first quarter of 2011 is also a good time to discover who may already be a key contact to these new members. At the AMA, we typically survey our physician grassroots advocates about who they know and how they know them. We ask our physicians to self-identify their relationships with their federal office holders via an electronic survey. For a small price (or even free depending on what you want to do), you can set up an online questionnaire through a site like Survey Monkey (or set up your own internally if you have the capability) and walk your advocates through a series of questions about their political involvement. You might be surprised to discover that one of your members is a former fraternity brother of a new representative, or has hosted a fundraiser in her home for a newly elected official. Ask now, identify now, build on those relationships now and it will pay dividends in the future.

In the digital space, the first quarter of 2011 will be interesting. Again, many offices aren’t fully staffed yet, so it will be difficult to judge whether they are able to process emails. Online petitions, while not normally an activity I would recommend, might be an easier way to recruit followers to your issue, and an easier way to present your issue to these new members of Congress initially. On the other hand, this freshman class is more engaged in the digital space than any previous Congress. If you and your members are already on Facebook, Twitter and YouTube, you may find educating and engaging these freshmen to be easier through those channels.

What are some additional activities you are planning to do, specifically during these first three months of the new year and the new Congress? What else do you recommend to your grassroots colleagues?

The newly released House calendar for the 112th Congress presents a fascinating opportunity for grassroots advocates seeking to build relationships and influence legislators. The calendar makes good on part of a promise the House Republicans made when they took office that they would operate differently than Democrats, and even previous Republican leaders.

The schedule is mostly a two-weeks-on and one-week-off schedule. It includes five days of voting when legislators are in Washington, no votes after 7 pm, and consistent end times on Fridays. Whether incoming Speaker John Boehner and Majority Leader Eric Cantor can pull it off is still a question. (The Senate tried a similar calendar during the 104th Congress and punted it after 10 months.) But, for sake of sane scheduling, increased efficiency, and hot meals at 7:30 pm for Members and staff, let’s assume they can. What does this mean for those seeking to influence legislators?

First, legislators will likely schedule more town hall meetings. The 2010 House calendar had 5 District Work periods – the 2011 calendar has 13. This means Members of Congress have more certainty and time to schedule town hall meetings in the district. It also means they’ll likely schedule more events as well – visits to businesses, schools, and groups. Great photo op’s, but also great face time with constituents.

Second, constituents and their representatives often overlook the value of meeting with legislators in their district offices. However, with 21 weeks back home the best venue to meet with a Member of Congress and staff is the district office. Constituents will feel more comfortable meeting in their own locales (and save the cost of airfare to DC). And Members of Congress usually are not crushed for time when not rushing to committee hearings and votes in Washington, offering the potential for a more robust and detailed dialogue.

A few years ago I recommended district meetings to a group that was cutting back their budget and not having a traditional “fly-in” to DC. They were concerned that their lobbyist could not attend a district office meeting, and that the Member of Congress might want his policy expert (usually DC based) in the room as well. “Why not put them both on speaker phone in a conference call so they can monitor,” I said. It was as if I’d proposed some new-fangled technology! “A telephone…Why didn’t we think of that???”

The unpredictability of the House calendars and scheduling has wreaked havoc over the years to the best laid plans of Members of Congress and staff, and probably wrecked a few marriages as well. The 2011 calendar not only might make legislators more efficient, it could be a boon to grassroots advocates. Who knows? It might even save a marriage or two.

In a 2007 poll, 44% of Americans responded that they had contacted a U.S. Senator or U.S. Representative within the previous five years.

According to the Congressional Management Foundation’s Communicating with Congress report, this percentage was significantly higher than a 2004 poll, largely due to the increased availability of online tools to contact Congress.

CMF’s data suggests a more engaged electorate – something that should be viewed as a positive. After all, an ideal representative democracy functions best when more citizens voice their opinions.

Yet in a recent piece for The Huffington Post titled “The Tragedy of Political Advocacy,” Jake Brewer takes issue with this very trend. Jake’s main point is that modern advocacy campaigns create lots of noise, but produce few tangible results. The result? Lobbyists play an even more important role in the lawmaking process. Hill staffers don’t know what or who to pay attention to, so they turn to hired guns to make sense of their overflowing inboxes.

In many ways, Jake is right. Frustration with email-focused grassroots campaigns — and the organizations that create them — is understandable. No one can argue (at least not with a straight face) that inundating Capitol Hill offices with email messages is the most effective way to achieve a policy goal. Campaigns built around phone calls and snail mail letters don’t fare any better.

Advocacy organizations have become their own worst enemies. They focus on generating a certain number of constituent “actions,” hoping that the sheer volume of contacts will make Members take notice of an issue. In trying to stand out, most grassroots campaigns only create more noise.

There are undoubtedly more effective ways of implementing advocacy campaigns. But Jake’s critique of modern advocacy trivializes what the Internet has done for democracy. It is undeniable that a much larger percentage of the American public is in contact with Congress because of the Internet.

Increased political engagement is something to be embraced, in spite of the headaches it brings. The advocacy community should be focusing on how to harness Americans’ increased appetite for involvement and translate it into a more meaningful dialogue with Congress.

Right now, real conversations between Members and their constituents are few and far between. A Hill staffer sending a form response back to a campaign-generated email does little for either side. There is surely a richer way for constituents and legislators to communicate. (The CMF has gone so far as to release an entire report on “Recommendations for Improving the Democratic Dialogue.”)

Jake certainly does not advocate for eliminating public engagement with Congress. His proposed solutions (including hand delivering petitions to Capitol Hill offices and compiling constituent votes on specific pieces of legislation) focus on how to package constituent opinions in a way that is understandable to Members. And sure, a straightforward statistic (e.g., “44% of citizens in your district support the jobs bill, H.R. 999″) will probably have more impact than 5,000 emails asking for some sort of unspecified action on the economy. But Jake’s proposals still fall short of establishing a conversational model of engagement.

One example that comes closer to a conversational approach is the America Speaking Out campaign, an effort of the House Republicans. (Disclaimer: My firm, Adfero Group, worked on the campaign’s launch.) The campaign’s goal is to increase dialogue between Congress and citizens. Americans can “speak out” by posting ideas for how Congress can act on policy issues like health care and energy. Other citizens can vote on the proposals and respond with their own comments and suggestions.

Allowing citizens to engage in dialogue with one another is the first step. Ideally, Members should also be jumping into the discussions. By allowing multiple citizens and their elective representatives to exchange viewpoints, it becomes a true conversation. The advocacy community should be focusing its creativity on finding these types of solutions.

The real “tragedy of political advocacy” would be failing to deliver the conversational opportunities that Congress and the American public are obviously ready to embrace.

“Lobbying: Your Constitutional Right,” explains what constitutes lobbying and why it is essential to the democratic process. There are two-minute and six-minute versions of the video.

A lobbyist’s role is to communicate about issues vital to all Americans. The American League of Lobbyists promotes good government through transparency, accountability and integrity. This is kind of the School House Rock version of the lobbying process and we hope that it will be used as a good introduction to ethical and accountable lobbying.

Four ALL members outline why lobbying is essential — Dave Wenhold, former Rep. James Walsh (R-NY), Patricia Adkins (non-profit) and Pamela Whitted (association).

The videos will be used on the ALL website (www.alldc.org), social media outlets, in classrooms and presentations given by ALL members.

Access to the video is available via YouTube:
SHORT:

Click here to view the embedded video. ]]> http://www.kstreetcafe.com/new-what-is-lobbying-video-just-released/feed/ 0 http://www.kstreetcafe.com/daily-specials-283/ http://www.kstreetcafe.com/daily-specials-283/#comments Tue, 09 Nov 2010 15:26:27 +0000 K Street Cafe Editor http://www.kstreetcafe.com/?p=2490 The Tragedy of Political Advocacy (The Huffington Post)
With the increasing ability of citizens to share their voice with Congress, the result has been more reliance on specialists and less on constituents than ever before.

Company Accused of Firing Over Facebook Post
(The New York Times)
Details what labor officials and lawyers are viewing as a ground-breaking case involving workers and social media.

The suite includes some interesting tools that haven’t really surfaced on the web in such customizable fashion, even if the data behind the tools have become available over the past couple of years through other projects like, for example, OpenSecrets.org. The list includes (with examples given for my representative in the U.S. House, Rep. Jim Cooper, D-TN 5th):

• Business Card. “Biographical and contact information for any lawmaker in Congress.” The tool also includes buttons that launch Cooper’s YouTube channel and OpenCongress.org profile. The code can be customized to display the representative or senator in the site visitor’s district or state, and you can freeze the widget from updating (so it doesn’t change if a seat changes hands):
  
• Vote Report. “See what a lawmaker voted on a particular bill, and how the vote went down.” When generating code here, all you need is a bill number:
• Top Contractors. “The top 5 federal contractors in a congressional district.” You can freeze the widget from updating, to represent results contextualized to a certain date:
• Sponsorships. “Some statistics on the bills a legislator has sponsored or cosponsored, relative to their colleagues.” Find out the number of bills the Member has sponsored and/or cosponsored, relative to the chamber average, and how many of those were enacted. You can also freeze the widget from updating:
• Campaign Contributions. “How much a particular person or organization contributed to a lawmaker, in the current election cycle.” The code can be customized to display the representative or senator in the site visitor’s district or state:
• Top Contributors. “The top 5 contributors to a lawmaker, in the current election cycle.” This includes corporate and individual donors:
• Earmarks.
  “How many earmarks a lawmaker has received, relative to their colleagues.” Shows the number of earmarks received, including total dollar amounts, relative to the chamber average:

• Interest Group Ratings. “Rating received from a specific interest group.” Select from a drop-down list of 40 alphabetized, nationally-recognized interest groups, and then generate the code to see how the legislator fared (National Education Association shown here):
• District Map. “See a map of a legislator’s district.” This one is pretty self-explanatory, but is a neat feature all the same. Powered by Google Maps, you can zoom in almost to street level to really see where the boundaries of the district lie exactly:
• Party Time. “Past and upcoming fundraisers, courtesy of Party Time.” I suppose this one is for one’s inner-Salahi:

The release of the tools comes a bit late in the current campaign cycle, and here I am blogging about them on Election Day 2010. But this kind of technology will no doubt impact the policy making process just as much as the electoral process, and could be very important as we continue to learn more about Tea Party-backed candidates/new Members with very little national experience, exposure, or public personae. It will be very interesting to see how tools like this, particularly as political blogs continue to exert the kind of influence they now have relative to the early part of the century, continue to shape public discourse.