Single Voice Sinks Coast Guard’s Rule (Roll Call)
The Coast Guard recently reversed a rule on life jacket use solely because of a letter it received from a concerned citizen (who, incidentally, is not a lobbyist.)

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.

Zuckerberg and Icahn Join Buffett and Gates on Giving Pledge List (The New York Times)
Mark Zuckerberg, the co-founder of Facebook, is pledging to give away most of his wealth.

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-292/ http://www.kstreetcafe.com/daily-specials-292/#comments Mon, 22 Nov 2010 14:47:29 +0000 K Street Cafe Editor http://www.kstreetcafe.com/?p=2564 WikiLeaks Announces Release 7x the Size of the Iraq War Logs (Mashable)
WikiLeaks announced on its Twitter account a release it claims will be bigger than the Iraq war logs.

Who Will Speak on Behalf of Social Media to the Next Congress? [OP-ED] (Mashable)
A discussion on who speaks for social media in Washington.

Facebook Lacks Friends in D.C. (Politico)
Facebook has one of the smallest policy and lobbying shops in the Capitol.

In Online Political Ads, Facebook Is Catching Up to Google (techPresident)
Political consultants say Facebook’s share of online political advertising dollars is quickly growing to rival Google’s.

Commenting 2.0 (Community Guy)
New technology promises to create a global blog commenting system that will “revolutionize” the way that  blog readers will provide feedback to engage in the conversation.

The Future of Your Newspaper (Mental Floss)
Print media has been having a difficult time surviving with more and more people getting their news online. However, this new technology could provide newspapers a new portable outlet.

Advertising Without Radio or Television, Only Word of Mouth (Word of Mouth Marketing)
Don’t think advertising without TV, radio or print will work for you organization? Here is an example of how word of mouth marketing can be used to execute a successful campaign.

Financial Meltdown: Don’t Cry for K Street (National Journal)
With the financial system in ruins from this week’s fallout, the nation’s economic system will definitely be changing. The National Journal examines how lobbyists may have a lot of influence in the reshaping of economic regulations and policy.