|
|
Posts Tagged ‘Congressional strategy’
Thursday, July 19th, 2012 by Vbhotla
LobbyBlog is happy to introduce another guest writer: Dr. David Rehr with the George Washington University Graduate School of Political Management.
The complexity of influencing or affecting public policy in Washington, DC has never been greater. According to Lobbyists.Info over $8.1 billion dollars was spent in the last two years by the lobbying community trying to affect the outcome of laws and regulations in the U.S.
Congress.
For many, “lobbying” is a bad word. It connotes individuals using inside information, their personal connections, or other tools to impact the minds of 100 U.S. Senators, 435 members of the U.S. House of Representatives, and the over 12,000 congressional staffers that work in the legislative branch.
The focus of today is to help clarify which advocacy tools work and which do not work when an individual or organization wants to passionately impact the legislative process in Washington.
Newly released research from the Graduate School of Political Management (GSPM) at George Washington University (www.gspm.gwu.edu) provides clues never before unearthed.
THE CONGRESSIONAL COMMUNICATIONS REPORT (www.CongressionalCommunicationsReport.com) provides a monumental look at how America communicates with the Congress. The nearly 3,000 congressional staff and lobbyists who participated in this study provided incredible insights and valuable outcomes measurement.
One question was designed to find out from congressional staff which lobbying tools influence members of Congress’ decision-making (just some of the 16 advocacy tools are listed below).
“In your opinion, how effective are each of the following lobbying activities in influencing or shaping members of congress’ decision-making on legislative issues?”
Lobbying Activities |
Very
Effective (4 & 5) |
Not at all
effective (1 & 2) |
Providing consistently
reliable information |
87% |
2.3% |
Presenting a concise
argument |
85.2% |
3.9% |
Holding face-to-face
meetings |
58.4% |
10.9% |
Making a pending vote an
organizational “KEY
VOTE” with
results to be
communicated to
organization’s
membership |
29.2% |
36.4% |
Conducting opinion
surveys,
Polls |
17.7% |
43.1% |
Bringing in former
members
of congress |
25% |
38.1% |
Organizing
email/postcard/call
Campaigns |
13.1% |
57.7% |
The tools are pretty straight forward. Most interesting is that congressional staff ranked “providing consistently reliable information” and “presenting a concise argument” as their top choices. This means that every American can influence the process provided they are able to meet these expectations.
Another “takeaway” is that these tools need to be “laddered” in their use and by the resources available. Less effective advocacy tools include making a vote a “KEY VOTE,” using surveys or polls to affect outcomes, or leveraging former members to affect their former colleagues or staff.
Here’s one insight: Take a look at the advocacy tools you use. Make an honest assessment of what works and what doesn’t. Then, measure your assessment against this landmark research to see how it fares. It will help you be even more effective.
Another question asked how congressional staff learns about policy issues. This reveals to citizen advocates and professional lobbyists where hey need to go to ‘shape’ the conversation (just a few of the 19 areas asked about are below).
“How valuable are each of the following as ways for you to learn about policy issues?”
Ways to learn |
Valuable/Very
Valuable |
Slightly
Valuable/Not at all Valuable |
Congressional Research
Service (CRS) |
85.8% |
3.3% |
Academic or issue
experts |
81.5% |
4.3% |
Blogs |
51.3% |
16.7% |
Constituents |
50.3% |
19.6% |
Internet Searches |
50.3% |
15.7% |
Survey and poll results |
26% |
37.8% |
Interest Group websites |
22.9% |
27.5% |
Social media |
12.2% |
61.1% |
The Congressional Research Service (CRS) and academic and issue experts were selected as two of the most valuable tools. Blogs, Constituents and Internet Searches fall into a second tier; Interest Group websites, and Survey and polls results are in the third tier.
Despite social media’s deep penetration into other parts of our society, it is not considered a valuable resource to inform policy at all by congressional staff.
Here’s one insight: As yourself and your team if you are connected with the CRS and do their researchers seek you out for data, empirical evidence or your unique perspective on an issue they are researching. Frankly, I don’t think many of us in the advocacy business think much about CRS. But we should since the data clearly indicates that congressional staffers find it highly valuable.
THE CONGRESSIONAL COMMUNICATIONS REPORT answers many of the questions I have been asking for decades. It’s a treasure-trove of data for those who want to be at the pinnacle of the advocacy field.
David Rehr, PhD, is the lead researcher for THE CONGRESSIONAL COMMUNICATIONS REPORT and an Adjunct Professor at the Graduate School of Political Management (GSPM) at George Washington University. He is former CEO of the National Beer Wholesalers Association and the National Association of Broadcasters. He has been recognized as one of the most effective advocates in the nation’s capital. He can be reached at DavidRehr@gwu.edu or 202-510-2148.
Tags: Advocacy, advocacy strategy, communications report, Congress, congressional communications, Congressional Communications Report, Congressional strategy, Lobbying, Lobbying strategy Posted in Advocacy, Legislative Strategy, Lobbying Communications, Lobbying Communications, Lobbying Research, Lobbying tips | Comments Off on Lobbying Tools that Influence Congressional Decision-Making: What is More Effective, What is Less Effective
Wednesday, January 18th, 2012 by Vbhotla
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 pokies hard 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.
zp8497586rq
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 on Legislative Strategy: Co-Sponsorship Solicitation
Thursday, January 12th, 2012 by Vbhotla
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 Pokies 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 on Election year legislation: Legislative planning
|
|
|
|
|
|
|