An Executive Director's point of view
March 06, 2014: It's not about the content
The lobbyist for my adversary failed to tell the sponsor that a number of groups were opposed to his bill. Several of us surprised that legislator in the hallway one day and asked him why he was sponsoring such an awful bill.
He was embarrassed - and angry that he had been put in the position of being a bad guy.
Legislators don't like to be on the wrong side of an issue. If two organizations they respect (or seek support from) take different positions on a matter, they often suggest the combatants work out a deal, and the legislator then sponsors the agreed upon proposal.
Legislators look for win-win situations. They want to make two friends, not one friend and one enemy.
So, when the bill passed one chamber and was called for a vote in the other, several committee members who would normally have voted for it, didn't - and it fell short of the votes needed to pass.
The content of the bill was irrelevant. Those legislators simply wanted to punish the lobbyist for blindsiding their colleague.
When crafting your legislative strategy, remember that the content of a bill often - very often - is irrelevant. What's more important is who supports or opposes the bill, how it impacts each party or faction's tactical efforts, and how the proponents and opponents are viewed by legislators.
February 03, 2014: Switching sides
The administration you are now a part of may be supportive of your industry and may have worked closely with it in the past.
But you are no longer the voice of the industry to government. You are now the voice of government to the industry.
Your job is to do what's best for the government, not what's best for the industry.
And you are the person the government may tap to mollify the industry and get it to conform to what the government wants.
Just be sure you understand that when you make the switch.
April 20, 2013: When conflict is unavoidable
Achieving consensus is not the goal of advocacy. Winning is the goal - persuading decision-makers to choose your organization's position over others.
Getting along with competitors - and allowing everybody to feel good about the process - may not even be a consideration.
So, be sure that the employees, contractors, and volunteers who conduct your advocacy efforts are comfortable with that attitude. They need to be concerned with winning, not with making friends.
Making friends may be a part of the strategy, but winning is the goal.
March 01, 2013: Lincoln County
"Yes," they frequently proclaim.
Then they're asked if they'll campaign in Lincoln County.
"Yes," they once again affirm.
There are 102 counties in Illinois, but none of them are named Lincoln.
February 18, 2013: Not being a hog
Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel's staff was dumbfounded. The Mayor ALWAYS grabs the credit (in a tactful way, of course). That's what elected officials do.
Quinn's behavior was very much appreciated by those who are often elbowed out of the limelight.
December 06, 2012: Take the long view
Successful advocacy is not always about winning today. It's also about laying the groundwork for future victories by establishing relationships that may not bear fruit for some time.
Associations often find that members who understand that may be more patient (and loyal), more likely to pay attention to the process and participate in it, be even more gratified when victory is achieved, and elated when the forces that created that victory continue to grow and eventually become the norm.
November 11, 2012: Election reflections
But not all associations represent businesses. Many association execs, and even more association employees, voted for President Obama, support Obamacare, and promote progressive legislative initiatives. The business agenda is not their agenda.
For those in our profession who do support a business agenda, here are three suggestions:
1. Embrace business owners who are Democrats.
A growing segment of the business community is comprised of progressive entrepreneurs who seek to fulfill their social goals through business ventures. They want to make the world a better place without lying to people, misleading them, or hurting anybody. And they want to earn a living at it. They are affected by business issues and can advocate for those within a forum to which the business community does not always have access.
2. Narrow the gap between business goals and the public perception of business.
Most Americans do not own businesses, do not care about the welfare of businesses, and do not support the business agenda. They often view business leaders as heartless, highly-compensated profiteers, who pay low wages, deny benefits, and lay off workers to make more money.
3. Reclaim the Republican Party from the extremists who have taken it over in many states.
A business agenda that is espoused by candidates who justify rape, forcibly divide immigrant families, and cut health care and other benefits to working people and poor people, is not an agenda that will be considered by the majority of American voters.
The business community, and the associations that represent them, need to talk about issues that people care about.
July 15, 2012: Meaningless proclamations
It doesn't mean a thing.
These proclamations are merely ways for elected officials to suck up to voters and to the groups that represent them. When a legislative body designates a day or week or month to honor your organization, or members of your industry or profession, it means NOTHING.
They do this routinely for just about anybody who asks. The same day or week or month may also be designated to honor other organizations, industries, professions, or causes - not just yours.
So, if you value the publicity of such a designation, proclaim it yourself.
Save your political capital to pass legislation that benefits your members or your cause. Don't waste valuable resources on ceremonial drivel.
January 21, 2012: Self-serving politicians
Those politicos aren't limited to Congress, but voters don't always bother to distinguish between federal, state, and local officeholders. The lucky leaders are all lumped together as "them." And, right now, voters really don't like "them."
The public has grown weary of elected officials posturing, pitching to special interests, and engaging in acts of self-serving advocacy. Many want to vote all of "them" out of office.
Now comes redistricting - at every level of government - and it is always a partisan game. But the current cycle of creative cartography has offered the public yet another reminder of how self-serving politicians really can be.
And the Chicago City Council has provided a lurid example by approving a horribly gerrymandered ward map for its fifty aldermen.
The centerpiece of the concoction is the new 2nd ward, which a local journalist described as, "not so much a ward as a collection of stray blocks that other aldermen didn't want, connected with strings."
Its boundaries are more convoluted than a jigsaw puzzle piece, meandering for several miles and gobbling up small portions of numerous neighborhoods. In some places, the ward is only a half-block wide.
The new map carefully protects forty-one incumbents whose votes were needed to avoid a public referendum on the map, and satisfies the political demands of Black and Hispanic aldermen, with both groups having initially offered competing maps. Proponents claim it meets U.S. Justice Department guidelines and will withstand a lawsuit.
The aldermen, like many Congressmen, state legislators, and other local officials, took care of themselves.
Well, voters are getting tired of that, and associations that work closely with the self-serving bunch had better be careful not to get caught in the path of a grassroots backlash.
P.S. Just as bad (or maybe worse) is the new Illinois state legislative map. Maybe all these partisan artists should join my proposed Association of Gerrymanderers.
January 18, 2012: Free speech but no privacy
1) Internet businesses like Facebook, Google, Twitter, and YouTube will be adversely affected by anti-piracy laws and are using their communications expertise and access to millions of Americans to try to prevent passage of the bill.
2) The travel and hospitality industries, which have a smaller, but still considerable, public platform, would have been negatively impacted by heightened awareness of provisions of the Patriot Act, so chose to downplay it to preserve hotel and airline business.
3) The Patriot Act was passed in response to an attack on the U.S. by foreigners. Many people were willing (at that time) to surrender their democratic rights because they felt threatened with violence. No such feeling exists with regard to anti-piracy laws.
4) Many Americans want access to pirated materials.
5) Lots of Americans are willing to submit to invasive searches at airports, but don't want their Facebook pages censored.