Missed Opportunity in Advocacy

[Ben Sellers]

First, I have no interest in discussing the current or previous Presidents or political parties. Please don’t use replying to my comments as an opportunity to bash one administration or another.

We often talk about calling or writing our Senators or Representatives about policy issues. Is contacting the White House in any way effective? I would think maybe not as much as our legislators but it might be effective. Maybe I have selective memory but I can never remember being asked to take this route. Should we add them to the list when we call or write advocating for a position. I don’t think it could hurt our cause(s) and might help if they are swamped by reasoned and intelligent comments.

In my professional career, I’ve found that working with the different agencies within the executive branch can be effective in some cases.

We should definitely call on our groups to put the word out to get as many comments on proposed regulations as possible. While letting one or two organizations make well worded comments for all of us sounds good, if the agency sees a thousand comments for a new rule and two against they are likely to believe the public wants the rule. I have seen this happen with some rules where the handful of comments were well written and crafted by experts. The thousand were written by people who could barely string together a complete thought. The agency is forced to believe that the public wants the rule. In reality it can be a numbers game.

It seems to me that we are ignoring alot of opportunity in our advocacy.

Thanks

 

[Schaaf]

I think on a state by state basis, contacting your governor’s office is extremely important and like you said, often overlooked. Hundreds of people wrote Bullock to ask for a veto of SB 265 this year. I believe what was most likely a veto before turned into a definite veto after seeing the public’s perception to the bill.


As for contacting the White House, I think pissing in the wind would be a better use of my time.

 

[406LIFE]

I'd echo Schaff. In MT our governor is much more accessible than other states. There's so many levels of the federal executive branch, I'd not see a "common" citizen being able to have a strong enough voice to make anyone there hear. Put that voice into an organization and I think you'll find it heard much more clearly.

 

[Ben Sellers]

I listened to someone in the EPA onetime say that they got over a million comments for a rule and a handful against. Sounds like a no brainer-right. The problem is that a lot of the people who actually knew what the rule said allowed a few to make their point because those few made well reasoned, highly informed and technical responses. We need both the quality and volume when trying to influence an agency, in my opinion.

 

[Ben Lamb]

I actually think this administration might be swayed by volume directed at the President. We've seen him intercede on every other issue that should be left up to the agencies, why not ours?

And he desperately needs to look like the cares about us too.

Good thoughts, Ben.

 

[TheBenHoyle]

Maybe get Kanye and Kim to advocate for us. He seems to be willing to jump into the fray for them.

 

[Sytes]

My opinion for contact info, as Schaaf shared, the Governor is a good one though with respect to "Whitehouse" executive branch, no bueno.
Our Federal Representatives are the legislative channel for our federal communication. Whether they see beyond their koolaid colored glasses purchased via lobbyists $$$ is another matter... Then take into account those, "extreme" advocacy groups, (AKA lobbyists) are, from my perspective, often the cause of the problem...

Our Representatives seem to be the key factor that, for face value, position themselves in the best public light.

 

[Losing_Sanity]

Although it's a defeatist attitude, I personally don't think any of them give a dang about citizens writing them and don't even read them. Some aid reads them and might let them know if it seems important enough. It's more about them in most cases and what they want. Your only input is to get someone with the same views elected and accept what you get. But I could be wrong...

Edited...
The above comment refers to us common folks. If you have enough money and power, you have their ear to see what they can gain from your support.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Although it's a defeatist attitude, I personally don't think any of them give a dang about citizens writing them and don't even read them. Some aid reads them and might let them know if it seems important enough. It's more about them in most cases and what they want. Your only input is to get someone with the same views elected and accept what you get. But I could be wrong...

Edited...
The above comment refers to us common folks. If you have enough money and power, you have their ear to see what they can gain from your support.

Maybe it's because we gleefully give away our voices when it comes to public involvement. See the NEPA thread for example. I think many higher up in Gov't would love to not have to respond to citizens. From what I've seen from folks working in the field, at the local and state level within gov't agencies, they feel strongly that the public has a right to weigh in, and while the process can be burdensome, the alternate is antithetical to public service for them.

 

[RobG]

Previous administration had a site where you could petition for a topic and if they got more than a certain number signers (I think 10,000) the Whitehouse would give a response. I don't know if it is still there.

More locally, if you have a legitimate issue that needs to be addressed U.S. Senators and Reps will usually have a staffer contact you by phone.

 

[one ate E grain]

I asked a former staffer once how many calls it takes to get noticed by a congress person. She was very cagey in her response, answering the phone is one of the major chores in a congressional office, and tying up the lines can be a problem. My senator Gardner simply sent his public lines to an answering machine, not that I blame him. From what I can gather I think if 50 people called about the same conservation legislation on the same day, it would certainly have an affect. I usually ask the staffer answering if they have heard of the legislation by number and also it's common name, usually they haven't.

It's tough. Citizens United has certainly muted out voices. When I look at the orgs who generally advocate for policy I like, they too are dominated by large donors. When a big org with lots of gazillionaires on it's board calls a representative, the elected official is aware of all the soft money as well as potential bundling of real dollars that might flow his way. Money means people knocking on doors or creating content, calling media and doing all those things that millions of dollars can buy.

If enough people are thought to care about an issue it can override the power of money. Ultimately almost all politicians want to get re elected. As for calling this White House, I don't think so, it's both good and bad that Trump is fairly impervious to swings of public opinion, he has his own thoughts about what will fly with the public and what won't.

 

[idahohuntr]

When you write to the President - if your letter is specific to a particularly issue or executive agency - it is usually that agencies senior political appointee that will often provide a response. So, in some ways it is an effective way to identify the right person who has the lead on a particular issue (for the Exec Branch) if you have no idea who that is. However, I think its far more effective to identify that individual yourself and directly write them a letter. A "Dear Mr. President..." letter pretty much indicates you are a nobody with no real understanding of who the players are...NGO's and congressional staff can usually identify the right person for your specific issue as well.

 

[Trial153]

In the intrest of being pragmatic, what can it hurt? What do we have to loose. Way to look for upside

 

[Ben Sellers]

When you write to the President - if your letter is specific to a particularly issue or executive agency - it is usually that agencies senior political appointee that will often provide a response. So, in some ways it is an effective way to identify the right person who has the lead on a particular issue (for the Exec Branch) if you have no idea who that is. However, I think its far more effective to identify that individual yourself and directly write them a letter. A "Dear Mr. President..." letter pretty much indicates you are a nobody with no real understanding of who the players are...NGO's and congressional staff can usually identify the right person for your specific issue as well.

Good thought on the being specific about the agency and personnel/management involved.

 

[elkduds]

This is a major reason people join advocacy groups, which lobby for common interests w legislators and the White House. Even if your story is newsgrabbing, even if you represent an issue on the bleeding edge of political controversy, your solo chances are slim to none. Drop half a mil on a plate @ a campaign fundraising event and you might get 2 min w this Exec in Chief.

Think outside the sandtrap. Mar A Lago has an opening for a Locker Room Attendant. This time they are screening for immigration status.