Tip #2: Make it personal, make it convincing (or, John Boehner should have read my blog)

Below is tip #2 of how to be an effective constituent lobbyist, based on my experience interning in Oregon State Representative Chris Garrett's office. Enjoy!

Every day Representative Garrett’s office, like the offices of every legislator in the building, is bombarded with form letters. Constituents often receive e-mails from advocacy organizations asking them to tell their legislator to support or oppose a specific bill or policy. They are then able to click on a link that automatically sends a pre-written letter to their representative. Though these letters are often eloquently written, they are not convincing and often never even seen by the Representatives. Because of the high likelihood that the constituent never read the message they sent or familiarized themselves with the issue at hand, little credence is given to these letters. Though Representatives often makes an effort to respond to these communications regardless of their effectiveness, they are not considered an accurate barometer of constituent opinion.

Effective constituent letters are those that make a compelling and novel argument utilizing the constituent’s unique point of view. Because Representatives only receives a few letters on any given bill, the number of people writing in support or opposition is unlikely to be taken into consideration as ‘the will of the people.’ However, legislators are often swayed by good arguments. A convincing letter will show that the constituent is knowledgeable about the issue by sharing relevant facts and figures and citing references. Equally important, however, is sharing a personal story. Explaining how a bill is poised to impact them is something that constituents are uniquely positioned to do, and something that legislators want to know about. Because of this, it is critical that constituents identify themselves as such and provide their address for verification. Legislative staff members are incredibly busy and, while responding to constituent mail is a high priority, responding to out of district letters is not. If a citizen does not include their address they risk being mistaken for a non-constituent and having their letter tossed out.

Finally, letters should never state that their argument is a ‘common sense’ argument. This line of reasoning is insulting to a legislator’s and staff member's intelligence because if the member disagrees, the constituent is arguing that they lack common sense. More importantly, arguing that something is ‘common sense’ is not an argument at all and lacks the important characteristics of a compelling line of reasoning. If the argument is truly common sense, your letter would be unnecessary in the first place. It is because you have information or a perspective other than 'common sense' that your letter is valuable. However, this phrase is incredibly common and results in many constituent letters failing to convince their audiences.

Unfortunately, framing an argument as 'common sense' is quite common in politics. Take John Boehner, for example:




Are you convinced?

Flip Flops, Sunshine, and Compromise

I received an e-mail this morning from the Democratic Party of Oregon about Mitt Romney's visit to Oregon today. I was struck by one line: "Already a master of flip-flopping, Mitt Romney has turned around on virtually every issue he has gone on the record about." This was interesting to me because I remember, not too long ago, when John Kerry was taken down in many ways through this same phrase, "flip flopper."

I'm no expert, but I'm not convinced flip flops are always such a bad thing. For one, they are great beach shoes. For another, sometimes changing ones mind is the result of careful consideration and compromise; two things we sorely need more of in our political system. Of course, sometimes politicians say things that are different from previous position statements as a means of cheaply garnering support, money, and votes. It is important, however, to differentiate between politicians who take on new positions for a bump in the polls and those who do so because they are engaging with the issues at hand and taking the time to learn about and understand them. Either way, this phrase obscures the issue.

Jefferson Smith's TED talk

I've seen Jefferson Smith, Oregon State Representative and Oregon Bus Project founder, speak hundreds of times, and even though I think he's told the now famous 'butter story' every one of those times, I'm inspired whenever I hear him speak. Check it out for yourself:

Protip #1: Don't be a racist

Hello everyone and welcome back to the blog! In order to get credit for my internship at Representative Chris Garrett's office this session I just completed the longest paper I've ever written. It covers how to be an effective constituent advocate based on my experiences with hundreds of constituents and my conversations with other staff members, as well as a policy analysis of the biggest higher education reform bills that were up for consideration this session. For those of you who are interested, I'll be posting the paper in pieces here over the next few weeks. Let's start things off with tip #1 of a ten part series of how to be a stellar constituent lobbyist:

1. Don’t use racial slurs or threats

During the 2011 session several bills were up for consideration that would have reformed laws and rules pertaining to legal and illegal immigrants. SB 742 was one of these and received much of the public attention. SB 742, also known as the Tuition Equity bill, would allow young undocumented immigrants who graduate from Oregon High Schools to receive in-state tuition levels at Oregon universities. While a healthy debate is essential to the democratic process, many of the communications Representative Garrett received about this bill utilized highly racialized language and arguments.

One constituent wrote “It [SB 742] basically offers illegals the opportunity to go to school at taxpayer expense.” Referring to undocumented students as simply “illegals” is a dehumanizing tactic used by many who wrote the office. Additionally, the term has been closely tied to Hispanic immigrants specifically and is used almost solely as a derogatory term. Though these constituents often went on to explain that they opposed the bill because it was fiscally irresponsible or too expensive, their language at the outset makes it difficult to believe that this is their true rationale. Others spill hundreds of words explaining that they don’t oppose the bill because they are racist or against Mexican or Latin American immigrants in particular, but rather that they simply wish to oppose the spending measure. These sorts of arguments fall of deaf ears because their claims of expense are unfounded, as the Legislative Fiscal Office—the office that determines the fiscal impact of bills being considered by the legislature—found the bill to have no fiscal impact, and possible positive revenue impact.

When a Representative or staff member spots racial slurs or racially insensitive language in a letter from a constituent, the letter is quickly written off. Though a constituent may have a valuable perspective to share, this does not make it through to the Representative because of the choice of language. In order to ensure that their views are heard and understood, it is important for constituent advocates to keep racial prejudices to themselves and stick to their argument in lobbying their representatives.

The same logic holds true for constituents who make threats in their letters. Occasionally constituents will threaten to actively support a Representative’s opponent in the next election if they do not support or oppose a bill that is important to the constituent. Threats like these, like racial slurs, immediately mark the writer as hostile and unreasonable. Once that judgment has been made, it is nearly impossible to make a convincing argument.

Land of the restrained, home of the meek

Last night we saw the momentous passing of the House's health insurance reform bill, a feat Congresspeople have been attempting to bring about for decades. This bill isn't my vision for the American medical system because I believe it leaves the fundamental question of wellness unanswered and the fundamental interests of insurance companies ahead of citizens, but this bill does accomplish great things. It makes is possible for people with pre-existing conditions to get treatment and it establishes a public option to compete with private ones, among other things.

Last night we also saw the momentous passing of the Stupak bill, a bill passed out of political fear and weakness. Prior to the vote CNN was reporting that there were 40 Democrats prepared to vote with the Republican caucus against the bill on the grounds that they didn't want to see the aid provided in this reform going towards women requiring the termination of a pregnancy. In an effort to get these votes, Pelosi allowed a vote (which passed) on a bill by Representative Stupak that outlawed the public option and any private options participating in the insurance exchange from providing pregnancy termination.

I could be missing something, but it looks to me like the Stupak amendment didn't even gain support from opposition Democrats or Republicans. At the end of the day, only one Democrat out of those 40 voted for it (39 still voted against) and only one Republican supported the bill.

Two votes gained in exchange for this attack on reproductive rights?

Considering Democrats only needed 218 voted to pass (and got 220 including those two swung by the Stupak amendment), it looks like Pelosi let this one pass for no reason.

Potentially even more disconcerting, of all the myriad health needs specifically spelled out as those health insurers must provide, the list does not include simple women's health needs such as pelvic exams or even birth control, let alone domestic violence screening, STD counseling or maternity care. I'm against pandering to special interests groups, but women are half of the population, not a special interest group.

In my frustration I'm trying to remember that this process is still in its early stages. The legislation will change many times as the Senate works to pass it, then as the House/Senate reconcillation comittee decides on the final bill, and even more between the final passage and implementation. Almost certainly even after that. I agree that this bill isn't perfect, but it's a huge step forward. As a college student low on funds and high on medical needs, I look forward to the speedy passage of health care reform, but I am solidly disappointing with Pelosi's end game on this one. I want and need adequate health care, but I'm not willing to roll back women's rights in an attempt to get it.

If the Stupak amendment showed us anything, it's that pandering doesn't work anyway.