By Doug Pinkham
Public Affairs Council President
March 31, 2010
Nearly $3.5 billion was spent on federal lobbying last year, reported a recent analysis by the Center for Responsive Politics. That is a lot of money, but it understates the growth of political involvement in the United States. In many legislative battles, including the recent one over healthcare reform, grassroots advocacy has played as large a role as lobbying.
According to a new Washington Post poll, 26 percent of respondents tried to contact their senator or representative about healthcare in recent months. Of respondents who called themselves "angry" about healthcare changes, nearly half took action.
Think about that for a moment. If one out of every four American adults made a phone call, wrote a letter or sent an email to Congress, that's 60 million people!
A 2008 study by the Congressional Management Foundation (CMF) found that 44 percent of Americans had contacted a U.S. senator or representative during the past five years. That was the highest level of constituent communication ever reported.
What's motivating this surge in civic-mindedness? The simplicity and low-cost of the Internet, combined with the growth of interest groups, have made it easier for citizens to express their views to government. Throw in a contentious issue such as healthcare, and you have the ingredients for a grassroots movement.
Grassroots campaigns to protect rainforests, oppose gun laws or fund AIDS research have become commonplace. So have campaigns to expand U.S. manufacturing, reform immigration laws or rewrite financial industry regulations. These campaigns, and thousands like them, have grown increasingly sophisticated; they go way beyond calls-to-action encouraging supporters to send an email or call a congressional office.
They often involve Facebook sites, blog postings, issue advertising, media outreach, town hall meetings, YouTube videos, online petitions, rallies, issue forums and a host of other tactics. Some are organized by advocacy groups, associations, unions or companies; others are organized purely by volunteers.
In terms of grassroots strategy, the healthcare debate fell into the category marked "all of the above." As the Washington Post noted in February, everyone from the National Right to Life Committee to MoveOn.org to PhRMA to AARP to health insurance companies got into the act. (For those who want a peek inside one such campaign, the Columbia Journalism Review deconstructed WellPoint's sophisticated Health Action Network in its March 22 "Campaign Desk" column.)
It's easy to dismiss these efforts as special interests unfairly exerting their influence on the political process. The reality is that people are joining groups they trust to help them speak with a louder voice.
Eighty-four percent of those who contacted Congress in the 2008 CMF survey were asked to do so by a third party, such as an interest group. What's more, respondents - whether they had contacted Congress or not - found information from interest groups to be more credible than information from Congress.
Yes, that's surprising, but it says something important about the inability of Washington politicians to cope with the rise in citizen engagement. Many politicians call sympathetic grassroots campaigns "unprecedented outpourings of support" while dismissing campaigns organized by opponents as "Astroturf." They condemn the influence of some special interests, while encouraging other groups to ramp up letter-writing efforts to provide "cover" for controversial votes.
Worst of all, many refuse to acknowledge that high levels of engagement are a good thing in a democracy. The CMF study pointed out that congressional offices are understaffed, under-funded and often lack the technology or training to respond effectively to constituents.
In addition, many staffers don't trust advocacy campaigns, and some offices even block or ignore communication from certain groups. "In doing so, however," said CMF, "it seems that offices could be doing more harm than good." That's because citizens view such groups as facilitators in the democratic process.
Instead, Congress should assure constituents that their opinions matter and invite them to become more engaged in policy-making. When members take positions on energy legislation, they can contact citizens who weigh in on climate change issues. People who complain about high taxes should receive updates on efforts to cut federal spending. In short, grassroots communications should signal the need for dialogue, not the need to build a stronger fence around the border.
Many politicians have taken the fence-building approach, but all they are doing is frustrating voters. Rather than decry the surge in grassroots advocacy, politicians should embrace it as an important - though noisy - form of political expression. If they don't, they'll likely see their approval ratings, now hovering around 18 percent, drop even further.
Comments? Email me at http://pac.org/contact/blog.
