Barney Frank: here's how to not waste your time pressuring lawmakers(mic.com)
mic.com
Barney Frank: here's how to not waste your time pressuring lawmakers
https://mic.com/articles/167878/barney-frank-heres-how-to-not-waste-your-time-pressuring-lawmakers#.JnUQHPOt0
30 comments
They check. Especially the closer you get to home.
Try to schedule a meeting out of district (city, county, state, fed). Even when you're lobbying on an issue they care about (a bill they cosponsored), you'll probably need a local with you to even get on their calendar. When you're out of district, you might get an automated "contact your own rep" reply, if you're lucky.
For hot issues, as you say, it's just triage.
Actually, it's all triage. Legislating is an information processing problem with attention being the scarcest commodity.
Try to schedule a meeting out of district (city, county, state, fed). Even when you're lobbying on an issue they care about (a bill they cosponsored), you'll probably need a local with you to even get on their calendar. When you're out of district, you might get an automated "contact your own rep" reply, if you're lucky.
For hot issues, as you say, it's just triage.
Actually, it's all triage. Legislating is an information processing problem with attention being the scarcest commodity.
How would they check? They don't ask for name spellings.
When you made your phone calls, did you call from a phone in the area code they represented? Did they ask for your zip code?
I called my IL reps/sens at their main DC office using my 312 cell phone. I suppose it's possible they look at caller ID, but it seems unlikely, since so many Chicago residents have non-Illinois numbers.
Nobody ever asked for my zip code, although I introduced myself as a voter from Oak Park, so maybe that sufficed.
I think there is literally no chance whatsoever that your reps are somehow checking whether you're registered to vote. They barely have time to make a tally mark for your position.
Nobody ever asked for my zip code, although I introduced myself as a voter from Oak Park, so maybe that sufficed.
I think there is literally no chance whatsoever that your reps are somehow checking whether you're registered to vote. They barely have time to make a tally mark for your position.
Surely they can't be stupid enough to look at the area code using caller ID. People living abroad are registered with the district where they last lived in the US so of course they will be calling from elsewhere. And many people work in a different county than they live.
There are services which correlate emails, phones, facebook with voter records. I know they're used for campaigning. I'll ask around to see if any electeds use them.
I asked because I am trying to gauge the user experience that he/she had in calling their representatives versus mine. Mine spent a considerable amount of time with me and asked my zip code. For the representatives aide to not ask for any identifying information led to my asking the area code question, the person receiving the call may have used it as a crib to put them as within the representatives area.
I have received written responses to some of my written/faxed communications [1].
Although some of these may have been form letters or copy/pasta text put together by a staffer, some responded to specific points I'd made.
If/when their office is to the point of actually generating a response, if it's technically competent (or has hired professionals to be so on their behalf), it should be trivial to check the contact information (mailing address or phone number, certainly) against voter registration records. Name/address directly. Phone number with one cross reference between call lists and those records.
I suppose I, like many people here, may be considerably more thorough and detail oriented than many political staffers, by nature and also work environment (think "harried"). Still, if I were one of them and was taking the time to generate a response, if the system made such a lookup trivial, I'd probably do it, first.
And, given the Obama campaign's escalation of electronic media, followed on by Trump and the Republican's apparent (hired) social media analysis and targeting (micro-targeting, even), I'd expect voter registration to be drawn further into developing campaigning systems to the extent it's not already present. Even if you're still going to target an unregistered participant, it gives you a better handle on why you are targeting them (e.g. their social graph) and with what messages.
As for myself, when I communicate, I indicate that I have voted in the past and that the topic at hand will influence my vote, going forward.
----
1. Faxed due to time constraints, e.g. a last minute push to convince a Democratic U.S. Representative with a known "pro-business" stance, who was on the fence with regard to support for the ACA legislation.
By the way, at those times, I found faxing a convenient way to communicate a custom-written communication without the delay of postal mail and worry about screening or quantity of mail resulting in the letter getting shit-canned, nor lost in a sea of easily and mass generated email.
I've noticed in the last 5 - 10 years, that U.S. Congress members' fax numbers have been increasingly disappearing from their web sites and other current sources of contact information. But third party providers of said contact information, current or archival, still have and display them. And they still work.
The ACA. SOPA. The various "trade" deals. I've had a few occasions.
And that U.S. Representative ended up voting for the ACA. While they were "pro-business", in my letter I pointed out that businesses were having considerable problems with spiraling health costs and remaining competitive. Including small and medium sized, job-generating businesses in their district. And I included some specific examples I was aware of.
That's how you get through to them.
And if people unhappy with current circumstances want to "get through", right now and in advance of mid-terms, a surge in registration, and in absentee ballot voting, are some good ways to do so.
People bothering to register, shows intent as well as potential shift in voter demographics. And... there are local elections between now and mid-terms. Elections where choices often have more immediate consequences for the voter, anyway.
Absentee ballots demonstrate the planned desire to vote as well as that election-day schedule constraints and other problems aren't going to suppress the voter's vote.
I'm not hopeful. But, people -- including a bunch of bitching people who didn't haul their asses to the polls last November -- can start sending a message now, if they actually choose to.
Although some of these may have been form letters or copy/pasta text put together by a staffer, some responded to specific points I'd made.
If/when their office is to the point of actually generating a response, if it's technically competent (or has hired professionals to be so on their behalf), it should be trivial to check the contact information (mailing address or phone number, certainly) against voter registration records. Name/address directly. Phone number with one cross reference between call lists and those records.
I suppose I, like many people here, may be considerably more thorough and detail oriented than many political staffers, by nature and also work environment (think "harried"). Still, if I were one of them and was taking the time to generate a response, if the system made such a lookup trivial, I'd probably do it, first.
And, given the Obama campaign's escalation of electronic media, followed on by Trump and the Republican's apparent (hired) social media analysis and targeting (micro-targeting, even), I'd expect voter registration to be drawn further into developing campaigning systems to the extent it's not already present. Even if you're still going to target an unregistered participant, it gives you a better handle on why you are targeting them (e.g. their social graph) and with what messages.
As for myself, when I communicate, I indicate that I have voted in the past and that the topic at hand will influence my vote, going forward.
----
1. Faxed due to time constraints, e.g. a last minute push to convince a Democratic U.S. Representative with a known "pro-business" stance, who was on the fence with regard to support for the ACA legislation.
By the way, at those times, I found faxing a convenient way to communicate a custom-written communication without the delay of postal mail and worry about screening or quantity of mail resulting in the letter getting shit-canned, nor lost in a sea of easily and mass generated email.
I've noticed in the last 5 - 10 years, that U.S. Congress members' fax numbers have been increasingly disappearing from their web sites and other current sources of contact information. But third party providers of said contact information, current or archival, still have and display them. And they still work.
The ACA. SOPA. The various "trade" deals. I've had a few occasions.
And that U.S. Representative ended up voting for the ACA. While they were "pro-business", in my letter I pointed out that businesses were having considerable problems with spiraling health costs and remaining competitive. Including small and medium sized, job-generating businesses in their district. And I included some specific examples I was aware of.
That's how you get through to them.
And if people unhappy with current circumstances want to "get through", right now and in advance of mid-terms, a surge in registration, and in absentee ballot voting, are some good ways to do so.
People bothering to register, shows intent as well as potential shift in voter demographics. And... there are local elections between now and mid-terms. Elections where choices often have more immediate consequences for the voter, anyway.
Absentee ballots demonstrate the planned desire to vote as well as that election-day schedule constraints and other problems aren't going to suppress the voter's vote.
I'm not hopeful. But, people -- including a bunch of bitching people who didn't haul their asses to the polls last November -- can start sending a message now, if they actually choose to.
Neither of my senators asked for locality information when I call them, my representative asks for zip code.
For calls (even though this is somewhat dated, because people keep cell phone numbers when they move), Senators (who represent entire states) often just use area code information to determine whether a call is from a constituent, so they don't have to ask anything.
At least, that's what a number of things I've heard recently originating from Hill staffers have said; I've worked in a legislative office but not for a US Senator, and quite a while ago.
At least, that's what a number of things I've heard recently originating from Hill staffers have said; I've worked in a legislative office but not for a US Senator, and quite a while ago.
I've always assumed this and don't bother calling my reps with my out of state cell phone. I write (handwrite) a letter instead.
Apparently, the letters are less persuasive. The hierarchy goes:
1. In-person visit with crowd.
2. (Apocryphal) Couriered letter.
3. In-person solo visit.
4. Phone call.
5. Physical letter
6. Fax
7. Nothing else counts
1. In-person visit with crowd.
2. (Apocryphal) Couriered letter.
3. In-person solo visit.
4. Phone call.
5. Physical letter
6. Fax
7. Nothing else counts
tl;dr
1. Make sure you’re registered to vote — lawmakers check.
2. Lawmakers don’t care about people outside of their district.
3. Your signature — physical or electronic — on a mass petition will mean little.
4. The communication must be individual. Email, Letter, Phone call.
5. Know where your representative stands.
6. Communicate — even if you and your representative disagree.
7. Say “thank you" - to reinforce the behavior you want
8. Enlist the help of friends in other districts. - they write their own reps
1. Make sure you’re registered to vote — lawmakers check.
2. Lawmakers don’t care about people outside of their district.
3. Your signature — physical or electronic — on a mass petition will mean little.
4. The communication must be individual. Email, Letter, Phone call.
5. Know where your representative stands.
6. Communicate — even if you and your representative disagree.
7. Say “thank you" - to reinforce the behavior you want
8. Enlist the help of friends in other districts. - they write their own reps
Strangely, he forgot to mention:
9. Donate lots of money.
A study found members of Congress are way more likely to meet with you if you've paid them [0].
> "The offices who just thought they were being asked to meet with normal constituents, we almost never got a meeting with a member of Congress, or a chief of staff or a legislative director — the most powerful people in congressional offices," says Broockman. "On the other hand, when we reveal that the attendees were donors, they were more than three times as likely to get those meetings."
[0] http://www.npr.org/2014/03/26/294361018/how-to-meet-your-con...
9. Donate lots of money.
A study found members of Congress are way more likely to meet with you if you've paid them [0].
> "The offices who just thought they were being asked to meet with normal constituents, we almost never got a meeting with a member of Congress, or a chief of staff or a legislative director — the most powerful people in congressional offices," says Broockman. "On the other hand, when we reveal that the attendees were donors, they were more than three times as likely to get those meetings."
[0] http://www.npr.org/2014/03/26/294361018/how-to-meet-your-con...
its really surprising that he forgot that because he nailed the other main ways to force change:
Be thankful and only talk to people who represent you (no one).
Be thankful and only talk to people who represent you (no one).
> 4. The communication must be individual. Email, Letter, Phone call.
I've heard that calling is highly preferable to emails at least (and perhaps letters), because they have to answer calls but can do with automatic replies to emails (and relegate your message to 'cylindrical storage'). Can anyone confirm/deny that?
I've heard that calling is highly preferable to emails at least (and perhaps letters), because they have to answer calls but can do with automatic replies to emails (and relegate your message to 'cylindrical storage'). Can anyone confirm/deny that?
My understanding, from a couple of different D staffers, one of which is "firsthand" (if Facebook threads count), is that email does not count even a little bit. I also don't believe voicemail counts, or if it does, it doesn't count consistently. The basic atom of political influence seems to be the live human phone call; anything less obnoxious is ignored.
Some additional perspective from a Congressional Staffer > https://twitter.com/i/moments/798297193559904258?lang=en
This is interesting content, but the format is atrocious. How is Twitter still relevant when posts like this must be made one sentence at a time?
Thanks for linking also a great read!
The most important way to not waste time "pressuring" lawmakers is this: have money, connections, and influence over those connections.
None of the items on that list comes even close to that one.
None of the items on that list comes even close to that one.
It's true that money, connections, and influence will win against an unorganized electorate. The equation changes significantly if there's a coordinated effort by voters.
That's a fairly broad statement and entirely dependent on the context. I'm struggling to think of an example in recent history where "a coordinated effort by voters" got some meaningful traction in the sense of this article. I'm far from omniscient, though, so this could very well be a huge blind spot in my own news information maintenance.
#5 is great and should be amended to include understanding what interests the representative has in taking a particular stand.
Barney Frank is the same guy who was actively fighting (1) against George W. Bush's initiative to tighten up lending requirements ahead of the Great Recession; Barney Frank was against it due in part to then boyfriend, who he helped get a job, being on the executive committee (2). Getting him to change his opinion would have been night impossible.
1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iW5qKYfqALE
2. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/05/26/rep-frank-admits-... I know it is Fox News, but only quick-link I can find to support my claims.
Barney Frank is the same guy who was actively fighting (1) against George W. Bush's initiative to tighten up lending requirements ahead of the Great Recession; Barney Frank was against it due in part to then boyfriend, who he helped get a job, being on the executive committee (2). Getting him to change his opinion would have been night impossible.
1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iW5qKYfqALE
2. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/05/26/rep-frank-admits-... I know it is Fox News, but only quick-link I can find to support my claims.
That's a specious argument.
You linked to short, mild a speech on the House floor from 2005 encouraging primary home-ownership as a means of investing, and a Fox News report about responding positively to a question about hiring a qualified ex-lover for an entry-level job 14 years prior to that speech.
Neither has anything to do with the advice or article.
You linked to short, mild a speech on the House floor from 2005 encouraging primary home-ownership as a means of investing, and a Fox News report about responding positively to a question about hiring a qualified ex-lover for an entry-level job 14 years prior to that speech.
Neither has anything to do with the advice or article.
It wasn't just his boyfriend; it was a male prostitute operating from Frank's own house per the Washington Post[0].
[0] http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinto...
[0] http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinto...
I wonder if this current environment is anything like a previous time regarding influence of a voter. For example the vote on Davos seems to have been more influenced by nearly $!M than any number of communications. For my own state Rubio got $100,000 in contributions to ignore what we in the state care about.
The impression I have is that on big-ticket issues, they're just taking a yes/no tally of calls and letters, and that's it.