On February 13, CMF released its latest report, "Citizen-Centric Advocacy: The Untapped Power of Constituent Engagement." As the volume of constituent messages to Congress explodes, citizens are wondering if their voices make any difference. CMF research shows that they do, and also that some means are more effective than others when you want to be heard on Capitol Hill.

---

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

—First Amendment to the United States Constitution
[Emphasis added]

First Amendment scholars tend to focus more on the freedoms of religion, speech, and press than on the right of citizens to petition government for a redress of grievances, but that right is no less fundamental to the mechanism of our democracy. Even more than the voting booth, it is where the connection lives between citizens and those who represent them in government. However, the mechanics of the right to petition have transformed in the last three decades.

Just prior to his retirement after 37 years as "the face of small business" in Washington, D.C., Dan Danner, President of the National Federation of Independent Business, was asked how lobbying had changed most during his time in our nation's capital. One of the biggest changes, he said, was the growth of grassroots advocacy. "Putting a real face on complicated issues," Danner said. "Real people on Main Street saying, 'I'm Betty's Flowers, this is why this is important to me.' That's even more important now from a lobbying standpoint. To understand back home, be back home, and do things back in the districts, and let [lawmakers] know what people on Main Street back home are thinking," he said.1 

The driving catalyst for this greater focus on "real people on main street" is the Internet, which forever changed the economics of advocacy. Websites, email and social media have made it easier and cheaper for citizens to communicate to Congress. In the 1980s, if a group wanted to organize supporters to petition Congress they had to spend money on paper, postage stamps, postcards, and envelopes. Now, there are thousands of websites hosted by associations, nonprofits, and companies; all facilitating millions of communications annually to Congress ... and Congress is emailing citizens back. In practical terms, it is much less expensive today than 30 years ago to mobilize thousands of citizens to send communications to elected officials. A 2016 survey conducted by the Program for Public Consultation showed that almost half (48 percent) of registered voters had contacted a Representative or Senator within the past five years.2

This suggests that web-based email advocacy campaigns facilitated by corporations, nonprofits and associations have become the dominant form of democratic dialogue between Members of Congress and those they represent. Oftentimes, groups who organize citizens are portrayed as villains in our democratic process and negatively referred to as "special interest groups." Indeed nefarious characters do exist, just as they do in every industry, but for the most part these groups are comprised of honest citizens who have joined together for a common purpose. Doctors, lawyers, students, hospice nurses, farmers, environmentalists, small business owners, morticians, seniors, insurance agents, retailers, oil company workers, and even employees of media companies have formed associations to further their common interests. They organize advocacy campaigns simply wishing to advance those interests in Congress.

As it has become easier to contact Congress the volume of email to Capitol Hill has exploded, and a growing gap has emerged between the opinions of elected officials and of citizens as to the nature and value of these interactions. For the most part, Congress values these exchanges with constituents, while citizens question whether their engagement really makes a difference. According to a July 2016 Rasmussen survey, only 11 percent of the voters surveyed thought the average Member of Congress listens to the constituents he or she represents.3Yet, as this report shows, when congressional staff were asked what advocacy factors influence an "undecided" lawmaker, 94 percent said "in-person issue visits from constituents" would have some or a lot of influence and 92 percent said "individualized email messages" from constituents would. Despite the haranguing of mainstream media to the contrary, and popular culture insisting that citizen voices are muted in Washington, research conducted by the Congressional Management Foundation (CMF) shows that constituents remain significant factors to legislators' decision-making.

Yet these encouraging findings about the constructive influence of constituents do not provide the complete picture of the citizen-Congress relationship. While the Internet has allowed millions of citizens to petition government, CMF research suggests it has not enhanced the quality of those interactions. In three surveys (2004, 2010, and 2015) CMF asked congressional staff the extent to which they agreed or disagreed with the statement: "Email and the Internet have increased constituents' understanding of what goes on in Washington." While 55 percent of congressional staff agreed with this statement in 2004,4that number dropped to 31 percent in late 2015.5Moreover, Congress seems to have developed a level of mistrust of the facilitated advocacy process. More than half of congressional staff (47 percent) believe that "most advocacy campaigns of identical form messages are sent without the constituent's knowledge or approval."6This perception among congressional staff has remained steady for a decade.

Even with this conflicting data on the frustrations with the mechanics of interacting with Congress, there is reason to believe that changing the mechanics can help restore faith in the relationship between citizens and those who represent them. As outlined in this report, CMF has observed that by diversifying their interactions, strengthening the quality of exchanges, and focusing on relationship building rather than transactional communications with Capitol Hill, constituents can have a measurable impact on decision-making in Congress. Hence, the subtitle of this report is, The Untapped Power of Constituent Engagement.

The cynical view would hold that enhanced power by constituents who participate with like-minded others in organized groups (e.g., "special interests") would skew lawmakers' decision-making process and lead to worse policy outcomes. But in fact, congressional staff reported that they appreciate a well-prepared constituent, as it makes it easier to understand the implications of public policy on those they represent. Better policy decisions are made through better citizen advocacy.

Unfortunately, most Americans believe their voices don't make a difference. This research proves that their voices do make a difference, and they can magnify their voices by using more effective advocacy techniques. CMF concedes that this conclusion flies in the face of conventional wisdom. However this "wisdom" is based on a mainstream media that focuses on battles between congressional leaders, scandal, and partisan infighting – ignoring the day-to-day decision-making in which Senators and Representatives engage. This report involved a much broader community of the Congress than journalists or the public regularly interact with, compiling data from hundreds of congressional offices and hundreds of staff during more than a decade.

Yet this is not the first research to document the potential for strong bonds between the government and the governed. In 1978 political scientist Richard Fenno wrote a seminal work on Congress, Home Style: House Members in Their Districts. For over 110 days, he traveled with 18 Members of Congress in their districts, listening to the constituents who talked to legislators, and interviewing the legislators about their views. Fenno observed the importance of the relationship between Members of Congress and their constituents, and the value legislators place on building those relationships. He also noted that relationship building was not a cavalier undertaking.

"The more accessible they are, House members believe, the more will their constituents be encouraged to feel that they can communicate with the congressman when and if they wish...However, this kind of assurance is not obtained by one-shot offers. It is created over a long time and underwritten by trust. Access and the assurance of access, communication and the assurance of communication – these are the irreducible underpinnings of representation."7

While Fenno's research is decades old, it offers timeless insight for America, which is confirmed by this report. If citizens, the organizers of grassroots campaigns, and Congress can re-learn these "irreducible underpinnings" in the age of the Internet, then perhaps part of the essential element of trust between citizens and Congress could be restored.

---

Excerpted from Citizen-Centric Advocacy: The Untapped Power of Constituent Engagement, Congressional Management Foundation, 2017. Download the full report here.