The effect is inversely proportional to the level of the office at stake. That is, ads have more effect in a race for school board than for US president.
All other things being equal, negatives have more effect than positive. Why? Cognitive biases.
Pick any chapter in Schatzinger and do a 2023 update afterword. That is, what has happened since 2020 that would either illuminate the analysis or require revision of it?
After reading the Drutman excerpts on Sakai, pick any major corporation. On what issues did it lobby the federal government in 2022? Why did these issues interest the corporation? Did the corporation make its case in public via hearings, ads, and other communications? If so, what was its message? If not, why not?
Pick any proposition on the 2020 or 2022 ballot. Who were its top supporters and opponents? Why did they take those positions Which side won and why? You may pick a measure in any state. California information here:
Pick any topic related to the course readings, subject to my approval.
Instructions:
Document your claims. Do not write from the top of your head.
Essays should be typed (12-point), double-spaced, and no more than four pages long. I will not read past the fourth page. Please submit papers as Word documents, not pdfs or Google docs.
Cite your sources with endnotes in Chicago/Turabian style. Endnote pages do not count against the page limit. No bibliography is necessary.
Turn in essays to the class Sakai dropbox by 11:59 PM, Friday, March 10. I reserve the right to dock papers a gradepoint for one day’s lateness, a full letter grade after that.
And some writing advice from a Los Angeles Times columnist:
Campaign money matters, but it is not the only thing that matters. Do not try to explain lawmaker decisions simply by pointing to campaign contributions.
Election money is different from expenditures for inside and outside lobbying. Do not confuse them.
The rules for federal campaigns are different from the rules for state and local campaigns. We will talk more about state and local money next week.
When candidates say they will refuse contributions from lobbyists, they are not denying that they will take contributions from the interests that employ the lobbyists.
When candidates say that they will refuse contributions from PACs, they are not denying that they will take contributions from the people who give to the PACs.
By definition, outside money (Super PACs and 501(c)(4) money) does not go directly to candidates.
If you ignore these distinctions in your papers, I will know that you have not been paying attention.
“Our opponents of judicial nominees frequently claim the president has outsourced his selection of judges,” McGahn said at a Federalist Society event last year. “That is completely false. I’ve been a member of the Federalist Society since law school, still am, so frankly it seems like it’s been in-sourced.”
Timeline of Events From Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and Occupational Health and Safety Administration (OSHA) Proposed Regulation to “Get Government Off Our Back” (GGOOB) Mobilization to Legislative Activity: 1994–2001
Date
Event
February 1994
The FDA announces its intention to regulate tobacco as a drug; It begins an investigation into whether cigarette manufacturers designed their products to take advantage of the pharmacological effects of nicotine.
April 1994
OSHA announces a proposed rule that would regulate indoor air quality in workplaces that allow smoking.
June 1994
RJ Reynolds runs “I’d like to get government off my back” advertisement in national print media.
September 1994
OSHA begins hearings on its proposed rule, which eventually draw more than 115 000 comments, most of which were solicited by the tobacco industry.
October 1994
Mongoven, Biscoe and Duchin proposes the creation of an ad hoc GGOOB coalition. First identified press release for GGOOB (in North Carolina); introduces “GGOOB resolution.”
Beginning of 1995
Roster of organizations that sponsor GGOOB modified to suggest a national focus; tobacco organizations no longer listed.
February 1995
US House of Representatives passes a moratorium on new federal regulation as part of the Republican Contract With America.
March 1995
GGOOB designates March as “Regulatory Revolt Month” and organizes rallies in 12 states. US Senate debates moratorium on new federal regulation (comparable to US House bill). OSHA hearings closed.
April 1995
Mongoven, Biscoe and Duchin writes follow-up memo regarding GGOOB to RJ Reynolds and proposes additional mobilization.
August 1995
Draft FDA rule announced; proposes restrictions on advertising to minors. OSHA follow-up hearings closed.
January 1996
OSHA comment period closed.
Small wins can equal big gains
The wins often take place in the bureaucracy
Wins usually occur far upstream of public actions: bills that never see the light of day, provisions that go into the first draft of legislation. See Holyoke, pp. 181-182.
ACCESS: Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL) says that if she finds 30 phone messages, "of the thirty, you're going to know ten of them. Anyone is going to make phone calls to the people they know first. I'm going to call the people I know. Among the people I know are donors."
The lay of the land"
Know the jurisdictions: tax, appropriations, regulation
Know the process
Know the calendar
Know the people
Plant seeds
A leading lobbyist offers Eight Truths:
Lobbying is persuasive advocacy. … lobbying is attempting to convince 535 judges, based on their prior records, known beliefs, public comments and legislative histories that can be known by those who put in the effort.
Lobbyists spend most of their days reading & researching. As with the law, effective advocacy requires preparation. Your meetings are with crazy-busy staffers who have maybe 15 minutes for you amidst receiving texts & emails. You need to be concise, compelling and clear
Most lobbying meetings are with young(ish) staffers, to help them understand things they don’t know (about technology or medicine or energy or countless other areas where staffers are getting up to speed). Their jobs are to research the issues to help educate their bosses.
Lobbyists are specialists like so many others inside companies… just as businesses have specialists who handle HR, niche lawyers to deal with niche legal matters and investor relations, they need and have government relations. Government is an essential stakeholder, especially for regulated industries.
The majority of lobbying fights are between big dogs… rather than screwing the little guy, patent reform is Big Tech vs Big PhRMA vs Big Universities. Tax reform was a clash of the titans.
If you were re-designing Washington to be better and more effective, you would still create lobbyists… to stand between Members & staff who mean well but lack expertise, and businesses where most people are inventing, manufacturing or selling products.
Lobbying entails more than face-to-face meetings with Members & staff. Effective advocacy campaigns are surround sound…. deploys its lobbyists to meet with staffers on the Hill, flys-in executives to meet with Members, invites local representatives to visit in-district factories, encourages its industry allies and trade associations to follow-up with similar visits, runs TV ads to influence what staff sees, runs radio ads to influence what they hear in the car, runs digital ads to influence what appears on their phones, hires academics and think tanks to influence what they hear from others and see on social media, works the press to influence what they read in the papers, organizes local advocates to shape what they hear from the grassroots, potentially invests in political activities to bring political pressure and salience to the issue, engage NGOs (that by one estimate spend $10B annually on policy), etc. etc.
Of all of the individuals involved in the effort described above, ONLY lobbyists (who spend at least 20% of our time on meetings) disclose our clients and fees.All the other media advisers, grassroots specialists, digital strategists, legal analysts, hired-academics, etc. – at least 65% of the total spend according to Prof. Tim LaPira, are part of the influence industry but not (technically) lobbyists. It’s a swamp because the waters are opaque… we lobbyists are the turtles who swim atop the brackish waters
Power Position (majority, committe chair, leadership, executive office)
Finding an issue:
Where to put scarce resources?
Position taking
Framing
Inside game v. Outside game
From a leading lobbyist:
Lobbying is persuasive advocacy. … lobbying is attempting to convince 535 judges, based on their prior records, known beliefs, public comments and legislative histories that can be known by those who put in the effort.
Lobbyists spend most of their days reading & researching. As with the law, effective advocacy requires preparation. Your meetings are with crazy-busy staffers who have maybe 15 minutes for you amidst receiving texts & emails. You need to be concise, compelling and clear
Most lobbying meetings are with young(ish) staffers, to help them understand thins they don’t know (about technology or medicine or energy or countless other areas where staffers are getting up to speed). Their jobs are to research the issues to help educate their bosses.
Lobbyists are specialists like so many others inside companies… just as businesses have specialists who handle HR, niche lawyers to deal with niche legal matters and investor relations, they need and have government relations. Government is an essential stakeholder, especially for regulated industries.
The majority of lobbying fights are between big dogs… rather than screwing the little guy, patent reform is Big Tech vs Big PhRMA vs Big Universities. Tax reform was a clash of the titans.
If you were re-designing Washington to be better and more effective, you would still create lobbyists… to stand between Members & staff who mean well but lack expertise, and businesses where most people are inventing, manufacturing or selling products.
Lobbying entails more than face-to-face meetings with Members & staff. Effective advocacy campaigns are surround sound…. deploys its lobbyists to meet with staffers on the Hill, flys-in executives to meet with Members, invites local representatives to visit in-district factories, encourages its industry allies and trade associations to follow-up with similar visits, runs TV ads to influence what staff sees, runs radio ads to influence what they hear in the car, runs digital ads to influence what appears on their phones, hires academics and think tanks to influence what they hear from others and see on social media, works the press to influence what they read in the papers, organizes local advocates to shape what they hear from the grassroots, potentially invests in political activities to bring political pressure and salience to the issue, engage NGOs (that by one estimate spend $10B annually on policy), etc. etc.
Of all of the individuals involved in the effort described above, ONLY lobbyists (who spend at least 20% of our time on meetings) disclose our clients and fees.All the other media advisers, grassroots specialists, digital strategists, legal analysts, hired-academics, etc. – at least 65% of the total spend according to Prof. Tim LaPira, are part of the influence industry but not (technically) lobbyists. It’s a swamp because the waters are opaque… we lobbyists are the turtles who swim atop the brackish waters
