Regulating Public Policy Campaigns
Progress Nashville thinks that public policy campaigns should be regulated like lobbyists.
This train of thought has been around a long time. The Public Relations Society of America has a decades-old debate over the licensing of marketing and public relations professionals, similar to the way a doctor or attorney must be listed with a state government. There are pros and cons. I would love to see the words “public relations” or “marketing” only used by those of us who went to school and learned how to properly conduct strategic communications. I hate the concept of “PR girls” who hand out beer at bars. However, there’s a pesky thing called the First Amendment that gets in the way. Can you really limit who sends a press release or calls a member of the media?
What’s to stop John Citizen from seeing a need in the community and launching a campaign that affects public policy. It’s called grassroots, and you can’t curb the freedom of speech. Anything that limits campaigning for policy change would severely limit the First Amendment. At what point do you start regulating? When groups officially organize? Hire professionals? When someone takes an ad out in the paper, creates a web site or distributes an e-alert? Where does public policy marketing officially begin? There’s no clear line that can be developed the way that a lobbyist meets with an elected official.
While I earn my living working on public policy campaigns, I understand how deceptive they can be when large DC-based groups invade a state or community. It’s annoying to see major ad buys in the local paper or TV that wouldn’t be there if you member of congress wasn’t a crucial vote, or a company has an interest in state-level policies. (think Comcast vs. EPB).
I understand Progress Nashville’s frustration.
Lobbying has been around a long time, as has targeted marketing. What’s dangerous is that those who represent are being subjected to marketing efforts about which we are unaware back in the districts and don’t have the opportunity to refute. These are also efforts that may take place weeks or months before legislation is introduced.
I argue that it’s up to the citizen to stay better informed. While it’s a slow process, politics are growing more transparent. This is why state and local blogs are so important. If you’re concerned about who’s influencing your member, start a blog and read the news. CQ, the Hill, Politico, WaPo and all the DC press are online. Set up google alerts to see what groups are targeting your member. Rather than push for limitations on free speech, exercise your right as a voting citizen to hold your congressional member accountable.
We can’t expect those who represent us to live in a vacuum, but perhaps we should require those who run public issue campaigns in the Washington area to follow the same rules as lobbyists who work the halls of Congress and register and report their activities.
Those of us in DC (and beyond), still report a lot of those “marketing” activities. The FEC requires disclosure of grassroots lobbying expenditures, of which Progress Nashville refers. The Supreme Court recently ruled on Wisconsin Right to Life vs. FEC, which covered policy and activism groups working on federal elections.
If someone really wanted to make an impact, a great project would be tracking activities of PACs/action funds throughout the country. That would expose the glut of policy lobbying that goes on this country. Progress Nashville is right. The average citizen has absolutely no idea what special interest groups are influencing their senator or congressman, not only from both sides of the isle, but international interests as well. However, regulation will only produce more obscure laws and vague 527-like groups. If you want to know who influences your elected officials, track the action funds.
Anyone else familiar with policy campaigns have another suggestion?
H/T Volunteer Voters
