Lawn sign
Lawn signs are one of the most visible features of an election campaign in some countries. They are small signs placed on the lawns of a candidate's supporters. Signs are also often placed on lamp posts and larger signs may stand next to busy intersections. Lawn signs are often also placed near polling places on election day, although in most jurisdictions, there are legal restrictions on campaigning within a certain distance from a voting facility.
Lawn signs are considered an important element of any local campaign. They are a cheap and effective method of making a candidate known in their district. As a rule of thumb it is said that each lawn sign in a district represents six votes. A campaign's field staff are usually responsible for coordinating a campaign's lawn signs.
In the United States, lawn signs are an effective means of campaign advertising, with each well-produced sign and wicket costing the campaign between US $3-5. In Canada, which has very different campaign finance laws that put strict limits on media advertising, winning the "sign war" is considered an essential part of a successful campaign and a significant portion of a camapign's resources are dedicated to this end.
Lawn signs generally contain the name of the candidate, their party, and the office for which they are running. Extras like slogans or the date of the election are sometimes added; these tend to distract the viewer from the main message, however. Symbols of the party are also popular. Whether a sign should have the photo of the candidate is an important concern. An attractive photo can lead voters to identify with the candidate; on the other hand, signs with photos are usually more expensive to produce, and are far more likely to be vandalized, which can have a negative effect. Most signs also have a notice stating who paid for it, but it is usually in small text that is much less noticeable. This notice is often required by campaign finance laws.
To draw the attention of passersby, lawn signs feature bold, high contrast colors and large fonts. The colors are usually those of the candidate's party. Choosing colors is important: white signs do not work well in winter, and green signs on lawns will be far less visible.
Generally, it is important not to pick the same colors as an opponent. However, there may be a value in creating confusion especially for a challenger.
Ward 49 of the City of Chicago includes most of Rogers Park and parts of West Ridge.
Thursday, December 6, 2007
Election promise
Election promise
An election promise is a promise made to the public by a politician who is trying to win an election. They have long been a central element of elections and remain so today. Election promises are also notable for often being broken once a politician is in office.
Elections promises are part of an election platform, but platforms also contain vague ideals and generalities as well as specific promises. They are an essential element in getting people to vote for a candidate. For example, a promise such as to cut taxes or to introduce new social programs may appeal to voters.
Broken promises
A great number of election promises are broken. Many regard this as a severe issue that disaffects people from the entire political process, increasing apathy and lowering voter turnout. Election promises have been broken for as long as elections have been held and this is likely to continue.
There are strong pressures on politicians to make promises which they cannot keep. A party that does not make exaggerated promises might appear bland, unambitious, and uninteresting to voters compared to the one that does. Sometimes this can give the exaggerating party an advantage over the truthful one. Government finances are extremely complex and promises are vague enough that the media and public can rarely say for certain that the numbers do not add up. Thus almost all parties continue to promise lower taxes, more social programs, and a balanced budget. For instance George W. Bush in the 2000 American presidential election promised all three and in the end abandoned balanced budgets. In the 2003 provincial election in Ontario, Canada, the Liberal Party also made all three promises and raised taxes once it found itself in government with an unbalanced budget.
Promises are usually based on the rosiest of possible futures, a strong economy and cooperative leaders of legislatures and sub-national entities. Actual government planning done by bureaucrats generally plans for the worst possible future, but any politician that would plan in this manner would have a platform that is far less attractive than that of their opponents.
Adding caveats to promises based on economic performance would hurt the politician, and is also difficult to do in ten second news sound bites or thirty second commercials.
There is some latitude for breaking promises. George W. Bush's pledge to not involve the U.S. military in nation building was discarded after the September 11th attacks, a change in policy widely viewed as justifiable among his supporters. Franklin Roosevelt's 1940 pledge to keep the United States out of World War II was similarly abandoned after the Pearl Harbor attack, prompting a voter backlash in the 1942 midterm elections.
It has been argued that governments in general should not be elected for what they promise, but rather for their ability to deal with the unexpected. Factors such as competence, honesty, ideology, and experience are in many ways a better method of judging a party or politician than their promises that may or may not be kept. This is reflected in actual elections where a politician's character, the party that they belong to, and factors like scandals have a far greater impact on how people vote than specific election promises.
Election promises differ in different government systems. In the Westminster System where almost all power resides in the office of the Prime Minister voters know where to ascribe blame for broken promises. In presidential systems such as that in the United States where power is more diffuse and ultimate responsibility harder to pin down, it is harder for an electorate to punish politicians for broken promises. For instance in the United States a presidential candidate can freely make promises of an impractically large tax cut in the firm confidence that the Senate will reduce it to a manageable level.
The constant stream of broken promises has annoyed many voters and politicians have responded with techniques to make their promises more believable. This includes making far more specific promises with numbers attached. The 1993 Canadian Liberal Red Book was an example of this. Also popular is setting a more specific time for when promises will be implemented, with politicians listing what they will do in their first week or first hundred days in office.
When promises are to be broken, all politicians know it is best to do so at the start of a term.
Thus the first budget is the one most likely to see unexpected tax hikes, or slashed spending.
The hope is that by the time the next election occurs in three or four years time the anger of the electorate will have faded.
Similarly politicians often save popular, but relatively unimportant promises for the end of their term to be implemented just before they are up for reelection.
Case study: Richard Nixon's Election promises
In the 1968 Presidential campaign, Richard Nixon stated that "new leadership will end the war" in Vietnam. He never used the phrase "secret plan", which originated with a reporter looking for a lead to a story summarizing the Republican candidate's (hazy) promise to end the war without losing. When pressed for details, Nixon retreated to the position that to tip his hand would interfere with the negotiations that had begun in Paris. Nixon never disavowed the term.[1] In his own memoirs, Nixon stated he never claimed to have such a plan. [2][3] Nevertheless,
Nixon's critics have continued to accuse him of campaigning on a "secret plan" to end the war.
According to one historian: "...it became obvious in 1969 that Nixon's "secret plan" to end the war was a campaign gimmick..."[4]
Another historian wrote: "Nixon never had a plan to end the war, but he did have a general strategy--to increase pressure on the communists [and] issue them a November 1, 1969 deadline to be conciliatory or else...The North Vietnamese did not respond to Nixon's ultimatum...and his aides began planning Operation Duck Hook." [5]
Nixon told Michigan Republican congressman Donald Riegle that the war would be over within six months of his assumption of office.
As this six month deadline approached, in May 1969, Henry Kissinger asked a group of Quakers to give the administration six more months. "Give us six months, and if we haven't ended the war by then, you can come back and tear down the White House fence."[6]
The election promises of the Nixon administration had positive results for the White House.
Many potential peace activists were not ready to march on the Pentagon...until Nixon was given a fair chance. After all, troops were being withdrawn, the bombing had stopped, and diplomats were talking in Paris.[7] In addition, as the White House gradually pulled troops from Vietnam, the media shifted from the destruction of Vietnam--even while the U.S. air war and coordinated ground assaults in Southeast Asia persisted at a very high rate of killing. [8]
The executive producer of the ABC evening news, Av Westin, wrote a memo in March 1969 that stated:
And Westin telexed the ABC network's Saigon bureau:
American combat deaths for the first half of 1969 increased rather than decreased during the time in which the plan was allegedly being implemented.[10]
In 1972 Nixon also promised that "peace is at hand".[11] On January 27, 1973, at the beginning of Nixon's second term, representatives of the US, North Vietnam, South Vietnam and the Viet Cong signed the Paris Peace Accords, which formally ended US involvement in the war.
The Nixon Administration six month's promise is similar to the Philippine-American War 1900 promise of Republicans who pledged that the fighting in the Philippines would end within sixty days of McKinley's re-election.[12]
Lists of broken promises
List of broken election promises (United States)
An election promise is a promise made to the public by a politician who is trying to win an election. They have long been a central element of elections and remain so today. Election promises are also notable for often being broken once a politician is in office.
Elections promises are part of an election platform, but platforms also contain vague ideals and generalities as well as specific promises. They are an essential element in getting people to vote for a candidate. For example, a promise such as to cut taxes or to introduce new social programs may appeal to voters.
Broken promises
A great number of election promises are broken. Many regard this as a severe issue that disaffects people from the entire political process, increasing apathy and lowering voter turnout. Election promises have been broken for as long as elections have been held and this is likely to continue.
There are strong pressures on politicians to make promises which they cannot keep. A party that does not make exaggerated promises might appear bland, unambitious, and uninteresting to voters compared to the one that does. Sometimes this can give the exaggerating party an advantage over the truthful one. Government finances are extremely complex and promises are vague enough that the media and public can rarely say for certain that the numbers do not add up. Thus almost all parties continue to promise lower taxes, more social programs, and a balanced budget. For instance George W. Bush in the 2000 American presidential election promised all three and in the end abandoned balanced budgets. In the 2003 provincial election in Ontario, Canada, the Liberal Party also made all three promises and raised taxes once it found itself in government with an unbalanced budget.
Promises are usually based on the rosiest of possible futures, a strong economy and cooperative leaders of legislatures and sub-national entities. Actual government planning done by bureaucrats generally plans for the worst possible future, but any politician that would plan in this manner would have a platform that is far less attractive than that of their opponents.
Adding caveats to promises based on economic performance would hurt the politician, and is also difficult to do in ten second news sound bites or thirty second commercials.
There is some latitude for breaking promises. George W. Bush's pledge to not involve the U.S. military in nation building was discarded after the September 11th attacks, a change in policy widely viewed as justifiable among his supporters. Franklin Roosevelt's 1940 pledge to keep the United States out of World War II was similarly abandoned after the Pearl Harbor attack, prompting a voter backlash in the 1942 midterm elections.
It has been argued that governments in general should not be elected for what they promise, but rather for their ability to deal with the unexpected. Factors such as competence, honesty, ideology, and experience are in many ways a better method of judging a party or politician than their promises that may or may not be kept. This is reflected in actual elections where a politician's character, the party that they belong to, and factors like scandals have a far greater impact on how people vote than specific election promises.
Election promises differ in different government systems. In the Westminster System where almost all power resides in the office of the Prime Minister voters know where to ascribe blame for broken promises. In presidential systems such as that in the United States where power is more diffuse and ultimate responsibility harder to pin down, it is harder for an electorate to punish politicians for broken promises. For instance in the United States a presidential candidate can freely make promises of an impractically large tax cut in the firm confidence that the Senate will reduce it to a manageable level.
The constant stream of broken promises has annoyed many voters and politicians have responded with techniques to make their promises more believable. This includes making far more specific promises with numbers attached. The 1993 Canadian Liberal Red Book was an example of this. Also popular is setting a more specific time for when promises will be implemented, with politicians listing what they will do in their first week or first hundred days in office.
When promises are to be broken, all politicians know it is best to do so at the start of a term.
Thus the first budget is the one most likely to see unexpected tax hikes, or slashed spending.
The hope is that by the time the next election occurs in three or four years time the anger of the electorate will have faded.
Similarly politicians often save popular, but relatively unimportant promises for the end of their term to be implemented just before they are up for reelection.
Case study: Richard Nixon's Election promises
In the 1968 Presidential campaign, Richard Nixon stated that "new leadership will end the war" in Vietnam. He never used the phrase "secret plan", which originated with a reporter looking for a lead to a story summarizing the Republican candidate's (hazy) promise to end the war without losing. When pressed for details, Nixon retreated to the position that to tip his hand would interfere with the negotiations that had begun in Paris. Nixon never disavowed the term.[1] In his own memoirs, Nixon stated he never claimed to have such a plan. [2][3] Nevertheless,
Nixon's critics have continued to accuse him of campaigning on a "secret plan" to end the war.
According to one historian: "...it became obvious in 1969 that Nixon's "secret plan" to end the war was a campaign gimmick..."[4]
Another historian wrote: "Nixon never had a plan to end the war, but he did have a general strategy--to increase pressure on the communists [and] issue them a November 1, 1969 deadline to be conciliatory or else...The North Vietnamese did not respond to Nixon's ultimatum...and his aides began planning Operation Duck Hook." [5]
Nixon told Michigan Republican congressman Donald Riegle that the war would be over within six months of his assumption of office.
As this six month deadline approached, in May 1969, Henry Kissinger asked a group of Quakers to give the administration six more months. "Give us six months, and if we haven't ended the war by then, you can come back and tear down the White House fence."[6]
The election promises of the Nixon administration had positive results for the White House.
Many potential peace activists were not ready to march on the Pentagon...until Nixon was given a fair chance. After all, troops were being withdrawn, the bombing had stopped, and diplomats were talking in Paris.[7] In addition, as the White House gradually pulled troops from Vietnam, the media shifted from the destruction of Vietnam--even while the U.S. air war and coordinated ground assaults in Southeast Asia persisted at a very high rate of killing. [8]
The executive producer of the ABC evening news, Av Westin, wrote a memo in March 1969 that stated:
"I have asked our Vietnam staff to alter the focus of their coverage from combat
pieces to interpretive ones, pegged to the eventual pull-out of the American
forces. This point should be stressed for all hands."
And Westin telexed the ABC network's Saigon bureau:
"I think the time has come to shift some of our focus from the battlefield, or
more specifically American military involvement with the enemy, to themes and
stories under the general heading 'We Are on Our Way Out of Vietnam.'"[9]
American combat deaths for the first half of 1969 increased rather than decreased during the time in which the plan was allegedly being implemented.[10]
In 1972 Nixon also promised that "peace is at hand".[11] On January 27, 1973, at the beginning of Nixon's second term, representatives of the US, North Vietnam, South Vietnam and the Viet Cong signed the Paris Peace Accords, which formally ended US involvement in the war.
The Nixon Administration six month's promise is similar to the Philippine-American War 1900 promise of Republicans who pledged that the fighting in the Philippines would end within sixty days of McKinley's re-election.[12]
Lists of broken promises
List of broken election promises (United States)
Canvassing
Canvassing
Canvassing is the systematic contacting of individuals in a target group, often in a particular geographic area. It is commonly used before or during elections by political campaigns. Similar techniques are used by non-governmental organizations, labor unions, churches, poll takers, and even commercial enterprises.
A "canvass" can be organized with different desired goals:
In some cases a given canvass will attempt to achieve outcomes across some combination of these goals. For example a canvass focused on persuading people to vote for a particular candidate or ballot issue may also solitcit funds and sign up new members to an organization.
A key concept in canvassing is to target the population that is being contacted. For example if the goal of a canvass is to turn out voters on election day for a Democratic candidate then knocking on Republican doors may not be a great use of time and resources. Targeting can be quite complex and sophisticated and may employ voting history data, census data, and consumer habits. Part of an overall field strategy may be to do a canvass focussed on identifying likely supporters who will then be approached at a later date by another canvass for GOTV.
Even if sophisticated data is not available, most field operations professionals will spend energy trying to reduce randomness in their contacts in an attempt to optimize their use of time and resources.
While converting voters would ideally be a central goal, it is difficult, requiring knowledgeable and charismatic canvassers, and time-consuming. To reach every voter in a district a canvasser cannot spend more than one or two minutes per person, rarely enough time to have a significant discussion. Persuasion canvassing will often involve the dropping of literature and campaign marketing materials like lawn signs, window signs, and bumper stickers (given to supporters).
As canvassers work a population they will often make careful notes and use classification codes to record their interaction with the public.
There are two basic types of canvassing: field canvasses and phone canvasses.
Field canvasses
Field canvasses are done by going door to door to every home and apartment in a district, a ZIP code or some other unit of geographic measurement. They have the advantage that people are generally more open to talking to someone in person and literature can be delivered and lawn signs put up at the same time as the canvass. A field canvass can also guarantee completeness as each house can be accounted for. A field canvass is usually done by one or two individuals, either both at one door, or one on each side of the street.
For Contractors utilizing "Field Canvassing" it works best when working around a current or previous jobsite. Otherwise called Jobsite Radiation.
There are Consultants available for Contractors interested in learning more about this type of Canvassing. For more info, please check your search engine or call the Procanvasser for more information.
Candidate canvasses
A variation of the field canvass is a candidate canvass; these are done with the actual candidate in a district. These have great potential as people are far more likely to vote for a candidate they have seen in person. With only one candidate, however, time is a valuable commodity. The candidate is thus usually accompanied by a half dozen or more volunteers who knock on doors.
If they find no one home the candidate does not go to that home. If they find a person the volunteer finds out if they would like to meet the candidate. If they would the volunteer signals the candidate.
This technique optimizes the amount of time a candidate spends speaking to potential voters.
Phone canvasses
Phone canvasses can reach more people more quickly than a field canvass; messages can be left on answering machines and there is far less exertion on the part of volunteers. A phone bank environment also means knowledgeable coordinators can keep far closer track of what the volunteers are doing. In rural areas phone canvasses are the only method efficient enough to reach most voters. Apartment buildings are also often better reached by phone canvasses as residents there are unused to and discomfited by opening the door to strangers. There are a number of disadvantages, however. Many voters are put off by anything resembling telemarketing. Getting an accurate and up-to-date list of phone numbers for everyone in a district is very difficult with a considerable percent of numbers becoming out of date in only a few months.
Based on the experience of the Procanvasser, when done the right way, Phone Canvassing can be very effective. The Important thing to remember is to have the right script, and attitude when contacting prospects.
See also
List of democracy and elections-related topics
Political campaign staff
Progressive Action Network - trains and develops canvass leadership for progressive organizations in the US
Canvassing is the systematic contacting of individuals in a target group, often in a particular geographic area. It is commonly used before or during elections by political campaigns. Similar techniques are used by non-governmental organizations, labor unions, churches, poll takers, and even commercial enterprises.
A "canvass" can be organized with different desired goals:
- Identifying supporters
- Distributing information
- Persuasion
- Fundraising
- Signing up new members
- Voter registration
- Encouraging people to vote (Get Out The Vote, GOTV)
In some cases a given canvass will attempt to achieve outcomes across some combination of these goals. For example a canvass focused on persuading people to vote for a particular candidate or ballot issue may also solitcit funds and sign up new members to an organization.
A key concept in canvassing is to target the population that is being contacted. For example if the goal of a canvass is to turn out voters on election day for a Democratic candidate then knocking on Republican doors may not be a great use of time and resources. Targeting can be quite complex and sophisticated and may employ voting history data, census data, and consumer habits. Part of an overall field strategy may be to do a canvass focussed on identifying likely supporters who will then be approached at a later date by another canvass for GOTV.
Even if sophisticated data is not available, most field operations professionals will spend energy trying to reduce randomness in their contacts in an attempt to optimize their use of time and resources.
While converting voters would ideally be a central goal, it is difficult, requiring knowledgeable and charismatic canvassers, and time-consuming. To reach every voter in a district a canvasser cannot spend more than one or two minutes per person, rarely enough time to have a significant discussion. Persuasion canvassing will often involve the dropping of literature and campaign marketing materials like lawn signs, window signs, and bumper stickers (given to supporters).
As canvassers work a population they will often make careful notes and use classification codes to record their interaction with the public.
There are two basic types of canvassing: field canvasses and phone canvasses.
Field canvasses
Field canvasses are done by going door to door to every home and apartment in a district, a ZIP code or some other unit of geographic measurement. They have the advantage that people are generally more open to talking to someone in person and literature can be delivered and lawn signs put up at the same time as the canvass. A field canvass can also guarantee completeness as each house can be accounted for. A field canvass is usually done by one or two individuals, either both at one door, or one on each side of the street.
For Contractors utilizing "Field Canvassing" it works best when working around a current or previous jobsite. Otherwise called Jobsite Radiation.
There are Consultants available for Contractors interested in learning more about this type of Canvassing. For more info, please check your search engine or call the Procanvasser for more information.
Candidate canvasses
A variation of the field canvass is a candidate canvass; these are done with the actual candidate in a district. These have great potential as people are far more likely to vote for a candidate they have seen in person. With only one candidate, however, time is a valuable commodity. The candidate is thus usually accompanied by a half dozen or more volunteers who knock on doors.
If they find no one home the candidate does not go to that home. If they find a person the volunteer finds out if they would like to meet the candidate. If they would the volunteer signals the candidate.
This technique optimizes the amount of time a candidate spends speaking to potential voters.
Phone canvasses
Phone canvasses can reach more people more quickly than a field canvass; messages can be left on answering machines and there is far less exertion on the part of volunteers. A phone bank environment also means knowledgeable coordinators can keep far closer track of what the volunteers are doing. In rural areas phone canvasses are the only method efficient enough to reach most voters. Apartment buildings are also often better reached by phone canvasses as residents there are unused to and discomfited by opening the door to strangers. There are a number of disadvantages, however. Many voters are put off by anything resembling telemarketing. Getting an accurate and up-to-date list of phone numbers for everyone in a district is very difficult with a considerable percent of numbers becoming out of date in only a few months.
Based on the experience of the Procanvasser, when done the right way, Phone Canvassing can be very effective. The Important thing to remember is to have the right script, and attitude when contacting prospects.
See also
List of democracy and elections-related topics
Political campaign staff
Progressive Action Network - trains and develops canvass leadership for progressive organizations in the US
Lobbying
Lobbying
Lobbying is a concerted effort designed to effect influence, typically over government authorities and elected officials. It can consist of the outreach of legislative members, public actions (e.g. mass demonstrations), or combinations of both public and private actions (e.g. encouraging constituents to contact their legislative representatives). As a professional occupation it is also known as "government affairs" or "public affairs". Practitioners may work in specialist organizations or as part of government relations or as public relations consultancies.
Etymology
The supposed origins of the term "lobbyist" vary. One story states that the term originated at the Willard Hotel in Washington, DC, where it was used by Ulysses S. Grant to describe the political wheelers and dealers frequenting the hotel's lobby in order to access Grant who was often found there, enjoying a cigar and brandy.
United States Lobbying
Many jurisdictions, in response to concerns of corruption, require the formal registration of lobbyists who come in contact with government representatives. Since 1995, under the federal Lobbying Disclosure Act (2 U.S.C. § 1601 et seq.), most persons who are paid to make direct "lobbying contacts" with members of Congress and officials of the federal executive branch are required to register and file reports twice a year.
However, there are ongoing conflicts between organizations that wish to impose greater restrictions on lobbing activities, and groups that argue that such restrictions infringe on the right to petition government officials, which is a right guaranteed by the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
For example, in January 2004, the U.S. Senate considered S. 1, an omnibus "ethics reform" bill.
This bill contained a provision (Section 220) to establish federal regulation, for the first time, of certain efforts to encourage "grassroots lobbying." The bill said that "'grassroots lobbying' means the voluntary efforts of members of the general public to communicate their own views on an issue to Federal officials or to encourage other members of the general public to do the same." This provision was opposed by a broad array of organizations, including the American Civil Liberties Union, the National Right to Life Committee, and the National Rifle Association, who argued that attempts by constituents to influence their representatives are at the heart of representational democracy, and that neither such contacts nor efforts to motivate such contacts should be considered "lobbying." On January 18, 2007, the U.S. Senate voted 55-43 to strike Section 220 from the bill. However, other proposed regulations on "grassroots lobbying" remain under consideration in the 110th Congress.
Another controversial bill, the "Executive Branch Reform Act, H.R. 985, would require over 8,000 Executive Branch officials to report into a public database nearly any "significant contact" from any "private party." Although promoted as a regulation on "lobbyists," the bill defines "private party" as any person or entity" except "Federal, State, or local government official or a person representing such an official." Thus, under the proposal, anyone who contacts a covered government official is in effect deemed to be a lobbyist, unless the communicator is another government official or government staff person. The bill defines "significant contact" to be any "oral or written communication (including electronic communication) . . . in which the private party seeks to influence official action by any officer or employee of the executive branch of the United States." The bill is supported by some organizations as an expansion of "government in the sunshine," but other groups oppose it as an infringing on the right to petition by making it impossible for citizens to communicate their views on controversial issues without having their names and viewpoints entered into a government database.[1] The U.S. Department of Justice has raised constitutional and other objections to the bill.[2]
The U.S. Supreme Court has rejected congressional efforts to regulate grassroots communications as a form of “lobbying," on constitutional grounds. In 1953, in a suit involving a congressional resolution authorizing a committee to investigate “all lobbying activities intended to influence, encourage, promote, or retard legislation,” the Supreme Court narrowly construed “lobbying activities” to mean only “direct” lobbying (which the Court described as “representations made directly to the Congress, its members, or its committees”), and rejected a broader interpretation of “lobbying” out of First Amendment concerns. [United States v. Rumely, 345 U.S. 41 (1953).] The Supreme Court thereby affirmed the earlier decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, which said:
— [Rumely v. United States, 197 F.2d 166, 173-174, 177 (D.C. Cir. 1952).]
See also
Energy lobby
Interest group
External links
LobbyWatch - a project of the Center for Public Integrity with reports on lobbyists and lobbying efforts as well as a searchable database
Sourcewatch - collaborative project of the Center for Media and Democracy (formerly Disinfopedia)
U.S. Senate Office of Public Records - a searchable database of registered lobbyists
OpenSecrets.org
NoLobby.com
Free Speech National Right to Life page containing documents opposing excessive regulation of "lobbying" as infringement on "right to petition" guaranteed by the First Amendment.
Lobbying is a concerted effort designed to effect influence, typically over government authorities and elected officials. It can consist of the outreach of legislative members, public actions (e.g. mass demonstrations), or combinations of both public and private actions (e.g. encouraging constituents to contact their legislative representatives). As a professional occupation it is also known as "government affairs" or "public affairs". Practitioners may work in specialist organizations or as part of government relations or as public relations consultancies.
Etymology
The supposed origins of the term "lobbyist" vary. One story states that the term originated at the Willard Hotel in Washington, DC, where it was used by Ulysses S. Grant to describe the political wheelers and dealers frequenting the hotel's lobby in order to access Grant who was often found there, enjoying a cigar and brandy.
United States Lobbying
Many jurisdictions, in response to concerns of corruption, require the formal registration of lobbyists who come in contact with government representatives. Since 1995, under the federal Lobbying Disclosure Act (2 U.S.C. § 1601 et seq.), most persons who are paid to make direct "lobbying contacts" with members of Congress and officials of the federal executive branch are required to register and file reports twice a year.
However, there are ongoing conflicts between organizations that wish to impose greater restrictions on lobbing activities, and groups that argue that such restrictions infringe on the right to petition government officials, which is a right guaranteed by the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
For example, in January 2004, the U.S. Senate considered S. 1, an omnibus "ethics reform" bill.
This bill contained a provision (Section 220) to establish federal regulation, for the first time, of certain efforts to encourage "grassroots lobbying." The bill said that "'grassroots lobbying' means the voluntary efforts of members of the general public to communicate their own views on an issue to Federal officials or to encourage other members of the general public to do the same." This provision was opposed by a broad array of organizations, including the American Civil Liberties Union, the National Right to Life Committee, and the National Rifle Association, who argued that attempts by constituents to influence their representatives are at the heart of representational democracy, and that neither such contacts nor efforts to motivate such contacts should be considered "lobbying." On January 18, 2007, the U.S. Senate voted 55-43 to strike Section 220 from the bill. However, other proposed regulations on "grassroots lobbying" remain under consideration in the 110th Congress.
Another controversial bill, the "Executive Branch Reform Act, H.R. 985, would require over 8,000 Executive Branch officials to report into a public database nearly any "significant contact" from any "private party." Although promoted as a regulation on "lobbyists," the bill defines "private party" as any person or entity" except "Federal, State, or local government official or a person representing such an official." Thus, under the proposal, anyone who contacts a covered government official is in effect deemed to be a lobbyist, unless the communicator is another government official or government staff person. The bill defines "significant contact" to be any "oral or written communication (including electronic communication) . . . in which the private party seeks to influence official action by any officer or employee of the executive branch of the United States." The bill is supported by some organizations as an expansion of "government in the sunshine," but other groups oppose it as an infringing on the right to petition by making it impossible for citizens to communicate their views on controversial issues without having their names and viewpoints entered into a government database.[1] The U.S. Department of Justice has raised constitutional and other objections to the bill.[2]
The U.S. Supreme Court has rejected congressional efforts to regulate grassroots communications as a form of “lobbying," on constitutional grounds. In 1953, in a suit involving a congressional resolution authorizing a committee to investigate “all lobbying activities intended to influence, encourage, promote, or retard legislation,” the Supreme Court narrowly construed “lobbying activities” to mean only “direct” lobbying (which the Court described as “representations made directly to the Congress, its members, or its committees”), and rejected a broader interpretation of “lobbying” out of First Amendment concerns. [United States v. Rumely, 345 U.S. 41 (1953).] The Supreme Court thereby affirmed the earlier decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, which said:
"In support of the power of Congress it is argued that lobbying is within the
regulatory power of Congress, that influence upon public opinion is indirect
lobbying, since therefore attempts to influence public opinion are subject to
regulation by the Congress. Lobbying, properly defined, is subject to control by
Congress, . . . But the term cannot be expanded by mere definition so as to
include forbidden subjects. Neither semantics nor syllogisms can break down the
barrier which protects the freedom of people to attempt to influence other
people by books and other public writings. . . . It is said that lobbying itself
is an evil and a danger. We agree that lobbying by personal contact may be an
evil and a potential danger to the best in legislative processes. It is said
that indirect lobbying by the pressure of public opinion on the Congress is an
evil and a danger. That is not an evil; it is a good, the healthy essence of the
democratic process. . . ."
— [Rumely v. United States, 197 F.2d 166, 173-174, 177 (D.C. Cir. 1952).]
See also
Energy lobby
Interest group
External links
LobbyWatch - a project of the Center for Public Integrity with reports on lobbyists and lobbying efforts as well as a searchable database
Sourcewatch - collaborative project of the Center for Media and Democracy (formerly Disinfopedia)
U.S. Senate Office of Public Records - a searchable database of registered lobbyists
OpenSecrets.org
NoLobby.com
Free Speech National Right to Life page containing documents opposing excessive regulation of "lobbying" as infringement on "right to petition" guaranteed by the First Amendment.
Civics
Civics
Civics is the science of comparative government and means of administering public trusts—the theory of governance as applied to state institutions. It is usually considered a branch of applied ethics and is certainly part of politics.
Within any given political tradition or ethical tradition, civics refers to education in the obligations and the rights of the citizens under that tradition. When these change, so often does the definition of civics. Related education in history, religion and media literacy is often included.
In the United States, this is the explicit rationale for public education—to ensure the United States Constitution is upheld by citizens who must, at least, know what it is.
When applied to cities and their organization, it is often very difficult to distinguish civics from theories of urban planning. When applied to rural areas, it is difficult to distinguish from theories of rural development. The history of civics dates back to the earliest theories of these by Plato in ancient Greece and Confucius in ancient China. These in general have led to modern distinctions between the West and the East, and two very different concepts of right and justice and ethics in public life.
Of special concern are the choice of a form of government and (if this is any form of democracy) the design of an electoral system and ongoing electoral reform. This involves explicitly comparing voting systems, wealth distribution and the decentralization of political and legal power, control of legal systems and adoption of legal codes, and even political privacy—all seen as important to avoid a dystopic carceral state or a lapse into some undesirable state of totalitarianism or theocracy. Each of these concerns tends to make the process of governance different, as variations in these norms tend to produce a quite different kind of state. Civics was often simply concerned with the balance of power between say an aristocracy and monarchy—a concern echoed to this day in the struggles for power between different levels of rulers—say of the weaker nation-states to establish a binding international law that will have an effect even on the stronger ones. Thus world government is itself properly a civic problem.
On smaller scales, modern human development theory attempts to unify ethics and small-scale politics with the urban and rural economics of sustainable development. Notable theorists including Jane Jacobs and Carol Moore argue that political secession of either cities or distinct bioregions and cultures is an essential pre-requisite to applying any widely shared ethics, as the ethical views of urban and rural people, different cultures or those engaged in different types of agriculture, are irreconcilably different. This extreme advocacy of decentralization is hardly uncommon, and leads to the minimal theory of civics - anarchism.
Civic theory
Most civic theories are more trusting of public institutions, and can be characterizing on a scale from least (mob rule) to most (the totalitarian) degree of trust placed in key public institutions. At the risk of extreme oversimplification, an historical view of civic theory in action suggests that the theories be ranked as follows:
Civics is the science of comparative government and means of administering public trusts—the theory of governance as applied to state institutions. It is usually considered a branch of applied ethics and is certainly part of politics.
Within any given political tradition or ethical tradition, civics refers to education in the obligations and the rights of the citizens under that tradition. When these change, so often does the definition of civics. Related education in history, religion and media literacy is often included.
In the United States, this is the explicit rationale for public education—to ensure the United States Constitution is upheld by citizens who must, at least, know what it is.
When applied to cities and their organization, it is often very difficult to distinguish civics from theories of urban planning. When applied to rural areas, it is difficult to distinguish from theories of rural development. The history of civics dates back to the earliest theories of these by Plato in ancient Greece and Confucius in ancient China. These in general have led to modern distinctions between the West and the East, and two very different concepts of right and justice and ethics in public life.
Of special concern are the choice of a form of government and (if this is any form of democracy) the design of an electoral system and ongoing electoral reform. This involves explicitly comparing voting systems, wealth distribution and the decentralization of political and legal power, control of legal systems and adoption of legal codes, and even political privacy—all seen as important to avoid a dystopic carceral state or a lapse into some undesirable state of totalitarianism or theocracy. Each of these concerns tends to make the process of governance different, as variations in these norms tend to produce a quite different kind of state. Civics was often simply concerned with the balance of power between say an aristocracy and monarchy—a concern echoed to this day in the struggles for power between different levels of rulers—say of the weaker nation-states to establish a binding international law that will have an effect even on the stronger ones. Thus world government is itself properly a civic problem.
On smaller scales, modern human development theory attempts to unify ethics and small-scale politics with the urban and rural economics of sustainable development. Notable theorists including Jane Jacobs and Carol Moore argue that political secession of either cities or distinct bioregions and cultures is an essential pre-requisite to applying any widely shared ethics, as the ethical views of urban and rural people, different cultures or those engaged in different types of agriculture, are irreconcilably different. This extreme advocacy of decentralization is hardly uncommon, and leads to the minimal theory of civics - anarchism.
Civic theory
Most civic theories are more trusting of public institutions, and can be characterizing on a scale from least (mob rule) to most (the totalitarian) degree of trust placed in key public institutions. At the risk of extreme oversimplification, an historical view of civic theory in action suggests that the theories be ranked as follows:
- Mob rule — trusting of the instincts and power of large groups—no consistent civics at all
- Anarchism — no government or other hierarchy, a common ethical code enforced only by personal governance and voluntary association, some means of preventing or ending mob rule
- Minarchy — a minimal hierarchy—e.g. sometimes said to include eco-anarchism
- Libertarianism — a philosophy based on the premise that in order to maximize personal freedom, society should value the acquisition of private property over the public good. Calls for minimal government intervention, both in foreign and domestic policy.
- Direct democracy — decisions made directly by citizens without guidance or moral suasion, e.g. as advocated by H. Ross Perot, usually relying on multiple choice laid out by experts
- Deliberative democracy — decisions made by locally-grouped citizens obligated to participate in consensus decision making process, e.g. as advocated by Ralph Nader
- Bioregional democracy — a deliberative democracy regulated by a caste of highly-qualified scientific advisors (both ecologists and ethicists) who can use scientific method to challenge or veto major ecological decisions, means of measuring well-being or selecting criteria for moral purchasing by the entire bioregional state
- Technocracy — reliance on castes of scientists, e.g. doctors to rule society, and define risk for the whole society - sometimes generalized into anticipatory democracy. Can be interpreted as leading to or including kleptocracy
- Aristocracy — general trust in one class in society to rule and protect, e.g. members of particular noble families that have worked for and/or defended the community across many generations (i.e. "old" money), upholding traditions, standards of living, art, culture, commerce, and defense. Not to be confused with plutocracy, where rule is based solely on financial wealth.
- Constitutional monarchy — a monarch, possibly purely symbolic and devoted to moral example, avoiding vesting such popularity in any less trustworthy political figure—typically tied to at least some deliberative institutions, and making the monarch a tiebreaker or mediator or coach, e.g. Queen Elizabeth II and Tony Blair
- Representative democracy — a political class of elected representatives is trusted to carry out duties for the electors - these may be responsible to any group in society, or none, once elected.
- Absolute monarchy — a monarch who rules for life and can pass on this rule to his or her heirs, but is responsible to some social ideal or culture that has trained him or her to carry out these duties, e.g. Louis XIV, Hirohito, most dynastic Emperors, Augustus Caesar.
- Dictatorship — a political or military ruler who has the powers of the monarch, but whose basis for rule is not hereditary, but based upon military or political power, or by popular election, e.g. Benito Mussolini, Napoleon Bonaparte, Adolf Hitler, Julius Caesar, Josef Stalin, Mao ZeDong.
- Socialism - a broad array of ideologies and political movements with the goal of a socio-economic system in which property and the distribution of wealth are subject to control by the community for the purposes of increasing social and economic equality and cooperation.[1]
Activism
Activism
Activism, in a general sense, can be described as intentional action or inaction to bring about social or political change. This action is in support of, or opposition to, one side of an often controversial argument.
The well known terms activism and activist used in a political manner first appeared in the Belgian press in 1916 in connection with the Flamingo movement. The word "activism" is often used synonymously with protest or dissent, but activism can stem from any number of political orientations and take a wide range of forms, from writing letters to newspapers or politicians, political campaigning, economic activism (such as boycotts or preferentially patronizing preferred businesses), rallies and street marches, strikes, or even guerrilla tactics. In the more confrontational cases, an activist may be called a freedom fighter by some, and a terrorist by others, depending on whether the commentator supports the activist's ends.
In some cases, activism has nothing to do with protest or confrontation: for instance, some religious, feminist or vegetarian/vegan activists try to persuade people to change their behavior directly, rather than persuade governments to change laws. The cooperative movement seeks to build new institutions which conform to cooperative principles, and generally does not lobby or protest politically.
Transformational activism
Transformational activism is the idea that people need to transform on the inside as well on the outside in order to create any meaningful change in the world.
One example of transformational activism is peacekeeping which, as defined by the United Nations, is "a way to help countries torn by conflict create conditions for sustainable peace." Peacekeepers monitor and observe peace processes in post-conflict areas and assist ex-combatants in implementing the peace agreements they may have signed. Such assistance comes in many forms, including confidence-building measures, power-sharing arrangements, electoral support, strengthening the rule of law, and economic and social development. Accordingly UN peacekeepers (often referred to as Blue Helmets because of their light blue helmets) can include soldiers, civilian police officers, and other civilian personnel.
Types of activism
Civil disobedience
Community building
Activism industry
Cooperative movement
Craftivism
Voluntary simplicity
Economic activism
Boycott
Divestment (a.k.a. Disinvestment)
Franchise activism
Lobbying
Media activism
Culture jamming
Hacktivism
Internet activism
Propaganda
Guerrilla communication
Non-violent confrontation
Violent confrontation
Rioting
Terrorism
Protest
Demonstration
Direct action
Theater for Social Change
Protest songs
Strike action
Youth activism
Student activism
Youth-led media
See also
Category:Activists
Activism industry
Civics
Demagogy
Judicial activism
Lobbying
Political Campaign
Protest
Rebellion
Reform movement
Revolution
Social movement
Teaching for social justice
Activism, in a general sense, can be described as intentional action or inaction to bring about social or political change. This action is in support of, or opposition to, one side of an often controversial argument.
The well known terms activism and activist used in a political manner first appeared in the Belgian press in 1916 in connection with the Flamingo movement. The word "activism" is often used synonymously with protest or dissent, but activism can stem from any number of political orientations and take a wide range of forms, from writing letters to newspapers or politicians, political campaigning, economic activism (such as boycotts or preferentially patronizing preferred businesses), rallies and street marches, strikes, or even guerrilla tactics. In the more confrontational cases, an activist may be called a freedom fighter by some, and a terrorist by others, depending on whether the commentator supports the activist's ends.
In some cases, activism has nothing to do with protest or confrontation: for instance, some religious, feminist or vegetarian/vegan activists try to persuade people to change their behavior directly, rather than persuade governments to change laws. The cooperative movement seeks to build new institutions which conform to cooperative principles, and generally does not lobby or protest politically.
Transformational activism
Transformational activism is the idea that people need to transform on the inside as well on the outside in order to create any meaningful change in the world.
One example of transformational activism is peacekeeping which, as defined by the United Nations, is "a way to help countries torn by conflict create conditions for sustainable peace." Peacekeepers monitor and observe peace processes in post-conflict areas and assist ex-combatants in implementing the peace agreements they may have signed. Such assistance comes in many forms, including confidence-building measures, power-sharing arrangements, electoral support, strengthening the rule of law, and economic and social development. Accordingly UN peacekeepers (often referred to as Blue Helmets because of their light blue helmets) can include soldiers, civilian police officers, and other civilian personnel.
Types of activism
Civil disobedience
Community building
Activism industry
Cooperative movement
Craftivism
Voluntary simplicity
Economic activism
Boycott
Divestment (a.k.a. Disinvestment)
Franchise activism
Lobbying
Media activism
Culture jamming
Hacktivism
Internet activism
Propaganda
Guerrilla communication
Non-violent confrontation
Violent confrontation
Rioting
Terrorism
Protest
Demonstration
Direct action
Theater for Social Change
Protest songs
Strike action
Youth activism
Student activism
Youth-led media
See also
Category:Activists
Activism industry
Civics
Demagogy
Judicial activism
Lobbying
Political Campaign
Protest
Rebellion
Reform movement
Revolution
Social movement
Teaching for social justice
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)