Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Truean]

Not to offend, but you seem a bit naive for a law school graduate, firstly there is far more to political pressure than having teams of lawyers bothering politicians.  Also you have these broad solutions without any regard to the financials.  How will you pay for these great new programs?  And while its all well and good to say "our schools should be better, i'll lobby to make them better," you aren't offering any structured solutions, which is one of the services that lobbyists strive to provide.

The other thing is that lobbyist is a toxic word, and you should always call yourself an advocacy group if you're running on public donations.  Lobbyists is the word for those representing businesses, the NRA and collections of smaller units of governments.  There are already a great variety of public advocacy groups.

The final issue I see is that this seems more like creating a lobbying group to further your own platform, and having other pay you to do it.  If your group isn't centered around a singular tenant you'll be hard pressed to find people willing to donate, as you'll likely not be on the same page on at least a few issues.  Efficacy will also be a big issue, even if you find a group of people willing to finance your operation, they're going to want to see demonstrable results, do you know enough about the legislative process to be able to strong arm an uncompromised bill into signing in the first few years of your run?

I'm just going to ignore the offensive parts of that, which is more than they deserve but meh. 

a.) This is preliminary, no final sales terms are here. Needs polish. That's pretty clear to everybody.
b.) This posting has to be general. Would you like me to go over the Administrative Procedures Act and the difference between rule-making, and adjudication with you? How about all the committees, subcommittees etc? It would literally take about 30 pages and it's boring as hell. Yes, I know how legislation really works. Thank you.
c.) Most of what I'm saying isn't that expensive to the government. Take a look at the first page.
Most of it just involves changing the way we do things, not the costs of doing them.

Here's the simple and short of it because people don't read posts:Government efficiency.

Government procedure for handling everything from phone calls to letters is clogged as hell. These can be adjusted with minimal cost by adopting efficient workplace procedures with existing staff. As for business abuses, regulators really don't cost that much and they save you more in the abuse that they prevent.

Unless you like government inefficiency, long phone hold times, and no one caring about you being bled dry by people buying your government, you should agree. No? 

Again, needs polish and I get that. Did you honestly think I would start out by posting a finished, polished product? That's not how these things work. It's a process that evolves over time.

There are so many soundbites for themes here I could pick:
Standing up for the Everyday American.
Making Government work for the people it represents.
Bringing jobs back to our country...

Pick one, or all of them.

I get it. I've posted before how I would go about getting people to buy in.
Unified theme,
Money ($10) fully refundable until and unless we reach the amount needed to operate. ($70K to start)
Posted updates via email and newsletter.

Honestly my two biggest problems are:
1.) Finding time between doing this and work in the legal field.
2.) Getting people to care enough to actually do something. Apathy. It's lethal.

[Vactor]

aside from saying you sounded naive that was all supposed to be constructive criticism from someone who works in the legislature, and has experience working in advocacy organizations, both in program and fund raising roles.  I've seen plenty of lobbyists that come in not really knowing what they're doing, and they don't last long, and don't affect the process, and that is in the minor leagues of a state legislature.  There is much more to lobbying than having a great academic knowledge of the process.  If you don't know how to make yourself necessary to that process, it moves on without you.

Your critiques of government waste are a rather common cynicism of "Big Government," which rings false when held up against the reality of the federal government.  You can have a letter delivered across the continent in 2 days for the cost of 4 minutes of minimum wage work.  The US military is the most advanced in the world, how many major scientific advancements underway have the US government involved in some way? It could be that i'm feeling especially sensitive to people's misconceptions and generalizations of government after work this last week.  I don't think there are many politicians that haven't been presented with, or come up with themselves, the concept of increasing government efficiency, the biggest problem that the government faces is that it must serve everyone, not just customers able to afford it.  Those who oversee the finances of these systems would rather pare it down to a size that gets the job done moderately efficiently, rather than pay the higher price of one that can give people the service they expect from a fast food restaurant, while maintaining the reliability of its work, either way everyone gets their driver's licence.


I'm really not trying to be a dick, although i'm sure i sound like one.  I'm trying to give you some input that this isn't nearly as simple as you think it will be.  Even groups centered around a single theme, like an environmental protection group or gun rights group, have trouble keeping every member on board with their platform.  If you try to take a strident, multi-issue platform around an undefined public good, you'll have an incredibly hard time.  I'm not sure if you've ever done fund raising for an advocacy program, but in order to make 70k in a year you are going to have to be raising about $200 every day.  That means you need to find 20 new people every day of the year who are on board with your idea, and willing to put money towards it.  People are innundated with ways to spend their money, and in order to put money into an advocacy group, you need to have some demonstrable legitimacy.  You need to be able to prove to potential donors that you are more than a fly by night organization, or a con man.  If you have weekends you need to average $250.  The most productive form of fund raising is canvassing, which if you're lucky you'll get 40 people to take the time to talk to you.  Of those 40 you can count on 3/4 - 7/8 being unwilling or unable to donate, and thats if its a program that has been around a few decades.

[Truean]

I mostly gave you the benefit of the doubt about the demeanor thing, but again, if you have a suggestion, I'm listening. I dunno.

[Aqizzar]

Speaking of which here are four low cost ones off the top of my head: shared informational tracking systems, procedural customer checklists, timesheets, and callbacks instead of hold times. All are designed to actually increase efficiency and customer satisfaction at minimal or arguably negative costs with savings factored in. All too often, agencies either loose things, can't verify they got them, or spend forever looking for something in a file. Share in information in real time; I guarantee you the ability to actually find information to solve problems will help greatly. To keep track of both what the agency has and how to help customers, develop procedural tracking checklists. These would give simply step by step verification and instruction on what needs to happen to bring about a resolution (one way or the other) reasonably quickly. It would also keep track of who in the agency the person spoke to. Supervisors and those with actual authority to do things, would get the appropriate files and be able to quickly determine what's happened and what needs to happen. Timesheets are about trust; the public doesn't have it and they give it. They keep track of resources and duties. Also, they help determine which customer needs a callback. Speaking of which, everyone hates hold times. Placing a customer on hold is necessary to give the time needed to research or work on a given problem, but why not just take the customer's number and call them back. I assure you this will both reduce phone bills/strain on the phone system and make customers much happier (as well as customer service providers). These are all things the (smarter side of the) legal profession does to lower costs and increase output/efficiency.

This is the only part of that post that actually says anything about your operation or goal.  I know you keep saying this "not a finished product" but at some point, you're going to have to make it one, because I seriously doubt you're going to find anyone here besides Vactor and maybe me who have any idea what your plan entails.  The rest of that posts sounds a lot more like punditry or a campaign speech.  I honestly think running for office or trying to get a job in OMB would serve your purposes better than starting a lobbying arm for more efficient office procedures.

That said, I think your goal might be a little off-center.  Let's say you want better procedures, especially electronic services and practices.  Trying to convince literally thousands of ordinary people to donate money to eventually convince Congressmen to eventually make a law to restructure governmental procedure is, frankly, ridiculous.  Rather, figure out who could stand to make money off of upgrading the government's internal structuring, like software and server companies, and talk to them directly.  In other words, a lot of money from a small number of "people", who have it to spend and actually know and care about what you're advocating.

Another critique I can make is that I think you're wildly underestimating what kind of expenses you'll entail.  Even putting aside the preferred method of getting legislative results - campaign donations - going the feel-good route of writing letters and making phonecalls and personal meetings means manpower, and lots of it.  They really doesn't need to be qualified lawyers so you don't have to factor larger salaries but you get the idea.  The preferred method of donations, let alone wining and dining, means a lot more money.  Heck, I can make one strident point right off the bat - the minimum one qualified lawyer, you, entails $50-60k.  How about you just pay yourself less?  I'd call it crazy too, if I were you, but it certainly frees up some cash and has a principled ring to it.

[Vactor]

I'm not a successful lobbyist, but I see them in action I can give you some advice based on what I've seen in no particular order:

Networking:
- Find all of the experienced lobbyists who are working on the same side of issues as you, get them to introduce you to people.

- Start off working for an established group, ideally one that is not partisan.  In state government, towns associations or counties associations are a good bet, the type of groups that work to inform politicians about the various ramifications of their decisions on their constituents, rather than to try to sway them ideologically.  This will get you some time to generate good-will and contacts.

- Introduce yourself to everyone, absolutely everyone, the Press corp, the staffers, the clerks, the janitor.  Don't mention who/what you work for unless its to a legislator or their staff.  Use your first name rather than full.  Smile whenever you see someone you recognize and be appreciative of any effort anyone has to make for you, no matter how minor.  The lobbyists who do this are few, but the ones that do it get further, and have people every step of the way willing to do favors for them.

- Show up to everything, attend every hearing, spend time around the building.


Probably most importantly, but somethings i wouldn't be able to tell you how to do:

- When working on legislation, staff will usually be tasked with contacting all affected parties to negotiate a compromise that can bring most if not all groups on board with it.  Make sure that you are one of those parties.  Have solutions to their problems.

- Know the personalities of the legislature, understand why people vote for things they don't like.  Learn which people are true-believers, and which ones are in it to get re-elected. Be mindful of the politics within the body as well, who wants what appointment, who has aspirations for leadership, who is just riding out their career until they die.

There are of course the financial side of lobbying, the type that pour money into campaign funds for political or contractual pay off.  I'm not a big fan of this, and it doesn't sound like this is the type of group you're going for.

There is also another way of wielding lobbying power, and that is to have a fanatical single issue base that is willing to vote purely on that issue.  This was how 5-10% of the country that was anti-alcohol was able to get the prohibition passed.  The small portion of the electorate was used to swing elections for any candidate that showed their cause support, and they were ready and willing to vote against any incumbent that did not.  Members from both parties feared them.  This route is much harder to pull off.

[Truean]

Trying to convince literally thousands of ordinary people to donate money to eventually convince Congressmen to eventually make a law to restructure governmental procedure is, frankly, ridiculous.

Yup, and that's why people will be ignored and Congress will be corrupt. Unfortunately I can't argue with you though. Like I said, if people won't pay $10 a year for laws that work for them, then we really are screwed.

[Max White]

After reading the first post...

Isn't that what a govenment is meant to be? You vote for them because they represent your veiws? What do we need another one for?

[Truean]

After reading the first post...

Isn't that what a govenment is meant to be? You vote for them because they represent your veiws? What do we need another one for?

Big difference between what should be and what is.

Large special interests have hundreds of millions of dollars fighting for them, what do you have?
Who gets listened to; who gets ignored?
Also, it's a misconception that because something is government it should be "free." Nothing is free. Freedom isn't free.
Practical reality....

[Max White]

Big difference between what should be and what is.

Large special interests have hundreds of millions of dollars fighting for them, what do you have?
Who gets listened to; who gets ignored?
Also, it's a misconception that because something is government it should be "free." Nothing is free. Freedom isn't free.
Practical reality....

So what your saying is... Because one system failed, we should implment a new, similar system, to support the first, failing system. And when these lobbyists stop representing your veiws, we can do it again!

[Leafsnail]

It's not free, which is why a portion of your taxes goes to maintaining the political system...

[Truean]

Big difference between what should be and what is.

Large special interests have hundreds of millions of dollars fighting for them, what do you have?
Who gets listened to; who gets ignored?
Also, it's a misconception that because something is government it should be "free." Nothing is free. Freedom isn't free.
Practical reality....

So what your saying is... Because one system failed, we should implment a new, similar system, to support the first, failing system. And when these lobbyists stop representing your veiws, we can do it again!

Na that's your part of the quote. If you didn't like the group, you could just not pay next year....

It's not free, which is why a portion of your taxes goes to maintaining the political system...

O, ok, well as long as corruption exists in the world and we take no countermeasures to fight it, we loose and it wins.

[Max White]

Na that's your part of the quote. If you didn't like the group, you could just not pay next year...

Why not just cut the middle man and start donating to your political party of choice, then when they no longer represent your veiws, stop giving them cash?

[Aqizzar]

Trying to convince literally thousands of ordinary people to donate money to eventually convince Congressmen to eventually make a law to restructure governmental procedure is, frankly, ridiculous.

Yup, and that's why people will be ignored and Congress will be corrupt. Unfortunately I can't argue with you though. Like I said, if people won't pay $10 a year for laws that work for them, then we really are screwed.

Forget me; if we all, at least most of us, gave $10 a year to an established group like I'm talking about that was legit and accountable, that group could compete with larger special interest lobbies to make sure they didn't screw us by everything from rewriting laws for themselves to directly taking bailouts. (sigh)

How about you just pay yourself less?  I'd call it crazy too, if I were you, but it certainly frees up some cash and has a principled ring to it.

As long as principled means poor; rich will mean corrupt. Given the rich hold the power, that's a problem.
Also, between law school student loans and the fact that I could make more as an attorney.... Doesn't make sense for me.

...Dude, I don't want to be rude, but you're being rather unrealistic about this.  You say it doesn't make sense to pay yourself less than you could make as a practicing lawyer, despite reiterating how important your lobbying would be if you did it, whilst berating generic people who don't or wouldn't support you.  I'm telling you, you're looking at this all wrong.  If your goal is fixing internal procedure, you're never going to convince ordinary people to give you enough money to accomplish anything.  Find people that it would actually matter to, i.e. people who can make money performing such a service.  If you don't think that's principled, first you're wrong, and second big deal.

My second piece of advice is that you're sounding more like a politician with each post.  Specifically, a hollow politician.  Responding to meaningful critiques of your operating plan with generic platitudes about fighting corruption is going to get you nowhere.  I wasn't disagreeing with your goal, I'm saying your plan doesn't make sense.

Lastly, I thought of adding it earlier, but now it makes more sense.  There's a reason so many lobbying firms and lawyers (and politicians for that matter) combine both jobs.  They both offer flexible schedules, meaning you can do both at the same time.  Your original money breakdown provided for collecting $70k to start with, 50-60 of which would go into your pocket.  Might I suggest that payroll account for less than 85% of your planned operating budget, especially if have other real work on the side, especially after all that business about riches and corruption?  $50-60k isn't rich, but after all that principled talk, it rings a little... well, hollow, to say you'd give up your big reform dreams if it meant making less than market for your qualifications.

[Truean]

Na that's your part of the quote. If you didn't like the group, you could just not pay next year...

Why not just cut the middle man and start donating to your political party of choice, then when they no longer represent your veiws, stop giving them cash?

a.) They don't currently represent your views, so why give them cash in the first place?
b.) You can talk to an individual who knows his paycheck comes directly from you. Try that with the democratic or republican party. You MIGHT get a volunteer staffer if you get anyone.

[Truean]

Trying to convince literally thousands of ordinary people to donate money to eventually convince Congressmen to eventually make a law to restructure governmental procedure is, frankly, ridiculous.

Yup, and that's why people will be ignored and Congress will be corrupt. Unfortunately I can't argue with you though. Like I said, if people won't pay $10 a year for laws that work for them, then we really are screwed.

Forget me; if we all, at least most of us, gave $10 a year to an established group like I'm talking about that was legit and accountable, that group could compete with larger special interest lobbies to make sure they didn't screw us by everything from rewriting laws for themselves to directly taking bailouts. (sigh)

How about you just pay yourself less?  I'd call it crazy too, if I were you, but it certainly frees up some cash and has a principled ring to it.

As long as principled means poor; rich will mean corrupt. Given the rich hold the power, that's a problem.
Also, between law school student loans and the fact that I could make more as an attorney.... Doesn't make sense for me.

...Dude, I don't want to be rude, but you're being rather unrealistic about this.  You say it doesn't make sense to pay yourself less than you could make as a practicing lawyer, despite reiterating how important your lobbying would be if you did it, whilst berating generic people who don't or wouldn't support you.  I'm telling you, you're looking at this all wrong.  If your goal is fixing internal procedure, you're never going to convince ordinary people to give you enough money to accomplish anything.  Find people that it would actually matter to, i.e. people who can make money performing such a service.  If you don't think that's principled, first you're wrong, and second big deal.

My second piece of advice is that you're sounding more like a politician with each post.  Specifically, a hollow politician.  Responding to meaningful critiques of your operating plan with generic platitudes about fighting corruption is going to get you nowhere.  I wasn't disagreeing with your goal, I'm saying your plan doesn't make sense.

Lastly, I thought of adding it earlier, but now it makes more sense.  There's a reason so many lobbying firms and lawyers (and politicians for that matter) combine both jobs.  They both offer flexible schedules, meaning you can do both at the same time.  Your original money breakdown provided for collecting $70k to start with, 50-60 of which would go into your pocket.  Might I suggest that payroll account for less than 85% of your planned operating budget, especially if have other real work on the side, especially after all that business about riches and corruption?  $50-60k isn't rich, but after all that principled talk, it rings a little... well, hollow, to say you'd give up your big reform dreams if it meant making less than market for your qualifications.

When I said, "Maybe I'll just write a book, or a blog or something. I didn't really get into many details here, but come on who has those all right upfront in the planning stage?

This might be something I do later on in life...."

That means I gave up. What exactly did you want...?

I still hold the personal belief that if there is no mechanism to counter corruption, then its unopposed and it wins. I'm just not going to be that mechanism right now.