GOVERNMENT RELATIONS

Lobbying in the Information Age

How state legislative power has shifted from the leadership to the electorate — and the role information plays in transforming the political process.

April 1999

Donald J. Pfundstein*
for BusinessNH Magazine

The evolving structure and organizational dynamic of the New Hampshire General Court affects the process of communication with its members, who themselves increasingly reflect the time crunch/information glut we all experience today.

The Evolution of Legislative Relationships

Years ago members of the Legislature were inclined to spend three days in Concord, with Tuesday and Wednesday nights providing opportunity for social interaction and collective discussion of policy issues. Roll calls were rare — they took too much time. Interaction with lobbyists was relaxed and both social and substantive.

Legislators had limited parking, no offices, no desks, no lockers or even filing cabinets. Whatever rank-and-file members received in the way of "perks" was what they would receive from leadership. Controlling the agenda, the committees and the other basic necessities of legislating, leadership had significant power to influence outcomes, and power and influence generally were centralized in Concord.

The creation of a separate legislative office building and separate parking and other amenities provided lockers, permanent committee rooms, personal filing and desk space in the mid-70's. At the same time, better highways, evolving social customs and changing demographics transformed legislators into commuters, focused on their own committee work in permanent committee rooms. Additional legislative staff gave them a source of independent information. Most important, automated roll calls made individual accountability routine, providing folks back home with reliable information by which to hold their representatives politically responsible.

Four Stages of "Yes"

From that point forward, legislators needed to defend the positions they took in Concord when they went back to their districts. When they went home, they also had to deal with the political consequences of those positions. The process of legislating became more political. It also became more difficult.

Legislators had to take public positions on laws they needed to pass. Just saying "No" wouldn't do. It is always easier for a legislator to explain a negative vote than a positive vote. A "yes" vote triggers the "Four Stages of Yes."

• Stage 1 requires an understanding of the present situation to which the bill applies.
• Stage 2 requires understanding the bill itself.
• Stage 3 requires that the member predict, before he votes, the impact of the change.
• And, if the issue is controversial, the member must be able to politically survive Stage 4, which is his or her explanation or defense of the position taken.

New Age, New Rules

We are now in an "information age." Legislators must contend with a better-informed electorate. In recent months, during the debate around Claremont II, and in particular its funding methods, a new and very significant free service has required our citizen Legislature to deal with an informed constituency before they vote.

This year, New Hampshire Public Radio has established a web site which allows any citizen to "plug-in" his or her own financial particulars and be told how the principal tax proposals will affect him or her. Indeed the legislator must interact with citizens aware in real time, before the vote, of what a bill will do to them.

The significance of this connection between the impact and the voters cannot be underestimated. It will expand to other policy issues. Power has now shifted from leadership to the electorate. Electoral politics will infuse policy. Increased information will transform the voting process even more. The process of communication with legislators will become even more compressed by limited time as legislators wrestle with more complex issues. In short, it is necessary to get legislators to say Yes, and needless to say, to say Yes to circumstances that are extremely complex.

In these circumstances, a lobbyist who is merely friendly or accommodating may gain some access to a legislator, but will fail to meet their legitimate expectancy for useful information. Worse, it wastes their limited time. Today's lobbyist must be a source of credible and useful information so that legislators can make difficult decisions, often voting Yes, and doing so in a way which enables them to explain their position to constituents.

Adding Value Beyond Relationships

For a lobbyist to add value, the lobbyist must be a source of reliable data, information and even predictability. He or she must be able to provide that information when and where the legislators want it. The lobbyist has to be able to provide it with little preparative time. Gallagher, Callahan & Gartrell's lobbying group now includes Lisa Shapiro, a Doctor of Economics, because her capacity to project impacts is of vital use to legislators in the performance of their work.

We have had to specialize in the substance of the issues with which we deal because simply carrying messages from remote constituents doesn't provide an immediate answer to questions when issues are discussed with legislators. Today's lobbyist has to answer those questions then and there, on the spot, and must do so with knowledge and credibility. We also include communication specialists within our firm's bundled services, not only to help us with clients, but also to assist those to whom we must communicate as they manage the new dynamics.

A trip around the State House today will quickly dispel the old notion of the cigar-chewing, glad-handing lobbyist. Lobbyists must now be specialists in the substantive areas in which they operate; they must be respected enough to be allowed to intrude upon the busy schedule of legislators who are crowded for time, and they must, of course, still be credible.

A close look at the lobbying firms that do much of the work in Concord will easily confirm this proposition. What this means to business is that the notion of political connectivity and "good-guy" relationships no longer provides the benchmark for retaining a lobbyist.

In ancient days, when citizens were unaware of how the legislator voted, except as reported by that legislator when asked, it seemed easy enough for legislators to simply rely upon their good friends. The lobbyist could often tell the legislator how to vote. As mentioned earlier, most of the members didn't commute then. They were isolated in Concord for the week and lobbyists had access to them in off hours.

Now a substantial majority of legislators commute daily, and they work in permanent committee rooms on increasingly more complex substantive issues. Many legislators are now experts themselves in many of the substantive areas handled by their committees. Today's legislators use the Internet and other electronic communication and information devices. More importantly, the people who vote for them do.

Today, business must look for more than a smile and "skills" consisting solely of relationships, when retaining a lobbyist. Look for substantive capacity to discuss the subject matter of the complex legislation affecting you. You need a group with an understanding of the legislative process, which is itself unique and different than other venues for policy discussion. You need a group of multidisciplinary professionals which can provide credible information and strategies in real time. In short, today's lobbyist needs both savvy and substance, and today's business needs lobbyists.

*Donald J. Pfundstein is admitted in New Hampshire.

Return to top of page

Return to Government Relations Articles
Return to Firm Publications