by Rep. Chuck McGrady, circa May, 2015
Being an effective advocate or lobbyist on any issue involves two things. First, one needs to communicate substance and, second, one needs to build a relationship with the policymakers. Having been a citizen advocate on a range of issues long before I was elected to public office, I know that anyone who is effective as an advocate hopes to get critical information to policymakers at the right time and their ability to do that correlates to what kind of relationship the advocate has to the policymaker.
Upon becoming a legislator, one of the first things that I recognized was that some people and groups believe that sending mass emails to legislators is an effective way of communicating. For the most part, it isn't.
On an average day, I receive hundreds of emails—occasionally over a thousand emails. Every email comes to my email account, but a copy is also sent to my legislative assistant, Laura Bone. Some of those emails I respond to personally, and my legislative assistant sends standard responses to some of them. However, most of them are immediately put in the trash.
Why is that?
Well, emails coming to me from people who aren't my constituents typically don't merit a response, unless the person clearly has a special understanding of whatever the topic of the email is or is representing a group. Some number of emails also relate to bills or subjects that I can do nothing about, for example, writing to me about a bill that has already passed the House.
What always amazes me is that people seem to think if they've signed on a computer-generated letter to a legislator that they've done something to effectively communicate their views. They haven't. When one gets a few hundred of the same, exactly-worded emails, one doesn't pay much attention to them. Conversely, if I get an email in which a constituent has personally stated his or her views, I almost always give that email attention.
My view is that, if a person has taken less than a minute to generate a computer-generated communication, then the best they deserve from me is a canned response, if that. On the other hand, a constituent who has actually taken the time to personally communicate their views to me, generally deserves a response, at least if the constituent hasn't been abusive.
A review of the mass emails I received recently may give one a better sense of what I'm describing. What follows are some examples of not-particularly-good email campaigns.
S 456 [Charter School Modifications]. Got dozens of these emails pitching funding for charter schools. The emails started “I live in your district,” but almost none of the emails came from people in my district. Someone writing who says they are live in my district when they don't, aren't likely to get a response.
We NEED our Medical Deductions (HB46 with full restoration amendment). This email is being generated by AARP. Again, the emails aren't coming from my district, and they get no response.
H 450 [Appropriate Funds for Tobacco Use Prevention]. This one is generated by the American Lung Association. Again, the emails are from folks across the state, but none are from my district. No need to respond to those.
2016 PRIMARY MESSAGE - H562 Is On You. This one is generated by GrassrootsNC, a gun advocacy group. First, almost none of the emails came from my district. Second, threatening a legislator is not an effective strategy. Persuade, don't threaten. GrassrootsNC's earlier generated well over a thousand emails on the same subject. Less than five of those emails came from my district. I responded to the emails from my district, but trashed the rest. Conversely, some constituents wrote their own emails on the same subject. I personally responded to each of those.
Please vote no on H289 - N.C. Anti-Bitcoin Act. While almost none of the emails on this subject came from North Carolina, the emails were also badly timed. I was getting emails about a bill that the House had already passed. What is the point of that? Another set of emails in the trash.
Oppose S.B. 433/H.B. 405 [Property Protection Act]. This email is generated by the Humane Society of the United States. While the email was well-targeted in that I only got emails from people in my district, the emails have continued after H 405 passed the House. What is the point of continuing to generate emails on a bill that has already passed the House? I continue to respond to these emails by responding with a copy of an earlier newsletter where I specifically discuss the bill. For me, this email is counter-productive. I'm a lead sponsor of legislation pushed by the Humane Society, yet the group is generating emails from my constituents against a position I've taken---not a very good way to build a relationship.
I could give another dozen examples of bad email blasts, but I'll summarize some key points. Email blasts are okay, but they are not as effective as personalized emails. Legislators are much more likely to respond to a constituent who has clearly written a personal message based on his or her experience. A form email that is being sent to every legislator almost always gets trashed. Legislators respond to emails from their constituents; they don't respond often to emails coming from people from across the state who don't live in their respective districts. Groups that generate these emails would be best served if they directed emails from constituents only to their own legislators. Any communications should be timed so that one is asking for support or opposition to some bill when that is actually being considered. Writing to ask a legislator to support or oppose a bill that has already passed isn't effective. It also isn't effective to write a House member about a Senate bill that hasn't gotten to the House and vice versa.
Keep adjectives and adverbs to a minimum. Make arguments based on facts not based on adjectives and adverbs.
Most email writers probably think that their emails don't mean anything since they don't have any relationship with a legislator or don't represent some large, powerful organization. That is wrong. Everyone is the constituent of one House member and one senator. A legislator may not know the person who is writing, but he or she can usually tell if the person who is writing lives in his or her district. In other words, if you're a legislator's constituent, you have a relationship to that legislator.
Obviously, if one actually knows a legislator or has some sort of relationship other than being a constituent, one has the ability to be particularly effective in advocating for some position or for or against some bill.
One thing that has consistently surprised me is when a person who I know really well sends me a form email. That person could write a two sentence note that would have greater impact than the email blast that I might not even see. If you know your legislator on a first-name basis, you've got a relationship that you should use when communicating.
Another thing that has surprised me is how rarely groups work to build a relationship with a legislator by thanking legislators when they do what was asked in an earlier email blast. People are always asking for things, but rarely do legislators get thanked when the legislators do exactly what they were asked to do. Years ago, legislators received letters from their constituents. Today we don't receive many letters from constituents. What we do receive are emails and, unfortunately, far too many of those are emails generated by a person pushing a button and sending a form email to legislators.
Emails can be an effective way of communicating with legislators if one remembers that one should primarily communicate only with one's own senator or House member, that one should communicate in a timely fashion on a subject that the legislator can affect, and that personalized emails are more effective than form emails.