
Barney Frank: here's how to not waste your time pressuring lawmakers - smacktoward
https://mic.com/articles/167878/barney-frank-heres-how-to-not-waste-your-time-pressuring-lawmakers#.JnUQHPOt0
======
tptacek
I think point (1) is there not because it matters but because Barney Frank
wants you to be registered to vote. Having made a _bunch_ of calls over the
past few weeks, and having made some first- and second- hand contacts with
staffers: I don't believe they really check anything at all, at least not on
issues that lots of people are calling them about.

The impression I have is that on big-ticket issues, they're just taking a
yes/no tally of calls and letters, and that's it.

~~~
specialist
They check. Especially the closer you get to home.

Try to schedule a meeting out of district (city, county, state, fed). Even
when you're lobbying on an issue they care about (a bill they cosponsored),
you'll probably need a local with you to even get on their calendar. When
you're out of district, you might get an automated "contact your own rep"
reply, if you're lucky.

For hot issues, as you say, it's just triage.

Actually, it's all triage. Legislating is an information processing problem
with attention being the scarcest commodity.

~~~
tptacek
How would they check? They don't ask for name spellings.

------
dano
tl;dr

1\. Make sure you’re registered to vote — lawmakers check.

2\. Lawmakers don’t care about people outside of their district.

3\. Your signature — physical or electronic — on a mass petition will mean
little.

4\. The communication must be individual. Email, Letter, Phone call.

5\. Know where your representative stands.

6\. Communicate — even if you and your representative disagree.

7\. Say “thank you" \- to reinforce the behavior you want

8\. Enlist the help of friends in other districts. - they write their own reps

~~~
trendia
Strangely, he forgot to mention:

9\. Donate lots of money.

A study found members of Congress are way more likely to meet with you if
you've paid them [0].

> "The offices who just thought they were being asked to meet with normal
> constituents, we almost never got a meeting with a member of Congress, or a
> chief of staff or a legislative director — the most powerful people in
> congressional offices," says Broockman. "On the other hand, when we reveal
> that the attendees were donors, they were more than three times as likely to
> get those meetings."

[0] [http://www.npr.org/2014/03/26/294361018/how-to-meet-your-
con...](http://www.npr.org/2014/03/26/294361018/how-to-meet-your-congressman)

~~~
wheelerwj
its really surprising that he forgot that because he nailed the other main
ways to force change:

Be thankful and only talk to people who represent you (no one).

------
JSeymourATL
Some additional perspective from a Congressional Staffer >
[https://twitter.com/i/moments/798297193559904258?lang=en](https://twitter.com/i/moments/798297193559904258?lang=en)

~~~
colinbartlett
This is interesting content, but the format is atrocious. How is Twitter still
relevant when posts like this must be made one sentence at a time?

------
sidlls
The most important way to not waste time "pressuring" lawmakers is this: have
money, connections, and influence over those connections.

None of the items on that list comes even close to that one.

~~~
mfringel
It's true that money, connections, and influence will win against an
unorganized electorate. The equation changes significantly if there's a
coordinated effort by voters.

~~~
sidlls
That's a fairly broad statement and entirely dependent on the context. I'm
struggling to think of an example in recent history where "a coordinated
effort by voters" got some meaningful traction in the sense of this article.
I'm far from omniscient, though, so this could very well be a huge blind spot
in my own news information maintenance.

------
Agustus
#5 is great and should be amended to include understanding what interests the
representative has in taking a particular stand.

Barney Frank is the same guy who was actively fighting (1) against George W.
Bush's initiative to tighten up lending requirements ahead of the Great
Recession; Barney Frank was against it due in part to then boyfriend, who he
helped get a job, being on the executive committee (2). Getting him to change
his opinion would have been night impossible.

1\.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iW5qKYfqALE](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iW5qKYfqALE)

2\. [http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/05/26/rep-frank-
admits-...](http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/05/26/rep-frank-admits-
helping-ex-lover-land-job-fannie-mae.html) I know it is Fox News, but only
quick-link I can find to support my claims.

~~~
ndaiger
That's a specious argument.

You linked to short, mild a speech on the House floor from 2005 encouraging
primary home-ownership as a means of investing, and a Fox News report about
responding positively to a question about hiring a qualified ex-lover for an
entry-level job 14 years prior to that speech.

Neither has anything to do with the advice or article.

------
coldcode
I wonder if this current environment is anything like a previous time
regarding influence of a voter. For example the vote on Davos seems to have
been more influenced by nearly $!M than any number of communications. For my
own state Rubio got $100,000 in contributions to ignore what we in the state
care about.

