Why lobbyists are necessary

If you have a message that needs to be heard, contact one of our government relations professionals today. Here are five positive ways lobbyists impact the lawmaking process: They provide history, context, and perspective on key issues. Experienced lobbyists can help lawmakers analyze the merits of an idea before it makes its way into the process and can sometimes forecast the success or failure of a bill based on legislation or circumstances that have come before it.

Veteran lobbyists have often witnessed or even participated in similar efforts over the years, giving them credible insight into what challenges or support an idea or concept might face when presented for consideration.

Individuals, associations and companies of all sizes often seek the help of lobbyists when it comes to sensitive or controversial issues, which may be difficult to address, articulate or even support publicly. Lobbyists can neutralize arguments, organize PR strategies, and mobilize grassroots support in ways other entities simply cannot. A light touch may be required to reach one demographic, while a more aggressive approach may be necessary to convince another.

Lobbyists anticipate the politics of moving a bill. With this insight, they can provide legislators and others the information needed in the legislative effort. Identifying which lawmakers are likely to be allies of a cause and which lawmakers are likely to try and block a particular bill can mean the difference between success and failure. Lobbyists, in turn, provide lawmakers with critical information necessary to achieve goals. Often lawmakers have specific reasons for not wanting to see a bill passed or not.

Lobbyists understand the legislative process inside and out. They act as liaisons between the public and representatives in Congress, helping congressional members understand issues they may not otherwise know much about. The lobbying industry has faced its share of criticism from economists, academics—even the POTUS in his initial run for president. Some see lobbying as existing only to benefit special interests, and the richest industries and corporations.

In , for example, a conglomerate of 93 U. Their argument: The money saved would be used to create jobs. Depending on your viewpoint, you may see creating jobs as a top priority and take no issue with the strategy used by this corporate conglomerate.

Or you may view their move as nothing more than an unethical means of tax evasion. Cascade benefits from the reduced turnover, lower training costs, and more motivated workforce that its program brings.

And as the state with the third largest welfare tab, Michigan benefits from supporting fewer welfare recipients and having citizens who are moving toward economic self-sufficiency. Although lobbying is a powerful tool for advancing social responsibility, most firms underuse it. The leading CSR organizations barely mention how companies can use their government affairs departments and outsourced lobbyists to advocate for social issues. And CSR executives rarely discuss lobbying for good at conferences on corporate citizenship.

Europe leads what little discourse there is, as recent reports from SustainAbility and AccountAbility demonstrate. Yet here, too, the emphasis is still on avoiding irresponsible lobbying rather than promoting its proactive cousin: lobbying for good. The irony of the post-Enron world is that the organizations with the greatest assets to influence government—companies—are the least likely advocates for social issues.

In contrast to most nonprofits, companies represent thousands of voters—their employees—and create the tax base on which governments run. They can leverage their vast brand recognition and marketing channels to broadcast policy messages.

They can reach beyond their own operations to mobilize entire industries, including supply chain partners and downstream buyers. They can multiply the power of their social advocacy by forming business coalitions. And they can lobby more liberally than nonprofits and private foundations, which face tighter state and federal restrictions.

Why have firms been so slow to lobby for good? Our analysis suggests three reasons. Companies are only beginning to apply their expertise to social problems, and when they do they wield more conventional capabilities such as marketing, finance, and strategic planning.

Adding the weight of government affairs personnel to address social problems is both new and difficult to value. Companies are also wary that CSR lobbying might invite skepticism. Applying government affairs personnel to social problems may provoke questions about whether companies have hidden agendas.

Companies may also worry that they are crossing a legal boundary by using their government affairs offices for social advocacy. Yet these fears are unfounded.

When companies lobby for good, they are on the right side of the law. In the United States, corporate foundations cannot use foundation funds for direct lobbying, nor can companies reap direct benefits from their foundations. But as long as companies themselves are doing the advocacy, corporate lobbying for good does not incur any more legal requirements than does conventional lobbying.

Companies also like quick results. Governments, in contrast, take their time to change their ways. Compared to funding a nonprofit grantee, influencing lawmakers is complicated and, at times, tedious. Companies are not so naive as to think that the speed of social change should mimic quarterly business results, but they prefer that their CSR initiatives deliver at least in time for an annual report.

Budging the government may be slow work, but the payoff can dwarf that of conventional grants. Finally, some critics take a page from economist Milton Friedman and argue that lobbying for good is even more irrelevant corporate largesse than is pure philanthropy.

Although we disagree with the argument that companies should focus solely on business, particularly in this increasingly interdependent world, we agree that companies have a responsibility to think strategically about which issues to tackle.

In the past, companies mostly undertook defensive CSR initiatives to mitigate the impact of their business activities or to repair their reputations. More and more, however, companies are adopting a proactive stance, viewing the improvement of relations between business and society as a new opportunity for innovation and competitive advantage. Companies are certainly not the only actors confronting social issues, and so establishing their distinct contributions is difficult.

Government, nonprofit organizations, individuals, and the media all play essential roles in changing policy.

When corporations do succeed in lobbying for good, however, they should not use their victory as a fig leaf to cover their unsightly forms of corporate influence. Instead, companies that are serious about aligning their corporate lobbying and social responsibility agendas should first make sure that their government relations do not undermine their CSR initiatives.

Likewise, they should make sure that the industry associations and think tanks with which they are affiliated do not contradict their CSR actions.

This requires greater coordination between government aff airs and CSR departments. Companies must also make their government policy positions more transparent. More affirmatively, companies should identify opportunities to use their government relations expertise and resources to advance social issues. Global companies have sophisticated government affairs operations, both internal and outsourced.

Companies also need to recognize that lobbying for good is another way to build better relationships with policy makers.