Flooding Congress with email: advocates fear communications cut-off with lawmakers.

Mindful of the ominous "what next?" scenario, the nonprofit sector is up in arms because of a recent decision by many Congressional offices to try to limit inbound electronic communications. The chief argument, clearly stated on each participating office's Write Your Representative page, is that a large portion of incoming email is SPAM, not constituent communications. But according to Allison Kozak, director of online strategies at Earthjustice, a nonprofit law firm based in Oakland, Calif., that just isn't the case.

In a December, 2005 Congressional Management Foundation document, The Best and Worst of Supreme Court Grassroots Campaigns, the authors outline some of the effective and ineffective practices they observed during the U.S. Supreme Court appointment processes of John Roberts, who became chief justice, and Harriet Miers, who didn't even make it to confirmation hearings. Similar complaints were found in CMF's latest report regarding how the Internet and email have changed communications, Communicating with Congress: How Capitol Hill is Coping with the Surge in Citizen Advocacy.

Kozak and others in the sector sound-off on some of the key complaints made by Congress in the past concerning grassroots campaigns.

Ineffective Targeting. According to the December, 2005 document, "some groups monitored encouraged citizens to send messages to the entire Senate Judiciary Committee or to the entire U.S. Senate. While contacting many senators may seem more effective than contacting just the two that represent you, it is not."

There is a perception on the Hill "that legislators only want to speak to their constituents, even if they're serving in a position that makes them a national legislator," said Kozak. "When you serve on a committee, particularly if you're a chair, you are certainly answerable to everyone in the nation. And I strongly believe that those individuals on the committees failing to examine the concerns and comments of U.S. citizens that just don't happen to be in their districts is a great mistake."

Bill Pease, chief technology officer at GetActive, a provider of advocacy services to nonprofits, argued that some Congressional offices have resorted to what he called the nuclear option. "They won't accept a comment from anybody unless you actually go to their Web site and submit it directly, jumping through whatever hurdles they want you to jump through." Most offices require online visitors to enter a ZIP code before a message can be sent.

Failing to Encourage Personalized Emails. The CMF's study on communicating with Congress found that personalized or individualized messages to Congress have more influence on members' decision-making process than do identical form messages. Of the Capitol Hill aides surveyed, 44 percent said personalized communication would have a lot of influence on a legislator who was undecided on an issue, as opposed to 3 percent who said identical form communication would.

"Earthjustice, in almost every email, urges people to personalize emails," said Kozak. "Because we recognize that it makes it more meaningful for the legislator, as do a lot of organizations." Conversely, Kozak noted that because these days constituents have less time, "if they agree with the message that we've put together as a starting point for them, there's no reason that they shouldn't communicate that." Kozak said many in the nonprofit sector agree that it's necessary to help legislators to distinguish between personalized and non-personalized communications, but advised that legislators should look at treating the bulk messages as not merely a non-personalized communication, "but as more a signing of a petition"

Very much a core and traditional component of lobbying in the American political system is the petition, said Pease. "The fact that many people agree with one position and want to support it is sort like a shrine," he said.

According to the CMF study, 89 percent of Congressional staff surveyed would like the ability to differentiate list-generated campaigns from those sent through direct constituent action.

"We're totally prepared to make that distinction, because we think it's an important one," added Kozak. "It's certainly something we've identified that should be an easy fix. And we are willing to work with vendors to provide the software and make sure that it's in a way that the House and Senate email systems can handle."

A second argument by Congressional offices is that a good portion of the non-personalized--or form--emails are in fact SPAM, or Astroturf. Of Congressional staff surveyed, the study found that 25 percent doubt the legitimacy of identical form communications, and half of those surveyed believe the form communications are sent without constituents' knowledge and consent.

"SPAM? That's ridiculous," said Pete Sepp, vice president for communications at National Taxpayers Union. "Once again, Congress is attempting to make the communications process a one-way street. They get to send out all the unsolicited mailings and communications they want, while those of us who choose to communicate with lawmakers through organizations we joined get to take a detour."

To call bulk constituent emails SPAM, "it's indicative of the deterioration and the pervasive negative attitudes on the Hill toward organizationally mobilized lobbying," said Pease, who said there is absolutely no evidence to suggest that people who are sending these messages aren't intentionally sending them. "If you visit any organization's Web site, no matter which vendor is powering it, it's simply impossible to generate these messages without human interaction."

Creating Unclear Expectations. According to the December, 2005 document, some online petitions are unclear about whether the message would be sent as an individual email or as a petition. The document cited several nonprofits that failed to specify. "The problem with this is that citizens' expectations for a response are likely different when they sign a petition to 100 senators than when they send an email message to two senators," reads the document. It went on to state that this may even fuel mistrust of Congress.

"I don't think that that's accurate," said Kozak, who said her organization has a vocal constituency. "We get a lot of feedback on the issues we choose to ask for people's help with. Very rarely has somebody sent us anything that said they expected to hear back from this person. Folks' expectations when they use an automated system like this, is that some offices can handle these email communications beautifully, and some cannot." Kozak went on to say that the majority of constituents understand that if they really want to reach their legislators, and if they have the time, they need to call. "That's still the top method of communication."

Generating Redundant Messages. The December, 2005 document reads, "There are groups in the grass-roots community that view the idea of disabling Congress by flooding offices with massive amounts of communications as tantamount to success."

Said Kozak, "That's a misconception that I am really shocked to hear. I don't know of anybody who does that, consciously floods email systems. Our job is to effect constituent communications with their representatives and senators, and by flooding offices and breaking down those communications systems, we're not accomplishing what we want." Additionally, said Kozak, "if there is a basic position on an issue, why does every piece of correspondence have to be different from the other one? Why can't it be the same as the next person's? To a certain extent that makes it easier to evaluate."

While all agree that some arguments made by Congress are legitimate, the consensus is the current solution is not the right one. "I'm cognizant that they have some legitimate needs here," said Pease. "The real issue is, is it the politically astute thing to do: instead of to announce, 'We're overwhelmed, let's figure out a way to solve this problem,' they throw up barriers to reduce the volume of inbound communications."

NTU's Sepp agreed, "It's a very unhealthy answer." As for Kozak, she said she's hopeful that a solution will be achieved involving best business practices and technology that allows constituents to effectively communicate via email with their legislators. "That's the hope."