How the Flattened Costs of Grassroots Lobbying Affect Legislator Responsiveness

Abstract

Leading theories of grassroots lobbying assert that legislators should respond positively to the volume of grassroots lobbying messages because volume indicates the salience of an issue among constituents. This notion rests on the idea that the costs of producing a large volume of grassroots lobbying signals the value of the information to legislators. Advances in technology and strategy, however, have flattened the costs associated with producing such information—it costs much less to generate one additional e-mail message than before. In this environment, the volume of grassroots lobbying no longer signals the value of the information it contains. Instead, I believe trust becomes the critical factor in evaluating grassroots lobbying. I test this theory using a survey of state legislators. I find that lobbying message volume has no effect on legislator responses to higher salience issues, and a negative effect on lower salience issues.

Analyzing the Impact of the Medicare Coverage Gap on Counseling Professionals: Results of a National Study

“…Additionally, the results of our study suggest that practicing counselors, especially those with more years of experience, have a unique responsibility to tell their stories about the MCG to legislators and other key stakeholders. From a systems advocacy perspective, harnessing the experiences of counseling professionals who are willing to speak about their own experiences with the MCG is vital given that legislators are more likely to be compelled to act when they hear from constituents who share direct information about a phenomenon in a manner that requires the constituents’ time and energy (Cluverius, 2017). In light of the value of advocacy efforts, counseling professionals who have compelling stories to share will continue to be relied upon when grassroots advocacy is used.…”

How Trust Attitudes Promote Grassroots Lobbying in the American States*

“…People may engage in grassroots lobbying organically in response to the news of the day (Frantzich, 1985), but they are more likely 2 to do so at the behest of membership groups and other organizations (Hojnacki and Kimball, 1999;Walker, 2009). Nevertheless, both behaviors are consistent with grassroots lobbying (Kollman, 1998;Cluverius, 2017). 3 Organizations use grassroots lobbying as a tactic across multiple venues, but it requires the engagement of citizens to be successful (Holyoke, 2003).…”

Medicare Reimbursement for Counselors: Counseling Professionals’ Advocacy Beliefs and Behavior

“…In regard to advocacy methods used, it is notable that the methods of VoterVoice technology and social media were more than twice as frequently used as writing a personal letter or sending an email, and they were eight to ten times more common than an in‐person meeting with legislators or their staff. According to Cluverius (2017), the rise of automated technologies to contact legislators has flattened the cost, or amount of time invested, when participating in legislative advocacy. Although mass communication platforms like social media or VoterVoice make grassroots advocacy easier for members of professional organizations, there is an ongoing need for more time‐intensive forms of engagement, such as phone calls, personal letters, or in‐person meetings, as these forms may be viewed as more valuable to lawmakers (Cluverius, 2017).…”

“…According to Cluverius (2017), the rise of automated technologies to contact legislators has flattened the cost, or amount of time invested, when participating in legislative advocacy. Although mass communication platforms like social media or VoterVoice make grassroots advocacy easier for members of professional organizations, there is an ongoing need for more time‐intensive forms of engagement, such as phone calls, personal letters, or in‐person meetings, as these forms may be viewed as more valuable to lawmakers (Cluverius, 2017). In light of the current study, this suggests that increasing the number of professional organization members engaged in low‐cost activities (e.g., VoterVoice, posting on social media) should be paired with a simultaneous increase in medium‐ or high‐cost advocacy, such as writing a personal letter, making a phone call, or scheduling an in‐person meeting.…”

“…In light of the current study, this suggests that increasing the number of professional organization members engaged in low‐cost activities (e.g., VoterVoice, posting on social media) should be paired with a simultaneous increase in medium‐ or high‐cost advocacy, such as writing a personal letter, making a phone call, or scheduling an in‐person meeting. Although these latter forms of advocacy are time‐consuming and may require a larger degree of advocacy skill on the part of the constituent, it is the very costliness of the advocacy that signals to legislators that this issue is particularly important to their constituents (Cluverius, 2017).…”