"The sky is falling..."

Status
Not open for further replies.
Lawmakers usually under the threat of being voted out will typically lean towards and act accordingly to voter sentiments. :D

They know they are in office because people vote them in.
This works both ways. Unfortunately, in my area the vast majority of the voters are antigun. This is why the politicians are antigun. They don't lead, but follow. I could give you examples of local politicians that used to have "A" ratings from the NRA, but switched 180 degrees when they started getting antigun feedback from their voters.
 
Anyone got some sample letters?

A few points worth noting in light of what keeps being proposed:
  1. We tried an "assault weapons ban" for a decade, studied its effects, and found it didn't work.
  2. Most of the mass shooters passed background checks, so background checks wouldn't have prevented the shootings and are not a "common sense" response to them.
  3. Background checks have been repeatedly shown to not work, as recently as October 2018 in the Annals of Epidemiology.
  4. "Red flag" laws circumvent due process. Depending on how such laws are worded, a person could have his/her guns confiscated in a SWAT raid at 3 a.m. at gun point on nothing more than the unsubstantiated accusation of another person, such as a disgruntled ex. Such raids have involved pets and people being killed in the chaos, and sometimes they raid the wrong address.
Gun control for anti-gun individuals and for those who are indifferent and often ignorant on the subject are basically an emotional issue. They want the government to "do something" when a mass shooting occurs--even when that something wouldn't have prevented the mass shooting to which they are responding. It is an uncomfortable notion for many people to accept that if a person wants to do other people harm, there's not much anyone can do to prevent it. Police are called during or after a violent crime, not usually before. Training in self-defense is one thing you can do in advance, with or without a firearm, to protect yourself and your loved ones, but ultimately it's during the crime that you might have to do use that training. It is not comfortable for people to realize that they are responsible for their own safety and that laws can't protect them.
 
A few points worth noting in light of what keeps being proposed:
  1. We tried an "assault weapons ban" for a decade, studied its effects, and found it didn't work.
  2. Most of the mass shooters passed background checks, so background checks wouldn't have prevented the shootings and are not a "common sense" response to them.
  3. Background checks have been repeatedly shown to not work, as recently as October 2018 in the Annals of Epidemiology.
  4. "Red flag" laws circumvent due process. Depending on how such laws are worded, a person could have his/her guns confiscated in a SWAT raid at 3 a.m. at gun point on nothing more than the unsubstantiated accusation of another person, such as a disgruntled ex. Such raids have involved pets and people being killed in the chaos, and sometimes they raid the wrong address.
Gun control for anti-gun individuals and for those who are indifferent and often ignorant on the subject are basically an emotional issue. They want the government to "do something" when a mass shooting occurs--even when that something wouldn't have prevented the mass shooting to which they are responding. It is an uncomfortable notion for many people to accept that if a person wants to do other people harm, there's not much anyone can do to prevent it. Police are called during or after a violent crime, not usually before. Training in self-defense is one thing you can do in advance, with or without a firearm, to protect yourself and your loved ones, but ultimately it's during the crime that you might have to do use that training. It is not comfortable for people to realize that they are responsible for their own safety and that laws can't protect them.

Perfect!
 
A few points worth noting in light of what keeps being proposed:
  1. We tried an "assault weapons ban" for a decade, studied its effects, and found it didn't work.
  2. Most of the mass shooters passed background checks, so background checks wouldn't have prevented the shootings and are not a "common sense" response to them.
  3. Background checks have been repeatedly shown to not work, as recently as October 2018 in the Annals of Epidemiology.
  4. "Red flag" laws circumvent due process. Depending on how such laws are worded, a person could have his/her guns confiscated in a SWAT raid at 3 a.m. at gun point on nothing more than the unsubstantiated accusation of another person, such as a disgruntled ex. Such raids have involved pets and people being killed in the chaos, and sometimes they raid the wrong address.

I like the points, but may I suggest some slight wording changes.

We tried an "assault weapons ban" for a decade, studied its effects over that time and the decades since, and found that the homicide rates fell on their own after the ban and that rifles didn't play any significant role in homicide rates.
 
Last edited:
"They want government to do something"
And government has and will continue to do the same 'something' over and over expecting improved results. The problem, their 'something' only affects folks that never had malicious intentions to begin with.
Time to try a different tact?
 
FWIW, I have worked in a Congress critter's DC office, albeit before 9/11. It was true that letters were more highly regarded than phone calls and emails and the pre printed stuff by various interest groups was kinda at the bottom of the heap.

9/11 has changed the procedure due to the anthrax attacks via mail and thus all congressional mail by constituents goes to a facility to be bombarded with radiation and scanned to kill off any biologics. This slows the receipt of the mail quite a bit (at least it was a few years ago). So, this is simply my observations from working in politics and dealing with politicians off and on over the years.

A) the folks that get the highest attention (aside from donors who have a different relationship with candidates) are those that do regular party work and not surprisingly these folks are more likely to actually get a word or two with candidates from time to time. Local political party organizations are remarkably open to someone that does hard grunt work and keeps their mouth shut especially if they are a volunteer. At party events, you often then get access to candidates and can give information to them in a less adversarial manner and they do not necessarily regard you as a gotcha type recording the whole thing for a sting.

B) Personal contact options, if you are Average Joe or Josephine citizen who does not appear like a crank or act like one. Town halls, campaign rallies, etc. can often give someone a very short window to access the candidate directly via questions or information--do not necessarily expect them to give public commitments right then and now but your information does seep through. Another good approach is most congress critters have local offices that are less busy than the DC office, particularly during recess in Congress. Go there and bend a staffer's ear but do not come across as a crank or threatening. The local offices do funnel information back to the DC office.

DC offices visits can also be helpful but remember that they are very busy, including staffers, during sessions and they can vary in helpfulness and have their own hierarchy. The Administrative Assistant is a chief of staff for the office, then you have legislative assistants that focus on the congress critter's legislative interests, depending on the position of the congress critter in seniority and committee assignments, there might also be another staffer or two from committee staff that are more or less assigned to do the member's work for that committee. Then there are secretaries and interns but you can still give information to them as well. Leadership offices in Congress have their own separate suites and are harder to access for Average Joe or Josephine because of restrictions in walking around Congress--but their regular office for their constituency is perfectly accessible in the congressional office buildings. Senators have bigger offices and greater staff so are generally harder to access--be content to deal with staffers. Be aware that there is a wide variance in how these offices treat visitors but be polite, be focused, and keep the message short. Occasionally, during travel, especially via DC and back, you might actually see your Congress critter and be nice, be polite, get your views across in a very short manner, and then leave them alone.

Next, there is indirect communication. The various pre printed stuff and the goofy mailer petitions etc. are not that useful. Congress critters and staffers are well aware that interest groups raise money through these mailers either directly or indirectly. The key thing for mass mailers, whether for commercial or non-profits or political, is to get you to OPEN THE ENVELOPE. Then you are much likely to give money of which a fair amount goes to the mass mailing firm. Thus, this material is designed to go to your fears, your greed, etc. rather than appeal to your rational side. Think of most political mailers/postcards that either say the other person is a bum, and/ or I will cause you to get more money/employment/happiness, or identity politics where the person claims that I am one of you and will fight to get your view through to (fill in the blanks--county commission, state legislature, Congress, and so on). Interest groups will give you mailers or phone numbers to Congress, etc. for you to GIVE THEM A PIECE OF YOUR MIND etc. and by the way can you give for the fight brother since it is so critical at this time. If you think of the tactics of con-men, there is a close resemblance to these in the marketing operations of interest groups.

So enough of what doesn't work well, then what does. A simple letter, do not worry so much about grammar, etc. as long as it is personal and does not parrot the talking points on TV vomited forth by "stategists" or your favorite pundit. If you come across as honest, concerned, and worried about the state of the country given a particular policy and you are well informed about that policy, then you might actually trigger a reaction. If time is of the essence, then fax the doggone thing--I have not dealt with the issue recently so it might also be possible to send it fedex or ups without going through quarantine but mebbe not. The shocking incident where a citizen actually spends their own money and time providing information on a subject might just cause some consideration of your points relayed to the Congress critter. You can also deliver such a letter in person to the local office for them to send and it is almost as good. One to two pages would be the max. If you can do a postcard, then do that but vague pronouncement like support the 2A ignores the reality that Congress votes on specific legislation and not principles. Congress is just capable of passing unanimously a resolution to support the 2A while also passing a bill that eviscerates it in actual effect. It is usually better to focus on whatever legislation is currently before Congress than vague new policy proposals.

Now we get to emails. Since 9/11 and technology spread, emails are probably the most common form but staffers also recognize that a lot of folks will simply vent. They obviously if well written etc. can help but the problem is email overload which happens even in your own mailbox--stuff can get overlooked. On email, it is often difficult to determine for staffers whether or not the person is a robot, someone from outside of the district who obviously is less important than someone in the district, a crank, etc. The weird email monickers that people use can also be a problem if [email protected] is sending something, the staffer assigned to garbage duty might just not read it. The problem has only gotten worse as email is the new junk mail with spam, idiots, and people passing along chain emails, cluttering up inboxes.

Instead, I would propose using technology in a different way via epetitions or social media groups, or whatever, to provide concrete evidence that these are real people and real voters in a district tha have an opinion. Then print out the epetition/social media likes/posts/ etc. comments (there are multiple sites that do this) and results and present that to the local district office in printed form (with links so the staffer can verify the material). You have a petition with 1000 voters or more from the district, you will get some attention to your cause because the rule of thumb is that each might actually affect the vote of 4-5 people so the interest might be 5000-10000 votes affected by the issue.

Last, but not least, phone calls. In my opinion, at the federal level, these are less useful and often it is difficult to get through during peak votes. Some congress critters have apparently shut off calls even in high emotion events. If you must if time is of the essence such as unexpected amendment etc., you can try the national office but also try the local office as they will relay it. Better yet, most offices still have the fax machines to send a written message as an alternative because you might only get a moment to say "Yes I support HR 7328 or no, I do not support HR 7328--thank you", if the controversy on legislation provokes massive response. Remember you are also competing against interest groups that can afford phone banks and I suspect even paying shills to call in.

Depending on the size of the state or local government, some of these tips are more or less applicable but the officeholders can be more accessible than federal officials and fewer staffers to shield them from the citizens. Direct contact is almost always best unless you present a poor image of what you are trying to do. People are judged on appearances and behavior--deal with it accordingly. Written, as mentioned above, is also useful depending on the format. Avoid stale talking points derived from the media or mass mailers of your organization--chances are that the officeholder has heard it all before. Instead, speak from your heart and mind and be informed on the issue that you are trying to address. Remember you are trying to persuade someone so hectoring them, boring them, threatening them is pointless whether it is a staffer or the candidate themself. And last but not least, there is strength in numbers so the social media/petition approach where you are the bearer of actual voters and their opinions will strengthen your approach.

For better or worse, winning or losing, I have been involved in campaigns at the local, state, and federal levels and public policy issues at these levels on and off for nearly forty years. and these are my observances and one might say my professional opinion. As usual, YMMV and you might have a different take but remember, as much as it might seem that politicians are aliens from another planet at times, they are human too. They have feelings, likes and dislikes, and pride as well--so use the Dale Carnegie approach rather than treating them as an instant enemy, an excuse to vent over everything wrong with the country, or a dummy. The old saying if you want to friend a hog, then you gotta friend them back is true.

FAXING! What a great idea! Thank you so much! :)
 
It's easy to jump on message boards and complain, it's also a large waste of time. What...

And, the poster ''feels good'' , thinking they accomplished something.

Easiest & most effective is a phone call IMHO
 
Now we get to emails. Since 9/11 and technology spread, emails are probably the most common form but staffers also recognize that a lot of folks will simply vent. They obviously if well written etc. can help but the problem is email overload which happens even in your own mailbox--stuff can get overlooked. On email, it is often difficult to determine for staffers whether or not the person is a robot, someone from outside of the district who obviously is less important than someone in the district, a crank, etc.

For many legislators, emails are the best way to get through if they're done right.

Honestly, Senator Hornswaggle probably doesn't care what one constituent thinks of Proposition 19. But he does care what 400 or his constituents think if it looks like it might hurt or help him in November. To that end, he has a staffer who reviews this stuff. She's paid a pittance, if at all, and she's going to ignore anything that starts with "you're a commie who hates the 2nd Ammenmant and I hope you lose to the other guy." She's not going to read anything that goes on for sixteen paragraphs before getting to the point.

However, she's going to keep a tally of how many people write in supporting or opposing the bill. To that end, a clear, concise email helps.
  • put "I oppose Proposition 19" right in the subject line
  • keep it short. "I oppose Proposition 19 because raising the speed limit on Route 19 will cause more traffic accidents."
  • be nice. Use words like "please" and "thank you," and avoid threats. Even threats like, "I'll send someone to primary you in November."
  • leave clear contact information. Sign it with your real name, your town, and a good phone number.
Your individual email might not be brought to his attention, but if enough clear correspondence is received in opposition, Senator Hornswaggle will take notice.
 

The major issue with emails and why is at the bottom to me of communicating with congressional offices is that it offices cannot distinguish between constituents and increasingly organized email campaigns of interest groups that may even be getting emails from around the world or hired spam agents filling the inbox. Going through emails will be assigned or not to the lowest level grunt or not at all. Often interest groups spoil everything as the bussing of out of district folks to target lawmakers using townhalls has led to less public access for example. Politicians consider their voters' opinions important, others not so much.

Snail mail, or even to some extent, faxes or phone calls communicate location (address or area code) which is important to be able to track for offices as most simply do not care what out of district or out of state folks communicate as they are not their voters. While interest groups could probably fake letters to congress critters, just as you may receive fake junkmail disguised as a personal note or thank you, it is expensive when applied to politics. Faxes are given special protection under the law from "junk faxes" and can be more quickly identified as a source via a phone number than can an email.

Phone calls have the area code indicator as well as some offices ask for address of the caller so that their call is routed to the proper congress critter for notification (also as a screen for voters). Today, most congress critters have access either through their own political campaigns or via congressional party committees of their constitutents' feelings on old perennial issues like gun control in their district from polling and focus groups. Phone calls, emails, letters, personal contacts, etc. are mainly used then to confirm or disconfirm that polling/other type information. These local sources can perhaps also indicate, absent national type campaigns, newly arising policy issues and problems if they care to look--this temperament varies by office as many are uninterested in policy.

Congress critters have been subjected to increasing bombardment by so called astro turf campaigns (playing off the grass-roots politics ideal) where a certain sub-species of political operatives put together a complete package for a price to persuade congress critters with faux emails, paid scripted letters to the editor/congress critter, spam type drafted letters/postcards with premarked labels, phone calls directed through national switching banks, paid protesters, etc. All to persuade them that their constituency wants "action". Just like most of us now have to screen our calls and emails from spammers, these offices have had to develop spamming screens to separate the good information about voters in their home districts and spamming type activities from political/policy operatives.

This is not to discourage people from sending emails especially if the option is to do nothing else or it is an emergency. My post was to indicate the time and trouble might be better spent by cultivating a long term personal relationship with these folks. A phone call for example can lead to a brief discussion with the staffer and proper id that you are in the congress critter's district or state. A fax can do something similar and will stick out nowadays as that is not the preferred way of spammers or national interest groups. Social media is pretty new and I do not have a good feel for congressional offices usage to keep tabs as my contacts on Capitol Hill have mostly moved on to other things. I'll try to ask one of my remaining friends with recent contacts and experience there when I catch up with him/her and update the THR when I do.

Speaker of the House, Tip O'Neill once said that all politics is local. He meant that politicians that want to retain their seats must accede to local opinion over the long run. Interest groups and many of the organized political organizations work at the national level and may have different incentive structures than does the individual officeholder. So a good politician, particularly in a competitive district, quickly learns that developing a personal relationship with the district's voters is crucial to keep one's seat. Getting good information about the district's preferences and expanding the number of personal "friends" in the district can make a difference in primaries and general elections. Strom Thurmond's office was famous for the personal touch and Lindsay Graham kept many of these folks on when he took office. On average, a good constituency relationship office can add up to 5-10 percent more votes which makes a difference in a competitive seat. Al D'Amato was famous as Senator Pot Hole for his attention to NY State voters and survived several elections in a Democratically dominated state.

So, one route to regular screened access to politicians is through regular un-paid party work as a volunteer if you do a good job. Another is simply to develop relationships with the folks in the local or national office where they see you as a straight shooter with no paid affiliations. This can happen through regular phone calls, letters, and better yet personal visits either on the same issue over time or a variety of issues.

If you are on your best behavior and not lecture them, but genuinely discuss the issues with the staffers, it will get back in some form to the congress critter. To do so, you need more than media bullet points but a genuine knowledge of the issues at stake in a policy. If you wait until a crisis arrives on a policy, which is usually does, to communicate then you are behind the curve because everyone else who waited to the last minute is also trying to bend their ear. If you wanted a reasoned discussion on the problems with red flag laws, the best time would have been when there was not a political crisis involved.

Want to know what the secret is behind successful lobbyists, it is long term personal relationships and providing good information, not so much the money and secret handshakes. I know for a fact that many politicians secretly despise some interest groups or donors because of the belief that the congress critter is "owned" by them. Most despise policy windbags as well and self-appointed zealots. Thus, lobbyists or anyone else who try to use fear and control over a congress critter are usually less effective than someone who present their positions fairly, admits weaknesses to their approach, and is personable, friendly, etc.
 
I like the points, but may I suggest some slight wording changes.

We tried an "assault weapons ban" for a decade, studied its effects over that time and the decades since, and found that the homicide rates fell on their own after the ban and that rifles didn't play any significant role in homicide rates.

The homicide rate actually began falling prior to the awb, from what I recall.
 
It depends on which study you want to believe.

John Lott did more damage to us than any four senators.

Integrity, intellectual honesty and character all matter in every walk of life. Those attributes are amplified beyond belief in academia.
 
Last edited:
It depends on which study you want to believe.

John Lott did more damage to us than any four senators.

Integrity, intellectual honesty and character all matter in every walk of life. Those attributes are amplified beyond belief in academia.

I'm sorry, but you're going to have to explain that. The LOTT MUSTARD, aka, "University of Chicago" study was a landmark study revealing how guns are really used in America, despite the generalistic, alarmist rhetoric of the media and political class. There is also Gary Keck's (University of Florida) study.

Just what did John Lott do that was so bad? Inquiring minds want to know.:scrutiny:
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top