Aretha Got It Right: R.E.S.P.E.C.T.

By Constance Campanella, President and CEO

At a recent conference of state Attorneys General, a corporate advocate referred to the assembly of almost 30 state AG’s as the “farm team.”   It was meant to juxtapose AG’s against Governors and was intended as a compliment. 

Unfortunately, as a compliment, the reference fell flat.   Actually, it fell right through the floor.   AG’s were offended to be referred to as a “farm team” at their own meeting. 

I also have occasion to work with someone (NOT a client) who constantly refers to state legislators as Members of Congress or State Congressmen.    Despite repeated corrections, the reference persists.    

For as long as I have been in state and local government affairs, I’ve dealt with the fact that the federal arena enjoys higher status.    It is just the way it is. 

And, sometimes, those who toggle between the vaulted chambers of the US Congress and our tiny world of  50 STATES, get confused.   That’s understandable.   Hey, we all make mistakes.

But, as professionals, it is our responsibility to ensure that the individuals we work with on behalf of our organizations or clients know that they enjoy our respect.      

And, it works both ways. 

If you Show Respect, you can Gain Respect. 

My definition of lobbying has long been the “Delivery of Respected Messages. “

When I teach about lobbying, I talk about each of the main words in that definition:  Delivery, Respected and Messages and what they represent.

“Delivery” comprises everything from timeliness, methods of communication, access, relationships and responsiveness.   

“Messages” embraces content, values, negotiating stances, political pressures and perspective.  

“Respected” is the fiber that holds it all together.   Absent a respected messenger or a respected client, nothing works.     A well-delivered, well timed message from a disreputable messenger is a waste of time.   

Fortunately, having a disreputable client is not usually the problem.  More frequently, it is the case that a lobbyist or their client is a stranger and must first acquire credibility and respect in order to be effective.   

As consultants,  we loan some of our respected status to clients while helping them  establish their own positive relationships with government officials.    Clients are not “going in cold” because we have laid a foundation.     

But, you cannot loan what you do not own! 

Obviously, in-house lobbyists or state government relations managers must likewise be respected and given the amazing turnover rate among state officials, all of us are constantly in the process of building new relationships and sustaining old ones.     

If you are responsible for 5-10 or more states, that’s really hard work and often taken completely for granted.    

Regardless of your role in State Government Relations, here are some suggestions for earning R.E.S.P.E.C.T.

Research
Learn about your advocacy targets.  Learn about the culture and the processes of the governing body.   Learn the lingo, the culture, the Do’s and Don’ts and the Case Studies. Never go in cold.   

Expert

Bring something to the table besides a winning smile.  Know your company, business, industry.   Be valuable because you are more than just a hand-shaker.   Always be prepared to explain what other states or cities have done.  It is the number one question lawmakers ask when confronted with a new topic. 

Share

Beyond being an issue expert, being “in the know” is another way to ensure that people return your phone calls and seek your involvement.   Someone who can help government officials understand how an issue is being debated, who are the opponents and proponents and other forces at work is highly valued as long as the “sharing” is substantive and accurate.   This is not about gossip. 

Power

Lobbyists have power  when they can bring sides together, when they direct grassroots resources in an issue campaign, when they have relationships that put their clients “at the table,” when they help keep friends and allies in office and when their knowledge and expertise is sought after.   Being powerful should be one of your goals. 

Executives

Participation in government matters by CEO’s and other high-up executives is essential, especially when dealing with Governors and Mayors.   It should be a goal to encourage this participation.  Also,  when the senior executives get first-hand experience of working with government, they often become more passionate supporters of government relations. 

Coordination

It usually falls to state government relations executives to bring together the disparate parts of an organization (company, association, coalition)  to reach a decision about a policy.   Being able to do that – repeatedly, reliably and in a timely manner – is a great skill and much appreciated and valued by government players.    

Trust

Last letter.   Most important.    You must be trusted and trustworthy.  Make promises and keep them.  If you make mistakes, correct them.   And, do not ever ask a public official to take a position you are not prepared to defend.   

R.E.S.P.E.C.T., that is what it means to me.

By Constance Campanella, President and CEO

ARE GOVERNORS’ SEATS FOR SALE?

This year’s gubernatorial elections have seen several candidates spending millions upon millions of their own money in order to get a job that pays less than $200,000.  Of course, it isn’t about the money, but the ability to affect policy that is driving them to seek the office.  (I’ll let the psychologists debate how much simple ego is also involved.)  The conventional wisdom is that money can influence elections, but do those who self-fund with large amounts of money always win their races?

If you are running in a California primary and are willing to spend $30 million, the answer is no.  Although not because self-funders don’t win. Steve Poizner found out that even if one spends $30 million in a primary, that candidate can still be trounced by another who spends $70 million. Meg Whitman has already set new records for self-funding a state political campaign and she still has three months until the general election.

Last night’s Republican gubernatorial primary in Michigan did result in another self-funder wining a nomination.  Rick Snyder spent several million dollars in a multi-candidate to field to win one third of the vote.  His two closest competitors each garnered about 25% each. 

The final big self-funder of the year is Rick Scott who is running for the Republican gubernatorial nomination in Florida against Attorney General Bill McCollum.  Their primary is August 24^th and Scott is leading comfortably in most recent polls.

With their primary wins (or lead in Florida), what are their prospects for November?  If history is any guide, Republicans may be disappointed.  The National Institute on Money in State Politics put out a report in June entitled “The Efficacy of Self-Funding a Political Campaign” (http://bit.ly/aY2P0U), and it should give pause to those who think money can buy an election.  The study looked at the Top 10 self-funders from 2000 through 2009.  Eight of the ten races were for Governor and only Jon Corzine was successful in his first run in 2005.  His unsuccessful 2009 re-election race joined six other failed gubernatorial bids in the Top 10.  Down ticket races may be a better place for self-funders, since the other two Top 10 self-funders won the seats they were seeking.  David Dewhurst was elected Lt. Governor in Texas in 2002 and Steve Poizner had much better luck in his 2006 run for California Insurance Commissioner.

Others who were unsuccessful in their gubernatorial runs included B. Thomas Galisano (I-NY) who spent $74 million of his own money in 2002, Tony Sanchez (D-TX) who spent $60 million in 2002, Steve Wesley (D-CA) who lost the primary after spending $35 million in 2006, and Dick DeVos (R-MI) who spent $35 million trying to knock off Governor Granholm in 2006.  Doug Forrester (R-NJ) in 2005 and Kerry Healey (R-MA) in 2006 were the other two in the Top 10.

There must be something about California primaries and $30 million. While not included in the study because it was before 2000, former airline executive Al Checchi spent $35 million in his unsuccessful effort to be the Democratic nominee for Governor in 1998 to join Wesley and Poizner in the $30 million-plus loser club.  The other big spenders all made it to the general election.

Of course, the outcome of any race is going to be based on the individual candidates, but the fact that seven of the eight top self-funded races were lost by the self funder should be a reminder that money alone can’t win a race.  The skills that often help individuals amass a personal fortune are often not the same skills that can help win an election, no matter how much money a candidate can spend.  This is especially true at the top of ticket. 

While down ballot races can often be won or lost with campaign strategy, commercials and get out the vote activities, voters expect the person they are electing to lead their state to be in the public and answer the tough questions about how they would govern. Long campaign days and repeated questions from reporters can sometimes bring out personality traits previously hidden, and opposition research can dig up information that can put the self funder in a negative light.  And, no surprise, the most negative information seems to come out close to the election when there is little time left to respond. 

Because these self funders are usually first time candidates for office, they have to be careful that the image they create about themselves is close to the real thing.  When it isn’t, the disconnect can be very jarring for voters, who will then write off the self-funder.  With no previous vetting of negative information and no public record on which to fall back, the façade of the “savior” candidate is impossible to recreate if that persona is tarnished. The question isn’t whether or not we will see negative information, the only question is what sort of dirt are we going to see about Whitman, Snyder and Scott?

We will have to wait for the election results to see whether this year’s self funders will follow the historical pattern of recent years or join Governor Corzine as an outlier.  Both Ms. Whitman and Mr. Scott have already spent enough to make the Top 10 list.  Mr. Snyder may turn to more traditional fundraising for his general election, and he may not make the Top 10 list, which could make him just another candidate that supplemented his campaign with personal funds.  There are plenty of those candidates, and if history is any guide, that is the path Mr. Snyder should follow for victory.

By Steve Arthur, sca@stateside.com

Is 2010 a Year for Independents?

Yesterday Florida Governor Charlie Crist announced he was leaving the GOP to run for the U.S. Senate as an independent as polls continue to show him trailing Marco Rubio badly in the Republican primary. However, those same polls showed that either Rubio or Crist would beat Democratic Congressman Kendrick Meek easily in November. But, Crist running as an independent makes a three way race competitive for any of the three candidates.

His move to capture the political center is not the only high profile race in which this is happening. At the state level, both Massachusetts and Rhode Island are seeing strong gubernatorial bids by independent candidates. In both of these cases, the independent candidates are portraying themselves as the candidate who best represents the political middle. In addition, Las Vegas Mayor Oscar Goodman toyed with the idea of running for governor as an independent before bowing out in January. In Michigan, former Republican Congressman Joe Schwarz created an exploratory campaign in March to run for governor as an independent.

Massachusetts

Tim Cahill (www.timforgovernor.com), the current Massachusetts State Treasurer, likely dropped his Democratic registration to run as an independent because it would be tough to beat incumbent Democratic Governor Deval Patrick (www.devalpatrick.com) in a Democratic primary. Instead, a three way race between Cahill, Patrick and Republican Charlie Baker (www.charliebaker2010.com) or Christy Mihos (www.christy2010.com) makes this three way race a toss up. Without Cahill in the race, many handicappers believe this is a pick up opportunity for Republicans because of Patrick’s perceived unpopularity. In fact, Republicans still think this is a winnable race as the Republican Governors’ Association (RGA) has created a website (www.thecahillreport.com) to put their spin on the Cahill candidacy.

Rhode Island

Former Republican U.S. Senator Lincoln Chafee (www.chafeeforgovernor.com) has also dumped his party label to run for governor as an independent. As in Massachusetts, a three way race makes the general election match-ups very close against Republican John Robitaille (www.robitailleforgovernor.com) and Democrats Patrick Lynch (www.lynch2010.com) or Frank Caprio (www.frankcaprio.com).

Odds of Success

While these candidates are all running as “antidotes” to the two party system, how likely is a victory in a year where most voters have been expressing serious doubt about both parties?  While rare, a few independent or third party candidates have won gubernatorial races in the past. In 1990, Lowell Weicker won a three way race in Connecticut after being defeated for re-election to the U.S. Senate as a Republican just two years earlier. In Maine, Angus King was elected in 1994 and Jesse Ventura was elected by Minnesotans in 1998.

However, last year’s gubernatorial race in New Jersey illustrates the more common outcome for an independent run. There, incumbent Governor Jon Corzine was challenged by both the Republican Chris Christie as well as independent Chris Daggett. While Daggett polled close to twenty percent just weeks before the election, he was never perceived as a potential winner in the race and his support evaporated as people decided to choose between the contenders. He ended up with about six percent of the vote.

That is always going to be the challenge for any independent candidate. They need to stay close in the polls to be considered a potential winner to keep raising money. The party candidates can rely on the resources of their party to carry them through to the election. Will Chafee, Cahill and possibly Schwarz be able to do that? We will have to wait for a few more months to find out.

Steve Arthur, sca@stateside.com