How We Influence Change
Hacking the political system
LOBBYING 101: THE ACT of attempting to influence decisions made by government officials and legislators. The word comes from gathering in the hallways, or lobbies, of legislatures – mostly because lobbyists don’t have a seat inside. If you never get close enough to the lobby to influence change, then you’re a special interest group – not yet a lobbyist.
Politicians will have their photos taken with special interest groups; they quietly take the calls from lobbyists. The difference is clout – the clout to affect public opinion [translation: votes] or actually influence votes.
The biggest mistake that special interest groups can make is blind faith in the righteousness of their cause – that its pure nobility would spur action. If that were true, poverty, homelessness and elder abuse would have been eradicated long ago.
Or maybe they think that wearing a uniform, like a firefighter or police officer, or just a three-piece suit or stethoscope, gives them a blank cheque to call the shots. It used to be true that uniforms gave some groups gratuitous influence over public discourse; but uniforms are not much use now unless you’re auditioning for the Village People.
Well-funded think-tanks that share the ideological persuasion of the governing party can still expect their ideas to go directly from their lips to the ministers’ ears. But now, the legislators still wait a beat to see if the issue has any public trac- tion – not least because established media is no longer the final arbiter of who gets traction; social media and the blogosphere have democratized access to public opinion-making. Small nimble groups can go toe to toe with industry giants.
The changed landscape has made it easier for CARP to make its voice heard. And the unchanged presumptions out there about aging make for easy fodder in media polemic. In the 2008 election, CARP called out a West Nova MP for belittling his 60-year-old opponent as too old to be running against him. Calling ageism the last frontier of bigotry, CARP pointed out that there were 18,000 voters over age 60 in his southwestern Nova Scotia riding and that, in 2004, 70 per cent of that age group voted; so potentially, he was offending 12,600 voters. And quite a few must have been because he lost by nearly 1,600 votes in the next election. Correlation equals causation!
In 2011, CARP pried loose election promises that became reality a short year later – GIS top-up for the poorest seniors, caregiver tax credit, increased sentencing for elder abuse, ending mandatory retirement and preliminary pension reform. In that election, every party addressed these issues and older Canadians would have benefited regardless of which party formed government.
CARP unpacks the issues to help our members navigate through the political spin, and our internal polls demonstrate not only that their clear policy priorities are wellinformed but also which are ballot issues for them – among Canada’s most politically engaged voters. That politicians heed that message has become a battle cry for other groups who claim their causes are more righteous or their demographic less influential. Some even think it useful to demand a halt to any more improvement to the quality of life for today’s seniors so that public largesse can be transferred to them instead. A better idea would be to join us since we are already covering their backs. Older Canadians offer their lived experience in confronting their health and financial challenges to inform public
“Established media is no longer the final arbiter”
policy and make life easier for those who follow.
The best way to get things done is to not mind who gets credit for it. So offer votes – the lobbyists’ currency of exchange – only to enlightened lawmakers ready to spend political capital on initiatives that may not bear fruit within their mandate.
Instead of matching special interests with the political interest of legislators, lobbying 2.0 aligns both with the public interest to benefit us all.