SEARCH
On Twitter...
Connect With Us…
Nonprofits and Lobbying: Wolf in sheep’s clothing?
Posted in: Blog, Non-Profits by Anand Chandrasekhar on November 24, 2009
Many non-profits spend a significant amount of time and resources on influencing policy. To some this a means to an end while for others it is the end itself. Organisations may passively contribute to policy making through conventional channels in the decision-making process as legitimate stakeholders. This is generally through consultations, serving on boards and committees and as information providers. The other method used to influence policy is through the media or by pro-active engagement with decision-makers themselves. It is this second category that is raising some issues concerning non-profit accountability.
The Oxford English Dictionary defines lobbying as ‘an organised attempt by members of the public to influence legislators’. It also defines advocate as ‘a person who publicly supports or recommends a particular cause or policy’. Hence, while most non-profits claim to be advocates, many of them might actually be participating in lobbying. Non-profits dislike the lobbyist label as they do not wish to be associated with a term with perceived negative connotations. For many it conjures up images of Jack Abramoff types with a fedora and cigar wheeling and dealing in corridors of power.They prefer the more genteel sobriquet of advocacy as they feel all they only giving people a voice.
However, the lobbyist/advocate issue is much more than mere semantics or an image problem. In some cases the stakes are higher and may affect how the law regards an organisation or a professional. A case in point is the new ethics law passed by the State of Massachusetts. A provision within this law expands the definition of what constitutes lobbying. Under the law, lobbying will include background work, strategizing, research and planning and not just actual communication with officials. In addition, people and organizations will formally be considered lobbyists if they spend more than 25 hours of paid time at those tasks within a six-month reporting period. Thus the new broader definition would compel many non-profit advocates to register as lobbyists under the new law. The question arises, is it really such a big deal?
Tim Garvin, president and CEO of the United Way of Central Massachusetts certainly thinks so. “My opinion is that there is a huge distinction between lobbying and advocating… we give voice to people who don’t have voice.” Many within the non-profit sector also object to having additional reporting demands thrust on them. Some feel that lobbyist classification should not be based on hours spent on policy work but proportion of salary paid for it. They also want interns and lower-paid non-profit employees to be exempt from registering to reduce registration costs and avoid reporting burdens.
Others such as Pam Wilmot, executive director of Common Cause Massachusetts, which helped pass the ethics law, said nonprofits that work to affect the government are as much lobbyists as anyone else and ought to face the same transparency requirements. She also argues that many advocates for good causes are registered lobbyists and what is or is not a good cause is really in the eye of the beholder. Ms. Wilmot, a registered lobbyist herself, feels that the additional reporting demand is minimal and justifiable in the interest of good public policy.
Today’s non-profit sector is struggling with an identity crisis. It has incorporated the work culture, fund-raising strategies, marketing jargon and slick presentation style of the private sector, yet it stubbornly clings to old labels and stereotypes. Credibility is what gives the non-profits their legitimacy. Anything that reinforces this credibility can only be a good thing. After all, a rose by any other name would smell as sweet.
