Insider/Outsider Advocacy Strategies

January 1, 2007

Religious advocacy groups, like other interest groups, can choose among a variety of strategies and tactics. However, given that the majority of religious advocacy organizations are registered under 501(c)(3) tax-exempt status, they are not “lobbies” in the legal sense and therefore are limited to “educating” policy makers for the sake of “public interest.” In return, 501(c)(3) status offers tax-exemption for both the organization and the donations it receives.
Insider Advocacy
There is a fine line between the strategies used by lobbying organizations on Capitol Hill and the “insider advocacy” tactics employed by religious advocacy groups. Most of these strategies directly overlap, including meetings, phone calls, and other forms of face-to-face interaction between advocates and members of government. Such meetings are invaluable opportunities for members of the advocacy community to educate policymakers about their organizations’ issues of concern and build relationships with politicians who can serve as advocates for their causes. For example, it was only through her discussion with Nancy Pelosi on the topic of the 2007 U.S. Farm Bill that Monica Mills, Director of Government Relations at Bread for the World, had the opportunity to effectively express her moral opposition to certain aspects of the legislation.

Interestingly, 97% of the organizations surveyed reported meeting with government officials ten or more times during the past year. Only one organization, the Buddhist Peace Fellowship, reported no engagement in “insider advocacy” activities. The advocacy groups surveyed reported approaching policymakers across the three branches of government, not only meeting with high-level officials but their staff as well.

Some well-connected religious advocates exert enough political clout to warrant regular meetings with highranking government officials. Richard Land, a highly visible advocate with the Ethics and Public Policy Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention, meets personally with President George W. Bush on an average of three times a year. Similarly, Jim Wallis of Sojourners has met with Congressional leaders Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid multiple times. Regardless of stature, however, the overwhelmingly positive response elicited from most organizations with regard to their use of insider advocacy suggests that government contacts play an important role in the advocacy strategy of powerful and less established organizations, alike.

Grassroots Advocacy
Notably, not a single organization relied solely on insider lobbying. Most reported that the grassroots contacts between their members and policymakers are more important. By mobilizing constituents to push towards political change, grassroots advocacy is inextricably tied to insider strategies. When Monica Mills was asked about her organization’s preferred advocacy strategies, she insisted that insider and grassroots advocacy “cannot be separated,“ noting that the two strategies “feed on each other.” Religious advocacy organizations engage in grassroots advocacy when they know they have dedicated members who are willing to contact policymakers and share their religiously-informed views. Respondents mentioned frequently using grassroots advocacy methods such as letter writing campaigns, call-ins, demonstrations, and advocacy training.

Political advocacy groups utilize weekly emails, newsletters, and community-based leaders in order to educate and mobilize members. For example, the conservative group Concerned Women for America (CWA) is organized into state chapters and prayer action groups. The CWA headquarters routinely provides these subsidiary organizations not only with lists of issues to pray for, but also with action-lists of recommended steps they can take to influence their congressional representatives and shape legislation. The majority of the surveyed organizations reported spending more time on grassroots advocacy than on insider advocacy. While a majority of religious advocates stated that both types of advocacy are equally important, 28% said grassroots is more important compared to only 13% who believe that insider advocacy is of greater importance.

By emphasizing their connections with grassroots constituents, religious advocacy groups act as important liaisons between their members and politicians. The effectiveness of insider advocacy largely depends on outside grassroots support, which is most likely why elected officials give religious advocates, especially those representing larger religious populations, an audience. While corporate lobbies can afford to “wine and dine” members of Congress as well as give to campaign election funds, religious advocacy organizations often lack such financial resources and are legally prohibited from donating to campaigns because of their 501(c)(3) status. What religious advocacy organizations do have to offer, however, is the social capital found in their membership bases. The effectiveness of their advocacy increases when they can demonstrate strong support among a large membership base on a particular issue.

Determining The Issues
Among the groups surveyed, a wide variety of techniques emerged for determining a group’s political agenda. On one side, there is the unique consensus model of the Friends Committee on National Legislation (FCNL), which goes through a careful tradition-inspired process in order to reach a nationwide consensus among their supporters on any policy position before advocating for or against legislation to Congress. Ruth Flower, Legislative Director for FCNL, describes the process as a “long, highly participatory consensus- building model for articulating policy [that] usually takes 15 months or longer.” In contrast, other organizations, such as Bread for the World and the National Association of Evangelicals (NAE) largely rely on senior staff to determine their priorities. However, the NAE membership reserves the right to overturn staff priorities if they strongly disagree with a decision made by the leaders of the organization.

For some groups, such as the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC), issues are as much defined by the current reality of the political world as they are by the long-term interests of the members. The rise of civil rights infringements following the “War on Terror,” for example, has become paramount to the MPAC’s agenda. In the case of groups like MPAC, where constituents have strong ties to populations abroad, a tension often emerges between the advocacy organization’s focus on domestic issues and the wishes of some members to see the organization advocate for the community’s broader international interests. While some Muslim advocacy groups have been vocal on the Arab-Israeli conflict, others avoid Middle East politics altogether, recognizing that an international focus could hurt the organization’s objectives by shifting attention away from more pressing domestic concerns. Similarly, since Hindu temples are the only religious institutions under government control in India, many members of the Hindu American Foundation (HAF) wanted the organization to exert pressure on the Indian government to prevent government intervention of temple disbursements, monetary and otherwise, and to eventually grant independence to Hindu temples equal to that of other religious institutions in India. However, HAF Executive Director Ishani Chowdhury explains, “While we do feel that this [issue] needs to be pursued, [it] is simply not something that can possibly be done by an organization whose primary purpose is to promote Hinduism’s voice in America. [The protection of Hindu temples] is something that is best suited for organizations in India to take up and work to change.”

Although religious advocates may take different approaches to prioritizing the issues they choose to promote, the common thread underlying the religious advocacy community seems to lie in the religious foundation of the decision. When Richard Cizik of the NAE was asked if his faith influenced the organization’s issue-selection, he replied simply, “Christianity is fundamental to our issue choice. I see the job of a Christian to be a workman, watchman, and a witness.”

External Link

Opens in a new window