The Internet has made it easier and cheaper to contact Congress than ever before. However, technological developments have been so rapid that neither the senders (the citizens and campaign organizers), nor the receivers (the congressional offices), have learned to use it in ways that facilitate truly effective communications. As a result, while more messages are being sent to Congress, it seems as though less actual communication is occurring.

Today, NCoC joined with SparkAction to host a special webinar presentation of the Congressional Management Foundation’s (CMF) latest “Communicating with Congress” research. Entitled “Perceptions of Citizen Advocacy on Capitol Hill,” the research explored how the Internet affects congressional communications, and is the first study to assess how social media is integrated in congressional offices – both to communicate legislators’ views, and to understand constituents’ opinions.

The research, conducted in late 2010, compiled the views of 260 Congressional staffers from both parties and houses on what they believe are the most effective communications tactics for influencing undecided Members of Congress. It further explored innovations in communication, such as how and whether the Internet has made legislators more responsive and accountable to constituents, and the differences in impact between different forms of communications (e-mail, postal mail, in-person visits, and social media).

Key findings include:
1. The Internet helps participation and accountability, but understanding the political process is still important.
• 87% thought email and the Internet have made it easier for constituents to become involved in public policy.
• 57% felt email and the Internet have made Senators and Representatives more accountable to their constituents.
• 41% thought email and the Internet have increased citizens’ understanding of what goes on in Washington.

2. Online communication doesn’t replace personal interaction.
• Constituent visits to the Washington office (97%) and to the district/state office (94%) have “some” or “a lot” of influence on an undecided Member, more than any other influence group or strategy.
• Questions at town hall meetings (87%) and letters to the editor (80%) have “some” or “a lot” of influence.

3. Regardless of the medium, personalization is critical
• There is virtually no distinction between the efficacy of email (88%) and postal mail (90%) in influencing an undecided Member.
• Messages that are customized in some way are much more influential than form letters (only 1% said form communications have “a lot of positive influence”)

4. Staff are conflicted on the value of grassroots advocacy campaigns
• More than one-third of congressional staff (35%) agreed that advocacy campaigns are good for democracy (25% disagreed).
• Most staff (90%) agreed – and more than 60% strongly agreed – that responding to constituent communications is a high priority in their offices.
• More than half (53%) agreed that most advocacy campaigns of identical form messages are sent without constituents’ knowledge or approval.

5. Social media used to communicate more than listen
• Across all social media channels (Facebook, Twitter, etc.), Members were more likely to use the medium to communicate their views/positions than listen to public feedback
• Potential reason for this is the Members’ inability to distinguish which comments are coming from their constituents versus part of the larger online dialogue.


We want to hear from you—download the “Communicating with Congress” report and consider these discussion questions:
1. Do any of these findings surprise you?
2. What innovative ways have you seen connective technologies have significant influence on policymaker opinion?