I have been involved with the Internet since the 1980’s and was active in working with bulletin boards and list serves when they were key technologies for interacting and communicating, before the advent of the web.  I’ve been fascinated, as a result, with the major role that the Internet has played in this presidential campaign.   The many ways that web based services and mobile technologies can be used to organize, inform, coordinate and communicate has truly demonstrated the power of these technologies to expand political participation and help establish a more informed electorate.

 

That is why I was particularly interested recently to read a recent survey and analysis prepared by the Congressional Management Foundation concerning the ways in which citizens use the Internet to communicate with their members of congress.   The report is extensive but what struck me as most interesting were a couple of the findings. 

 

First, the survey found that almost half of all Americans contacted their U. S. Senator or Representative at some point over the past five years.  That is certainly a much higher level than I would have imagined.   I worked on the Hill myself in the late 1970’s and early 80’s, before the advent of the web and before mobile phones were widely used.  In those days of course, writing letters or calling members and staff were really the only two options available if a citizen wanted to contact the Hill (aside from personal visits).  I remember well when we got out first fax machine and it was to be used only for the most important communications!  I am reasonably certain that only a fraction of all Americans in those days contacted their member of congress on any issue.

 

I suspect that a major reason that Americans are far more likely to contact Congress nowadays is the fact that email and electronic communications of many kinds are widely available and make it possible to more easily communicate with members and staff.  Even simple things we take for granted today, like unlimited calling plans, may be a factor.  In the old days (back in the 1970’s and 80’s when I was on the Hill), it cost quite a bit of money to call a member of congress long distance (in fact, in 1984, my last year as a staffer in Congress, the price of a long distance call was still 32 cents a minute and it was much higher in the 70’s!).  Due to competition and advances in technology (such as the deployment of mobile networks and flat rate calling packages), people have numerous ways to contact Congress and most of them, including phone calls, do not cost a lot to use or are “free” (in the sense that you pay for the service usually monthly but can send an email or make an individual call without paying for it). 

 

Second, the survey found that interest groups play an important role in how citizens learn about an issue and in stimulating contacts with members of congress. This too is not surprising but what is also interesting (according to the report) is that staff on the Hill sometimes feel more suspicious of “advocacy” campaigns which can stimulate constituent contacts.   Again, this is not surprising.  Both the number of groups actively advocating these days and the high levels of activity that these groups stimulate (due in part to the power of the Internet to connect people with a campaign or issue) is responsible for some of this attitude.  It may simply seem like there are too many of these campaigns and they too easily generate letters or contacts.

 

What is interesting too is that while staff seems somewhat suspicious of “advocacy” stimulated campaigns, citizens themselves, according to the report, see the role of advocacy groups in a positive way.   Having myself been very actively involved for years with many non-profit advocacy groups (such as the PTA), I know how important it can be for a group you are a member of to contact you with information or a request.   It is to be expected that in a vast number of cases, citizens don’t “on their own” find out about an issue or decide to contact their member of congress about it.   After all, most Americans do not spend their days thinking about policies in Washington.  But when they are informed about an issue or alerted to its importance by a group they are members of or respect, it is understandable that a request from that group to make a contact with a member of congress might draw a response.  Not all advocacy groups are created alike, but on the whole, they can be an important part of the policy process and can help stimulate citizen involvement.

 

I know Hill offices these days are very busy and overwhelmed by communications of all kinds on a wide array of issues.  New Internet and web based applications – such as blogging – have only heightened the level of activity and made the lives of staffers even more hectic.   While it would be nice to think citizens spontaneously respond to issues that might have an impact on them, they lead busy lives and are understandably preoccupied with raising families and earning a living.  I suspect that some Hill offices, as the report notes, are skeptical of advocacy driven campaigns because they don’t believe that these groups really do connect with average people or they feel that citizens who have an interest should just express it.   The report from the Congressional Management Foundation suggests that often these advocacy groups can and do play valuable roles.