Keep US Connected

1
Keep US Connected

• Learn How to Make the Most of Your Visit With
  Your Congressperson

Alliance for Community Media National Conference
July 9, 2008 - Washington, DC
2
Presenters
Tom Bishop

• Gerry Lederer
• TeleCommunity
• Miller Van Eaton

Zenaida Méndez Outreach Coordinator Manhattan
Neighborhood Network
Tom Bishop Executive Director Media Bridges
Cincinnati
3
Program Outline

• What can you do as a non-profit?
• Effective Advocacy Steps
• What Goes on In an Office
• Effective Advocacy The State of Play and
  Messages
• ACMs Message
• Role Play

4
Limitations on Advocacy by an NPO/Govt Employee

• Rule Nonprofit organizations have a right and
  responsibility to advocate for the communities
  they serve and engage in the public policy
  process. The resources listed here provide
  information about how to get involved.
• National Council of Nonprofit Associations

5
Limitations on Advocacy by an NPO/Govt Employee
www.clpi.org

• The Ground Rules according to the Center for
  Lobbying in the Public Interest. (www.clpi.org)
• Can I lobby?
• Yes but there are rules. Under the 1976 law,
  charities may spend up to 1 million on lobbying,
  depending on the amount of their annual
  expenditures. If your org has not chosen to come
  under the 1976 law you are under the no
  substantial part test, which means that you can
  only devote an insubstantial amount of your
  resources to lobbying. Unfortunately,
  insubstantial has never been clearly defined
  under the law, with the result that nonprofits
  that do lobby but have not chosen to come under
  the 1976 law cannot be certain how much lobbying
  they may conduct without jeopardizing their tax
  exempt status.

6
Limitations on Advocacy by an NPO/Govt Employee
www.clpi.org

• What is an expenditure/Volunteer Time
• If your organization has chosen to come under the
  1976 lobby law, your organization needs only to
  report actual money expenditures. Since your
  lobbying will be by volunteers, there will be no
  money expenditure and therefore nothing will have
  to be reported to the IRS on the volunteers time
  spent lobbying. Under the 1976 law, the only time
  you have to report anything to the IRS is when
  there is an expenditure of money. Time spent by
  volunteers does not have to be reported. However,
  if you have not chosen to come under the 1976
  lobby law, your organization is subject to the
  substantial part test and the time spent
  lobbying by volunteers will have to be reported.

7
Limitations on Advocacy by an NPO/Govt Employee
www.clpi.org

• Lobbying on Budgets
• Under the 1976 lobby law you are lobbying when
  you refer to specific legislation and reflect a
  point of view on its merits. Specific
  legislation includes a specific measure that has
  not yet been introduced but does not include
  general concepts for solving problems that have
  not been reduced to legislative proposals.

8
Limitations on Advocacy by an NPO/Govt Employee
www.clpi.org

• Federal or State Law?
• State laws generally do not limit how much
  lobbying a nonprofit can do, but they often
  require disclosure of expenditures. These rules
  are different from state to state.At the federal
  level, if your organization has chosen to come
  under the 1976 lobby law, your permissible
  lobbying is judged only by the amount of money
  you spend on that activity. For example, you may
  spend up to 20 of your organizations first
  500,000 in annual expenditures on lobbying. The
  maximum an organization can spend is 1
  million.If you have not chosen to come under the
  1976 lobby law, you are under the no substantial
  part test and the rules are less clear as to
  what constitutes lobbying.

9
Limitations on Advocacy by an NPO/Govt Employee
www.clpi.org

• Lobbying Federal Agencies
• For charities that have chosen to come under the
  1976 lobby law, by filing IRS Form 5768, it
  clearly is not a lobbying activity because there
  is no legislation involved. That is, it doesn't
  count against the amount you may spend on
  lobbying. The same answer holds for organizations
  that are subject to the no substantial part
  test.

10
Understanding Washington

• Power Comes From Three Sources
• Money
• Information
• Ability to Reach an Audience
• Every Policy Decision is a
• Risk/Reward Calculation

11
Communicating with Elected Leaders

• Identifying the Members role
• Scheduling the Meeting
• Meeting Preparation
• The Meeting
• Follow-Up

12
Identifying the Members Role

• On what committees does the member serve?
• How involved is the member in this issue?
• What position has the member taken on the issue
  in the past?
• Is the member a friend or foe? A champion?

13
Scheduling the Meeting

• Identify existing relationships with staff
• Note any previous interaction with staff
• Identify points of mutual interest (upcoming
  events, specific actions being taken, etc.)
• Assess how much time
• to ask for

14
Meeting Preparation

• Research past legislation on the issue that the
  member has introduced, co-sponsored, supported,
  or discussed.
• Identify the members position on any related
  issues.
• Limit the number of people attending the meeting.
• Assign talking points.

15
Getting There
Union Station
16
The Meeting

• Maintain a friendly demeanor - avoid
  confrontation
• Remind the staffer of past support and success
• Ask questions to determine the members current
  position on the issue

17
Keep Us Connected

• Introduce yourself
• Briefly introduce your organization if they
  arent familiar
• Hand out the one-page Assessing the Damage
  survey document
• Ask for their help

18
Follow Up

• Thank the member or staffer for the meeting.
• Promptly send any materials were requested during
  the meeting
• Schedule the next meeting or follow up call with
  staff
• Fill out your ACM survey form

19
ALL MEMBERS ARE IMPORTANT

• BUT SOME CAN HELP OR HURT SOONER IN THE PROCESS

20
Senate Commerce Committee
Chairman Daniel K. Inouye (HI) Vice Chairman
Ted Stevens (AK) John D. Rockefeller, IV
(WV) John McCain (AZ) John F. Kerry
(MA) Kay Bailey Hutchison (TX) Byron L.
Dorgan (ND) Olympia J. Snowe (ME) Barbara
Boxer (CA) Gordon H. Smith (OR) Bill Nelson
(FL) John Ensign (NV) Maria Cantwell
(WA) John E. Sununu (NH) Frank R. Lautenberg
(NJ) Jim DeMint (SC) Mark Pryor
(AR) David Vitter (LA) Thomas Carper
(DE) John Thune (SD) Claire McCaskill
(MO) Roger Wicker (MS) Amy Klobuchar (MN)
21
House Commerce (Ds)
John D. Dingell (MI), Chairman Ratio  31-26

• John Dingell (Chair)
• Henry A. Waxman, CA
• Edward J. Markey, MA
• Rick Boucher, VA
• Edolphus Towns, NY
• Frank Pallone, Jr., NJ
• Bart Gordon, TN
• Bobby L. Rush, IL
• Anna G. Eshoo, CA
• Bart Stupak, MI
• Eliot L. Engel, NY
• Gene Green, TX
• Diana DeGette, CO,
• Lois Capps, CA
• Mike Doyle, PA

• Jane Harman, CA
• Tom Allen, ME
• Jan Schakowsky, IL
• Hilda L. Solis, CA
• Charles A. Gonzalez, TX
• Jay Inslee, WA
• Tammy Baldwin, WI
• Mike Ross, AR
• Darlene Hooley, OR
• Anthony D. Weiner, NY
• Jim Matheson, UT
• G. K. Butterfield, NC
• Charlie Melancon, LA
• John Barrow, GA
• Baron P. Hill, IN
• Doris O. Matsui

22
House Commerce (Rs)

• Joe Barton, TX, Ranking Member
• Ralph M. Hall, TX
• Fred Upton, MI
• Cliff Stearns, FL
• Nathan Deal, GA
• Ed Whitfield, KY
• Barbara Cubin, WY
• John Shimkus, IL
• Heather Wilson, NM
• John Shadegg, AZ
• Charles W. "Chip" Pickering, MS
• Vito Fossella, NY
• Roy Blunt, MO

• Steve Buyer, IN
• George Radanovich, CA
• Joseph R. Pitts, PA
• Mary Bono Mack, CA
• Greg Walden, OR
• Lee Terry, NE
• Mike Ferguson, NJ
• Mike Rogers, MI
• Sue Wilkins Myrick, NC
• John Sullivan, OK
• Tim Murphy, PA
• Michael C. Burgess, TX
• Marsha Blackburn, TN

23
What do you do if your member is not on Commerce
Committee?

• Ask your Senator to request a Senate Oversight
  Hearing on the harm to PEG access.
• Ask your Representative to follow up in writing
  with Energy and Commerce Committee Chair Dingell
  on PEG harm in your state. Ask what is being done
  to fix the problem.
• Ask your member to support an amendment that will
  be brought by the Alliance for Community Media to
  remove the restriction on how PEG funds may be
  spent.
• Ask your member to support a fix in federal law
  to restore the intent of Congress to deliver
  diversity and localism in media through PEG
  access.

24
The State of Play See ACM Guide

• Applying Advocacy Tools and Shared Messages

25
Talking Points -- Vision

• Public educational and government (PEG) access
  delivers the media localism that Congress sought
  in federal law.
• FCC rules and State changes to the franchising
  process require updated language in the federal
  law in order to continue to carry out Congress
  intent.

26
Talking Points -- Vision

• Our Request Please help us restore Congress
  intent to protect local communications that
  support the kind of free speech in civic
  engagement and strong communities envisioned by
  the Founders.

27
The Asks -- Please

• Ask your Representative to follow up in writing
  with Energy and Commerce Committee Chair Dingell
  on PEG harm in your state. Ask what is being done
  to fix the problem.
• Ask your Senator or Representative to support an
  amendment that will be brought by the Alliance
  for Community Media to remove the restriction on
  how PEG funds may be spent.

28
The Asks -- Please

• Ask your Senator or Representative if they
  support a fix in federal law to restore the
  intent of Congress to deliver diversity and
  localism in media through PEG access.

29
Be Wary of the Deal

• Congress wants to please everyone

30
Models of Successful Engagement

• Invite Members to tour facilities/show
• Town Hall Meetings
• Press Events
• Introductions to Compelling Community Leaders
• Build Alliances with like-minded advocates (Free
  Press, Common Cause, NATOA, USCM, NLC, NACo,
  National Hispanic Media Coalition, etc.)

31
The Alliance Package
32
The Alliance Package

• Alliance Public Policy Platform
• Basic information about the Alliance
• FAQ about PEG Access
• Assessing The Damage Summary
• Information About You
• Alliance Staff Contact Information

33
About The Survey

• In May 2008, the Alliance initiated an online
  survey regarding the impact of state video
  franchise laws.
• Alliance NATOA members participated.
• 204 respondents from 33 states representing PEG
  Centers. 1
• 140 respondents from 18 states now have a state
  video franchise law in effect.
• The summary focuses on those states.

34
Impact on PEG Facilities and Services

• About 20 of respondents report PEG funding
  decreases since the advent of statewide
  franchising (including communities in CA, FL, IA,
  IN, KS, MI, MO, NC, OH, TX and WI), while cable
  operators report record earnings. In many
  communities, PEG funding that had been available
  for all PEG-related costs is now restricted to
  capital purchases.

35
Impact on PEG Facilities and Services

• Respondents from 17 communities in 8 different
  states report loss of access to PEG facilities
  managed by cable operators soon after state video
  franchise laws removed local obligations from
  those companies. In addition, Comcast used state
  franchise law as the excuse to close all of its
  PEG facilities in northern Indiana and
  southwestern Michigan in September of 2007, prior
  to distribution of this survey.

36
Impact on PEG Facilities and Services

• 26 of respondents that had public cable drops in
  locations like libraries, schools and other
  public centers, and 41 of respondents in
  communities that had an Institutional Network
  connecting government facilities, educational
  institutions, and PEG facilities report the loss
  or reduction of those benefits (including
  communities in CA, CT, FL, GA, IN, MI, MO, NC,
  OH, TX and WI).

37
Impact on Quality and Functionality of PEG
Channels

• About two-thirds of affected survey respondents
  from 13 states report that new state franchise
  service providers deliver PEG channels with
  impaired signal quality and functionality. For
  example, ATTs U-verse system

38
Impact on Quality and Functionality of PEG
Channels

• takes up to a minute or more to tune in a PEG
  channel
• presents PEG at inferior quality compared to
  commercial channels
• cannot support closed captioning or second audio
  programming
• does not support DVR recording (like TiVo) of
  PEG channels
• strips away PEG channel number identity
• prevents viewers from channel surfing to and from
  PEG channels

39
Impact on PEG Channels Carriage

• Nearly 25 of respondents said they lost or
  expect to lose channels since the advent of
  statewide franchising (including communities in
  CA, FL, GA, IN, KS, MI, MO, NC, OH, TX and WI).
• Respondents from 29 communities in 12 states
  report PEG channels being moved by incumbent
  cable operators to digital only channels,
  decreasing accessibility visibility and
  increasing costs for subscribers.

40
Impact on PEG Channels Carriage

• Respondents from 8 states report that they must
  purchase special hardware and pay significant
  monthly fees to deliver PEG channels to new state
  franchise service providers. Such carriage fees
  were never required previously under local
  franchises, and are not paid by local commercial
  and public broadcast stations

41
Impact on Cable Rates

• Survey respondents confirm what has been widely
  reported elsewhere relief to the consumer from
  skyrocketing cable rates -- the major reason for
  adopting state video franchise laws -- has not
  occurred.
• Two-thirds of respondents said basic cable rates
  have increased in their communities after a state
  video franchise law was adopted and a new
  competitor arrived.
• Only 1 said that rates have gone down.

42
Preliminary Conclusions

• Even in the early stages of adoption and
  implementation, the negative fallout from the
  state video franchise laws has been substantial
  and will continue to mount. As incumbents and
  new entrants apply to operate under these new
  franchises, more communities will experience the
  cutbacks and degradation of PEG services reported
  in this survey, leaving many communities in the
  nation without the diverse, local programming
  provided through PEG channels. This outcome
  directly contradicts the purpose stated in the
  Cable Act of 1984, that franchises be responsive
  to the needs and interests of the local community.

43
Preliminary Conclusions

• Its important to note that where PEG Access has
  greater protection in the state video franchise
  laws, ATT is ignoring requirements to provide
  PEG at similar (CA law) or equivalent (IL
  law) signal quality and functionality as
  commercial channels. This disadvantages, rather
  than serves local communities.

44
Summation

• It is our hope that the information drawn from
  this initial survey of communities affected by
  state video franchise laws will inform proactive
  legislative and regulatory action to preserve the
  localism and diversity of programming that
  emerges from PEG channels nationwide.

45
ROLE PLAY

• Simulated meeting
• Practice Sessions

46
Q A