Lobbying Strategy vs. Grassroots Strategy
The issues of the 21st century are complex. Whether you work for a mission-driven organization or dedicate your time as an activist for local issues, it can be hard to imagine winning when the problems seem too big, the opposition too powerful, or the public opinions too entrenched. How, and where, do you start making a road map for change?
There are key differences between lobbying and grassroots approaches that will help you make a plan that’s right for your organization, issue, and membership. These two strategies are contrasted as separate frameworks in this blog, but they can be brought together for effective and winning integrated campaigns in practice. At New Fundamentals, we work with organizations that seek to transition or integrate grassroots strategy into existing lobbying strategies or vice versa to create winning campaigns.
Lobbying strategy refers to mainstream professional advocacy strategies that center legislators and lobbyists as the primary actors in social change. Grassroots constituents are seen as supplemental; constituent groups are marginalized from direct leadership and no connection is made between legislation and the issue as it is lived and experienced by them.
The organization loses a source of power and longevity through this marginalization, but it can preserve its reputation and relationships. This strategy must accept the limitations and constraints of its political context because its source of power is limited to a few people; as a result, legislative victories are also constrained, and the legislative agenda is likely determined by other groups or decision makers. Its primary question is “how do we maintain a seat at the table while advancing what we think is feasible?”
Recent decades have seen the popularization of newer organizing models, or what is referred to in this piece as grassroots strategy. While grassroots organizing isn’t new, social media and digital organizing systems have introduced new scales, models, and tools. These models vary widely, but the scope of this blog focuses on what they have in common: the strategic assumption that ordinary people, not lobbyists, are the primary actors in progressive social change. It involves the direct participation and leadership of grassroots constituencies.
Because grassroots strategy “punches up” and is directed towards building shared power, it can be seen as disruptive and confrontational by individuals and decision makers who already hold power. However, it also has the capacity to win major victories that shift the political landscape. This strategy does not need to accept the given limitations of its political context because its source of power is derived from a group of people outside of the existing political structure; its primary question is “what do we need to build in order to get what we need?”
Ultimately, these two strategies are built on vastly different analyses of power. Lobbying-based strategy centers the decision maker’s power, and relies on some combination of persuasion, donations, and relationships. Grassroots strategy centers the peoples’ power, and can be durable within a community regardless of who holds the seat. When we center peoples’ power, communities can imagine and make real different futures for themselves.
Any organization seeking to develop integrated grassroots campaigns has to be clear about its analysis of power in order to be successful; these strategies underlie every action an organization takes, whether acknowledged or not, because they express how the organization structures the relationship between itself and the world. Understanding power in campaign strategies and how they are different is the most important part of developing a winning campaign.
The major structural changes demanded by the issues of the 21st century will not be possible without large numbers of people demanding action. Learning the key differences between a lobbying and grassroots strategy can help you understand how to lead in a changing political landscape.
Key Differences: How to Differentiate between a Lobbyist and a Grassroots Strategy
Lobbyist to lawmaker relationship vs. constituent to lawmaker relationship
In a lobbying strategy, the relationship between a lobbyist or policy professional and lawmakers is prioritized over the relationship between constituents and their elected lawmaker. Strategies that center lobbyists over constituents and communities prioritize access over action and influence over collective power.
Speaking on behalf of constituents vs. constituents speaking and acting on their own behalf
One of the clearest distinctions between a lobbying strategy and a grassroots strategy is who is saying what to whom. Within the lobbying strategy, a professional staff representative will speak on behalf of a constituency to decision makers. In a grassroots strategy, the people whose interests are impacted by the issue speak for themselves, and the staff of the organization use every opportunity to develop the leadership and experience of their members to lead and represent themselves.
Supervised engagement vs. distributed actions
Lobbying strategy does not put grassroots members in leadership positions. Professional staff plan and strategize actions, while vetted grassroots members carry out tasks under the supervision of staff. There are a myriad of pitfalls inherent in this model that can’t be fully discussed in this blog, but include burnout, paternalistic group dynamics, and a lack of leadership development. Certain marginalized groups are by definition left out of this strategy, potentially leading to solutions that make an affected group even more vulnerable- even when done with good intentions.
A grassroots strategy builds the capacity and expertise of participants and has clear guiding principles, outcomes, and a vision for the future. Proposed legislation that the campaign moves forward puts those principles, outcomes, and vision into a codified form and has a measurable impact on the membership base. Participants take leadership and action on their own behalf, and organize and lead others in action. Staff may have a coordinating, training, and/or tracking role, but the leadership rests with grassroots members.
Mobilizing “vetted” members vs. mass mobilizations
Similar to “supervised engagement,” a lobbying strategy mobilizes a small group of members judged by staff as trustworthy, especially when interactions with a decision maker are involved. The group of participants always gets smaller as staff seek out the most familiar, influential, or well-educated participants that self-select for leadership opportunities.
A grassroots strategy has continual training, outreach, and mobilizing opportunities that teach leaders how to recruit more people; the goal is to mobilize a continually expanding group of people in a structure that encourages and trains their leadership skills. If the strategy is successful, mobilizing will reach a scale large enough that it will be impossible for staff to vet or personally train every single participant.
Passing bills vs. building power
A lobbying strategy counts as a win any action or new relationship by a Member of Congress, and defines victory as advancing and passing any legislation, even if far weaker than the goal. A grassroots strategy defines as a win building the power of the organization to pass powerful legislation, even if it means a short term legislative loss, and defines victory as passing the legislation that they know is their long term goal. Each legislative victory in a grassroots strategy is a stepping stone to a larger, future victory. Either strategy can win in the short term, but only people power will change the politics of the issue to win bigger tomorrow.
When we center peoples’ power, communities can imagine and make real different futures for themselves. Developing sector-wide coalitions, choosing issues that get to the root of problems, and continually training and expanding distributed constituent bases are what we consider a few of the new fundamentals of campaigning. It is no longer realistic to run single-issue, single-organization lobbying campaigns and win when the issues are complex, structural, and global and the opposition is sophisticated and well-funded. We can work with your organization to help you build the campaign you need to win.