Communicating With U.S. Legislators: What Has The Greatest Impact?

Animal advocacy organizations often call upon their supporters to help push for legislative change. For these tactics to be as effective as possible, it’s important to understand how they’re perceived by those on the receiving end. Does sheer volume of communication have the greatest impact, or do legislators prefer a more personal approach? This 2004 study, conducted by the Humane Research Council (now Faunalytics) on behalf of the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA), set out to determine just that.

Researchers conducted 77 phone interviews with legislative offices in 10 U.S. states. These states were divided into “high-presence” and “low-presence” states according to the number of ASPCA email subscribers residing there. High-presence states included California, Illinois, Louisiana, New Jersey, and New York, while Iowa, Maine, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, and South Carolina were identified as low-presence states.

The researchers aimed for a balance of urban and rural and Democratic and Republican representation. Roughly two-thirds of the interviews took place with staffers rather than the legislators themselves. These staffers included senior legislative aids, directors of communications, and chiefs of staff. The interviews lasted from 15 to 20 minutes, and questions were designed to gain a better understanding of both the reach and efficacy of current communication methods between the public and legislative offices.

Volume Of Communication

Legislative offices received communication from the public in the form of emails, faxes, letters, phone calls, and in-person visits, with most interviewees characterizing the volume of these as moderate to high. Emails and letters made up the bulk of communication, followed by phone calls, and, least frequently, faxes and in-person visits. The volume tended to be lower in low-presence states.

Roughly half of states said that they kept tallies of incoming messages. This was more likely to happen for key issues or major bills.

Communication Methods And Their Impact

Overall, interviewees preferred emails and letters to other forms of communication. Emails were especially preferred in high-presence states. Phone calls were typically seen as disruptive and time-consuming. Faxes were viewed similarly to letters, but high-volume (“blast”) faxes were considered irritating.

Generally speaking, tolerance for different types of communication depended on the legislative office’s budget and staffing levels due to the effort required to sort through and respond to messages.

Interestingly, however, there was little overlap between communication preferences and impact. While less preferred, phone calls and in-person visits were considered more impactful than emails or letters. In particular, being well-versed on the issue was an asset for these more personal approaches. Letters were seen as more impactful than emails because they tended to be more substantive.

Some interviewees felt that it was worthwhile to try more than one method of communication to ensure that the message reached the decision-maker.

Do Messages From The Public Influence Legislators?

Overall, communication from the public had a moderate influence on legislators’ opinions. The volume of messages played a role, as did the issue itself — particularly when it was a recent focus in the state. This was especially true of animal-related communication, which tended to be issue-driven and received in higher volumes in high-presence states and urban areas.

Staffers often acted as “gatekeepers” in filtering what communications they passed along to legislators. Generally speaking, clear, succinct messages were appreciated and fact-based messaging was viewed more favorably than emotional appeals. Interviewees also agreed that a lack of understanding of the issue evident over the phone or in person was unprofessional and a disservice.

Mass Communication

The vast majority of interviewees were annoyed by form letters and emails and blast faxes. However, in some cases, these were still tallied and given equal weight to more personal messages — especially when sent from constituents. Thus, a form email from a constituent was given higher priority than a personal message from a non-constituent.

Some interviewees suggested that it would be better for advocacy organizations to send a single letter with multiple signatures from their supporters.

Constituency Matters

Not surprisingly, incoming messages from constituents were given the highest priority, though some legislative offices responded to people outside their district, as long as they resided in the same state. Many legislative offices simply discarded messages from non-constituents.

Demographic Differences

There were no apparent differences between Democratic and Republican legislative offices in terms of the volume and impact of communication from the public. Rural legislators tended to prefer phone calls and in-person visits more than their urban counterparts, as well as place greater importance on individualized messages. Thus, party affiliation seemed to be less of a determinant of how legislators handle and weigh messages than urban versus rural areas.

While these results aren’t necessarily representative of the entire country, they still provide some key insights into what kinds of advocacy efforts are most likely to be effective when communicating with state legislators. Personalized messages from constituents have the most impact, while form letters and emails and blast faxes not only have the least impact, but are also more likely to cause annoyance. Thus, for animal advocates, it’s clear that campaigns directed at legislative offices should come from their own constituents, be individualized and targeted to the legislator in question, and avoid an impersonal, mass-communication feel.