Jim Beers: Address Given At The Freedom 21 National Conference on Lobbying

Last year I met a priest who enjoyed fishing and canoeing. Although he had
never gone hunting or grown up around guns, he went duck hunting (as an
observer) with me last fall. It was not what you would call a "successful"
hunt, but we had a good time and he was enthusiastic about going hunting
next year. I told him about getting a license and stamps and checking into
a Hunter Education Course. Last winter he told me that he had looked into
the Hunter Education Courses and found all of them in Northern Virginia
required a half-day of classes during the week, but always a FULL day of
classes on Sunday. I told him I couldn't imagine how that could be but that
I would look into it.

Sure enough, every Hunter Education Course required a full day of Sunday
attendance. I thought this was an unnecessary and improper burden for a
required mandate and thought about Lobbying the State game Commission.
Immediately two questions arose. Lobby who? Lobby how?

Now here is how a "reformed bureaucrat" went about it:

- If I were to call the State Hunter Education Office and talk to a staff
person, that person would only defend the status quo as his or her boss
expected.

- If I were to call the "head" of the Hunter Education "Office" or
"Department" or whatever, he would have a vested interest in the schedules
and volunteers he had approved PLUS he would be resentful because a member
of the general public like me was bothering him rather than "his" staff.

- If I were to talk to the local Hunter Education Instructors, they would be
the ones that had adjusted their hours (more likely adjusted the State
Hunter Education Office approved hours) to fit "their" (the instructors)
schedules.

- If I were to go to my State politicians, they would know right away that
there aren't a lot of hunters in these Northern Virginia environs, so they
would assuage me with "Response #37" and send my letter over to the Game
Commission who would forward it to "Hunter Education" who would write a
response to me that would echo what the Department head would have said AND
if I did this AFTER I had spoken with him (the Department Head) I would have
made a non-friend-for-life.

- After mulling all this over, I remembered that the Director of the Game
Commission had recently been fired (for suspicion of misusing funds) and we
had just elected a new Governor. I checked the internet and found out that
there was an "Acting" Director. Now "Actings" are either old guys that don't
want the job or are about to retire or persons that want the job as much as
they ever wanted anything in their life.

- I decided to try and contact the "Acting" Director. How would I contact
him? What would I say?

- I called the general switchboard at 8:10 one weekday morning and asked for
the Director. I was forwarded to his secretary who asked what I wanted and
who I was. I told her I was a hunter in Northern Virginia and I had some
disturbing information that the Director and the Governor should be made
aware of concerning Hunter Education. The Director took the call and was
very gracious. I explained about how all-day Sunday Hunter Education
classes for a priest were impossible but then asked what about Baptist kids
or Catholic teens or Methodist dads? Did it make sense that they HAD to
miss Sunday Church Services in order to buy a hunting license in a State
that had FORBIDDEN SUNDAY HUNTING SINCE COLONIAL TIMES? Was he or the
Governor aware of this? Certainly some adjustment was called for and could
be made to obtain compliance with this license requirement, couldn't it?

- He said he was unaware of this problem and certainly appreciated my
bringing it to his attention. He said that he and the Governor would not
want it to persist. He assured me that it would be changed by late summer
and he thanked me very much for bringing this to his attention. Bingo.

- Why did I call at 8:10 AM? Because "Actings" nearly always come in early
and rummage around their paperwork and drink a beverage early to be prepared
for what is ahead for them and to appear competent and available to their
overseers. That means they are usually as "available" as they will ever be
during the day.

- Why did his secretary let me through? Because I said it was important and
that it concerned Hunter Education (a function of the Director) and that he
and the Governor should know what I was calling about. Also it was early in
the morning when she and he are generally not as busy as later.

- Why did he take the call? Because I mentioned the Governor, the new
politician that would be responsible for how he was treated until he left
the job or that would ultimately give him the job. Also Hunter Education is
usually all "warm-fuzzy" things that are like puppies or little birds - good
publicity for bureaucrats.

- Why did he agree to change the schedule? Because he knew it was the right
thing to do and because it affected not only hunting but religious practice
in a State that takes that seriously and neither he nor the new Governor
would want that sort of problem or publicity.

There was nothing sinister or hidden in any of this. The bureaucrats were
neither good nor bad, only humans behaving as predictably as their paid
roles required. The schedule is being adjusted, the public good is served,
and there aren't any hard feelings or scores to be settled at the next
opportunity.

An Example of Unsuccessful Lobbying -

Several acquaintances spent a lot of time and money in the past two years
LOBBYING Federal politicians about including Invasive Species language in
the enormous Highway Bill (SAFETEA-LU) that disburses Billions of dollars in
Federal Highway Funding every few years. The 5 or 6 locations (sentences or
paragraphs) in the bill that would have established a Federal MANDATE to
prohibit the use of any Invasive Plant Species* on, along, or near any
highway project were the "further-foot-in-the-door" desired by the US Forest
Service, US Fish and Wildlife Service, Bureau of land Management, and
National Park Service to establish a Federal role to eradicate all plants
and animals that are considered "out-of-place" or the object of human uses
targeted for elimination by environmentalists or animal rights
organizations.

*NOTE: Consider what conceivable interest a Highway Department has in the
"nature" of plants used in any Federal, State, or Local Highway Project.
Certainly initial cost and maintenance costs and hardiness are important.
Beauty is a consideration if costs are neither additive nor prohibitive.
Noxious weeds that harm crops or gardens or lawns are a legitimate
consideration. Plants that encourage insect pests or attract wildlife onto
roadways are another legitimate concern. Such harmful plants that may spread
from the road are certainly worth avoiding. All that said, there is
absolutely NO LEGITIMATE CONCERN about whether the plants were here when
Columbus arrived or when the Revolutionary War was won. There is absolutely
NO LEGITIMATE CONCERN about prohibiting plants specifically developed for
low planting cost, low maintenance costs, and hardiness on the grounds that
they are not "natural" or "Native" or are "Invasive".   "Invasive" is a term
used to mean both "Non-Native" or "out of place". It is the implied
accompaniment and antithesis of "Native" and is used equally for plant or
animal species or populations. It is equally applied to both wild and
domestic plants and animals. In other words a Federal role and mandate to
States to "eliminate Invasive Species" compared to the Endangered Species
Act or the Marine Mammal Protection Act or the Animal welfare Act is like
comparing a thermonuclear device to a spear, a sword, and a crossbow.

Getting back to our story. My friends met with Congressional staffs on
numerous occasions. (People without "influence" rarely actually meet a
Congressman or Senator. These superior beings use a "different door", a
"members-only elevator", and eat in a "members-only dining room".) It is
amazing how some really good-talking politicians have staffers that fight
for the opposite of what the member says or, occasionally, actually means.

When confronted with the 5 or 6 offending "Invasive Species" sections, the
staffers could not defend the language (See the *NOTE above). There was no
justification, and with determined pressure they caved and agreed to get rid
of the language (at which point they usually start to act like it was their
idea as they look forward to telling their boss how they are "supporting"
him by lifting language that often they acquiesced in inserting in the first
place).

At this point the "successful" LOBBYISTS do one last word check on the
computer and rejoice when the Search for "Invasive Species" comes up "Zero
Found". They all go to dinner at the "Influence Peddler Restaurant" and buy
themselves dinner. End of story? Not quite!

The Bill gets passed on 10 August 2005 and on 16 May 2006 the disbursements
are accompanied by new "Guidance" on Section 329 of the Omnibus (that means
BIG) Bill. This "Guidance" from the Highway Bureaucrats on behalf of the
Slippery Congressional Staffers concerns "noxious weeds", aquatic noxious
weeds", and "establishment of native species provisions". The "Guidance"
goes on to inform (i.e. really "instruct" since this now involves money and
bureaucratic direction) each State that while former requirements were "that
one-quarter of one percent of the landscape budget on a federally-funded
project be reserved for establishment of native wildflowers", "SAFETEA-LU
expands eligibility to establishment of native plants, which include not
only native flowers, but also grasses, shrubs, trees, and vines." It goes
on, "This additional eligibility for establishment of native plants will be
beneficial in supplementing FHWA's environmental stewardship efforts in
areas of wetlands mitigation, wildlife habitat planting, native plant
restoration, and plant community restoration." Note the ambiguity about how
much to spend and what to do whenever you plan a "landscape". No one will
oppose this since State Highway Departments (like State Fish and Wildlife
agencies) "have to work with their Federal counterparts" as they are
rewarded on how well they "get every nickel due the State at the earliest
opportunity". Thus is born another Federal mandate and another State area
of Constitutional authority and jurisdiction is ceded meekly to Federal
bureaucrats to be used to fulfill radical hidden agendas.

If you listen real hard you can still hear the Congressional staffers and
Highway bureaucrats still snickering, "suckers" just like one of those Bugs
Bunny cartoons. Price be damned, maintenance be damned, wildlife benefit
(many "invasives" are very good for wildlife) be damned, the thing was a
success! A Federal "native ecosystem/invasive species role" has been
strengthened and more money made available for activist agendas and another
basis for lawsuits spreads across the Nation like poison ivy rash. (Those
are cheers you hear from the offices in Washington.)

DISCUSSION

The first example (Hunter Education) was successful for many reasons. It
was a small thing and there were no national agendas involved. It involved
a bureaucrat and a politician that genuinely feel threatened by a
complainant with a legitimate beef. Money wasn't a factor and power was not
a factor. The guys that would fight change (the volunteer instructors and
the Hunter Education Division folks) were under the "Acting" bureaucrat and
the new Governor. But most importantly, it was a success because I was
dealing with a State as opposed to a Federal entity.

Do you think some US Fish and Wildlife Service Hunter Education Coordinator
or Regional Director or Agency Director would even take my call? Do you
think they would even listen much less consider the problem? Do you think
they would consider, even for a nanosecond, that if the newspapers or some
political opponent got hold of this that it would threaten their job or
create any problem? Not on your life!

The first example was successful precisely for the reason clearly understood
by the Founding Fathers over 200 years ago. The closer to the people the
government authority, the more responsive the government authority is to the
people. While it sounds profound, it is self-evident common sense and the
reason why the Federal role was so specifically limited in our Constitution.

The reason for the failure of the second example was (like "Invasive
Species" and its antithesis "Native Species") the antithesis of the reason
why the first example was a success. Federal or central government, by its
very nature is remote and unresponsive. It incorporates all manner of
"alien" (to your State or community) agendas again by its very nature. The
bureaucrats are rewarded and the politicians elected depending on how well
they "play" those national agendas. Some priest's hunting license is of no
matter, hunting requirements that discourage hunting or a federal mandate to
"restore" and "manage" a "Native Ecosystem" builds bureaucratic budgets and
power, elects politicians, and fulfills radical agendas at the expense of
our liberties, freedoms, and rights.

The Senate staff tinker belles that snookered my friends with their
slight-of hand may get a job with some environmental outfit or one of the
"land-management" Federal agencies to be replaced with someone from an
environmental outfit or even a US citizen that works for the UN. The
Federal politician we all love may get a new Committee assignment that takes
him away from the things he "talked a good game about" before his staff's
antics catch up with him. The Federal Highway "Guidance Wordsmith" will
soon be a Regional Director and then have a shot at some Assistant or Deputy
Director slot when that old political hack they picked up from the last
Administration retires. It is all like a happy merry-go-round
with laughing children all having a good time, at our expense!

My friends spent a lot of money. They researched and reviewed language.
They hired and consulted Washington "expertise". They worked hard and
learned a lot and they lost.

The "system" is always several steps ahead of you because the politicians
and the bureaucrats have unlimited time and funds. They are handling dozens
of issues like yours and they have "handled" people like you hundreds of
times before. They study why they failed here and succeeded there. They
save stuff they lost with three years ago and polish it off with a new name
when some politician is having a tough reelection. They can lie and cheat
and never get called on it. They can make trouble for you. They train each
other about how they "handled" this issue or "guys like you" before. In
short they have become, to our great detriment, a growing power unto
themselves that is feeding on our liberty.

LOBBYING IS THE ANSWER. We must all:

1.)                      Support and elect State and Local politicians that
will defend our Rights and States Rights. Identifying and defeating their
antithesis, politicians that oppose or are indifferent to our Rights and
States Rights, is part and parcel of this important first step. These
politicians are the bush league for those "professionals" in Washington.
These politicians control and Administer and guide their staffs and our
State Bureaucracies to work for our State and defend us against national
agendas and Federal maneuvers that would harm us. We pay for this and
should be content with nothing but the best.

2.)                      Monitor who is working for State government and
what is being done by our State bureaucracies from the State agencies to the
Universities. We must identify employees and programs that harm rather than
help State residents and communities and then direct our State elected
officials on how to go about correcting the problems. This takes
persistence and strong public support. Steps 1 & 2 are necessary to go on.

3.)                      Defeat Federal politicians that are harmful or
indifferent. Replace them with tested State elected officials that have
proven their commitment to protecting you and your family and your
community. Compose specific recommendations for legislation or to amend or
repeal legislation. Publicize what they do, what you want, and what they or
their staff have done or failed to do. Publicize, Publicize. Then turn
them on their primary job in these early years of the 21st century; bringing
the Federal bureaucracy under control and reforming it into a machine fit
for US Federal responsibilities and return those State Constitutional
authorities and jurisdictions that the Founding Fathers wisely defined in
the first place.

4.)    Be aware of every aspect of government. University curriculums,
teacher conduct, hiring and promotion standards for bureaucrats, salaries
and benefits for bureaucrats and politicians, and laws that need amending or
repeal are all relevant to and impetus for the more apparent issues like
taking property and surrender of national sovereignty to UN authority. This
demands reading and discussing with others what you know and what is coming.
It is a never-ending job in this world of centralized power, unresponsive
bureaucracies, and growing indifference to liberties and freedom.

I said it wasn't a one-shot deal. I said it would take more than one good
person and I said it wasn't easy. However, I did say it was straightforward
and a duty for every one of us. Now I ask you, would an old bureaucrat like
me, lie to you?

Thanks for your attention. Are there any questions?

- If you found this worthwhile, please share it with others. Thanks.

- This article and other recent articles by Jim Beers can be found at
http://jimbeers.blogster.com   (Jim Beers Common Sense)

- Jim Beers is available for consulting or to speak. Contact:
jimbeers7@verizon.net

Lobbying - Some Observations By A Reformed Bureaucrat