Religiously oriented groups in Washington, D.C., carve out their niche by speaking to the conscience of political officials.
At a White House strategy meeting this spring on child-care legislation, representatives of religiously oriented groups in Washington met with administration officials to discuss an alternative to the Act for Better Child Care. A member of the Baptist Joint Committee for Public Affairs (BJC) told President Bush that Baptists opposed the legislative alternative because it mandated vouchers for church-based day care. Yet a member of the Southern Baptist Christian Life Commission (CLC), who was also present at the meeting, later told officials that Baptists did support the alternative. The two groups eventually explained the discrepancy by noting that the BJC was assigned only to speak on church/state concerns, while the CLC was only speaking to moral and social aspects of the bill.
Such is the world of religious lobbying, where groups use religious beliefs to define their positions on various political issues but can also find themselves at odds with other religious groups, whose beliefs have led in a different direction. For many, the term lobbying evokes images of extravagant entertaining, deal making in smoke-filled rooms, and other, more nefarious activities. But within Washington, D.C., religiously oriented groups who attempt to influence legislation on moral and religious grounds are smashing those stereotypes.
How It’S Done
There are two kinds of lobbying: direct and grassroots. The Internal Revenue Service code defines direct lobbying as “contacting members of a legislative body for the purpose of proposing, supporting, or opposing legislation.” For most religious groups, direct lobbying includes personal visits to members of Congress and/or their aides; distribution of position papers or faxed issue briefings; testimony in congressional hearings; rallies on a particular piece of legislation; and media campaigns aimed at Congress or the White House.
Grassroots lobbying is defined as “urging the public to contact members of a legislative body” for the same purpose. Strategies here include radio and television appeals, newsletters, “action alerts,” and other tactics to mobilize people at the grassroots across the country to write or call or fax their officials about a bill or other government action.
The “Christian lobby,” like the Christian community itself, tends to be diverse and divided on issues—as well as on philosophies of lobbying. Some groups, such as Concerned Women for America (CWA) and Focus on the Family’s Family Research Council (FRC), take a pragmatic view, with an extensive strategy including government-registered lobbyists on their staffs. Others avoid the term lobbying, instead seeing their task as a prophetic one, presenting a theological vision to politicians. Some, such as the National Association of Evangelicals (NAE), say it is only a “tiny fraction” of their overall mission.
The nature of Christian groups with a Washington presence also varies (see “Inside the Beltway,” p. 34). Some are denominations or umbrella organizations for church groups. Other groups cluster around a particular issue or agenda. Bread for the World (BFW) calls itself a “Christian citizens’ lobby” on the issue of hunger, for example. CWA and FRC, centering on family issues, shy away from the label “Christian organization,” preferring to be known as groups “rooted in Judeo-Christian values.”
Dilemmas
Several dilemmas face Christian groups engaged in lobbying. The government has set limits on how much lobbying any nonprofit group can be involved in (see “Lobby Limits”).
CWA spokesperson Rebecca Hagelin said lack of financial resources is another area that differentiates her group from business lobbies. “We come with the strength that we are working on principle and belief,” she said. “Nobody who lobbies for a nonprofit organization is there so that somebody will become wealthy off their efforts.”
Also difficult, particularly for denominations, can be determining political positions. Many mainline denominations have received criticism for taking positions not representative of their grassroots church membership. The NAE’s Washington-office director, Robert Dugan, said that given the diversity of evangelicals, his group is cautious about the positions it takes. Issue-oriented groups generally have less trouble with this because members have joined in support of their positions.
FRC executive staff director and lobbyist Chuck Donovan noted that the dangers of getting caught up in power games can also be a trap for Christians. “There is constant pressure in this environment to place more emphasis on the maneuver rather than the matter. We have to be careful of that.” He said he avoids advising legislators about vote trading and deal making. “We intend to stay out of the political power game to the fullest extent possible,” he said. “We want to state our case plainly and leave it at that.”
Yet if religious groups avoid power politics, some observers wonder how effective they can ultimately be. Anne Hallum, professor of politics at Florida’s Stetson University, sees religious groups as caught in a dilemma between being “politically effective” and being “a voice in the wilderness.” She adds that religious lobbyists “are political amateurs, but I think they are still important because they bring a discussion of values to politics.”
Allen Hertzke, author of Representing God in Washington: The Role of Religious Lobbies in the American Polity, has similar questions. “It may just be that there is going to be a perpetual barrier beyond which they just can’t go in terms of acceptability, so that no matter how sophisticated they are, it will be difficult to get certain members of Congress to listen to them,” he said.
Dugan is uncomfortable with that idea. “There may be some members of Congress who will say if anybody with a religious name supports something, that’s a barrier,” he conceded. “But from our perspective, there shouldn’t be a barrier because we need to couch the arguments in a way that will be persuasive to all members of Congress, whether they’re Christians or not. I think that’s the sophistication that the long-term Washington presence yields.” Most religious groups can point to some legislative successes they have had over the years, but BFW’s director of issues Larry Hollar believes that for religious groups, effectiveness can be a relative term. “Despite all the victories and despite all the defeats we’ve had over the years, there’s still a fundamental sense of hopefulness that permeates this movement that’s generated by the fact that we know it is God and Jesus Christ who are in charge,” he said.
A Harbinger Of What Is To Come
Hertzke believes this year’s child-care debate may be “a harbinger of what is to come” for Christian lobbying. Mainline denominations tended to favor the ABC bill, while conservative groups tended to favor a tax-credit approach—although within both positions, there was much jockeying. “We’ll see a lot more complexity, more nuances, and less clear-cut divisions and coalitions,” Hertzke said.
He added that the rising prominence of the FRC and the possibility of an increased Southern Baptist CLC presence may be key factors to conservative Christian lobbying in the 1990s. Yet he noted he has increasing concerns about the ability of many conservative evangelicals to think strategically. “The bewildering diversity and theological differences in the evangelical world make it difficult to build a political coalition.”
For the mainline and Catholic churches, Hertzke sees a time of “major re-evaluation.” Said Hertzke, “In a curious sort of way, I think Ronald Reagan was good for the Religious Left, because he gave them a clear adversary to fight and a clear agenda to mobilize on.” Hertzke also cited the loss of church membership as a major hurdle for the future. “If they don’t increase their vitality in society, they are going to have less and less to draw upon to maintain their political connection.”
Nonetheless, the political science professor is confident religious lobbying from both the political Right and the Left will be a long-term phenomenon in Washington. “Given the fact that there are still many Americans who are religious people, and that society is having fundamental moral problems, the movement is not going to go away,” Hertzke said.
By Kim A. Lawton.
Lobby Limits
“The Internal Revenue Service is getting more and more interested in lobbying by nonprofit groups,” according to attorney Nancy LeSourd, a partner in the Washington, D.C., law firm Gammon and Grange. Nonprofit groups may engage in some lobbying activities, but exceeding government-set limits can endanger a group’s tax-exempt status. Yet LeSourd says federal government definitions of the amount—and indeed of what activities constitute lobbying—can be complicated and often “less than helpful.” According to LeSourd, nonprofit organizations may choose one of two IRS tests to determine their lobbying limits:
• The “no substantial part” test. The IRS stipulates that tax-exempt groups may devote “no substantial part” of their activities to “carrying on propaganda, or otherwise attempting to influence legislation.” LeSourd says that while the IRS gives no specific rule on that amount, the industry standard, based on court rulings, is 5 percent. Guidelines about what constitutes lobbying are also unclear. Excluded are research not tied to particular legislation, response to government requests for information, and discussion of broad social issues.
• The expenditures test. Under this category, specific mathematical equations based on budgets and expenditures determine how much lobbying can be done. Groups wanting to devote more than 5 percent of their budget to lobbying usually choose this test. The IRS has placed a $1 million cap in this category; not more than $250,000 of that amount can go to generate grassroots lobbying. This test includes 80 pages of complex regulations.
