How to get something done at the Capitol when everything in politics sucks

It’s been two months since the 2024 legislative session adjourned amidst chaos. As we all process our mixed feelings and look toward the future, a lot of client questions and threads of frustration remain about why certain policy issues seem to sail through the legislative process while others never get off the ground. Layer on the general cloak of “ick” provided by national politics and it leaves some wondering,

“How can anyone get anything good done at the Capitol when everything in politics sucks?”

Honestly, it’s a fair question.

Look at all the groups with seemingly straightforward issues that have walked away unsatisfied over the last two years, juxtaposed with groups celebrating quick, monumental success. The quandary can lead to questioning each strategy and tactic, such as deciding whether to lead on an issue, which and how many lobbyists to hire, and whether advocacy Days on the Hill work.

The short answer is there’s no single secret sauce to legislative success.

Yes, relationships matter. Yes, having a lobbyist helps. Yes, money plays a role. Yes, building a culture of advocacy helps. And frankly, yes – sometimes, there is just a “right place, right time” element of luck at play.

The deeper answer is that the way organizations interact with government is changing because government itself is changing.

Two trends I talk with clients about a lot:

1. How the country’s populist strategies at both the state and national level are tempting, but not without risks.
2. How elected officials are increasingly experiencing policymaking through a high-stakes lens.

We don’t need to look too far to see that populism (by which I mean appealing to voters with an anti-establishment lens) is trending. From grassroots organizing to just plain advocacy, we have seen populist advocacy strategies be successful at the state Capitol for years.

Pulling on populist threads has long been common practice for nonprofit, issue-based organizations and now, even business groups. It often works. But it sometimes doesn’t.

This is particularly true when the darker parts of populism lean toward group think or “us vs. them.” That’s when it’s harder to find compromise, harder for those with contrary opinions in an otherwise like-minded group to speak up, and harder for lawmakers to really understand the nuance between the absolutist opinions of interest groups.

In debriefing issues with legislators and expressing frustration with an outcome, more than once I’ve heard in response, “Well, why didn’t anyone tell me there was opposition?” The answer is most likely:

1. An organization was part of a coalition and didn’t feel it was appropriate to speak out, for fear of being seen as an outlier.
2. The opposition was voiced, and lawmakers made an active choice to ignore it or simply not meet with those opposed.
3. The advocate or lobbyist failed in their job to mention the opposition.
4. No one voiced opposition for fear of legislator backlash.
5. A little bit of all the above.

So, yes, building a populist-like coalition effort to advance legislation can (and does) work, but it comes with risks that can’t be ignored.

Additionally, we are seeing more elected officials whose career paths are steeped in politics and advocacy, culminating in their elected position.

This naturally elevates the stakes of gaining and holding that political office. Satisfying those whom a legislator views as most influential over their annual performance review – say, for example, an election – suddenly becomes the most important task at hand. It’s human nature that we spend the most time with those who give us the most affirmation and positive feedback – in this case, those groups perceived most central to maintaining your job.

I continue to remind clients that an important part of working with elected officials is understanding where they came from, where they are at and what their motivations are.

More and more, elected officials worry they can’t find compromise because they might lose their election or might not be able to raise campaign funds. Of course, my flippant recant to that could be, “So what?” But the productive reaction is instead to situate myself in the elected official’s shoes and understand where their perceived limitations might be.

Odds are, there is still a middle ground for compromise in there somewhere.

Again, these are just two trends rooted in some of the frustration and discomfort I’ve heard from clients since the end of a robust biennium. We all know things are changing.

Digging a little deeper into the why and how of the change can help us examine how we approach future policy directions.

It’s daunting, but it’s not all doom and gloom. In my estimation, some fundamental truths of success at the Capitol remain:

• Authenticity rules. No one expects you to be something you’re not, and trying to be ends up fooling no one.
• Ask for what you want. Even in an environment of heightened partisanship and political absolutism, you would be astounded by how many organizations forget to ask for what they want. As our parents taught us, the worst we can be told is “no”.
• Manage expectations. Despite what headlines might have you believe, very few policy issues reach the finish line their first year out of the gate. Be realistic and honest about where your issue might land in the face of potential opposition. (As my colleague likes to say: “If it’s expensive, controversial or complicated, it’s going to take more time.”)
• Understand the full picture. No policy moves forward in a vacuum. Always be aware of your political surroundings and the pressures facing lawmakers. Sometimes it’s true – it’s not you, it’s them.

Whether you agree with my assessment or ascribe other cause and effects to the changing dynamics at the Minnesota Legislature, we can all agree there is no one-size-fits-all recipe for success. By rethinking the ways we engage with government through curiosity, creativity and a willingness to try new things, getting something done at the Capitol might suck a little less.