impact

InsidePower in Democracies Dependent on Politics … 4 | What Influences the Influentials in Brussels? … 7

April 2016

Continued on Page 2

Opposition to a New York ethics commission’s proposal to expand the legal definition of a lob-byist continues to mount. Issued by the New York State Joint Commission on Public Ethics (JCOPE) in January, the plan could require public relations consultants — and even every-day citizens who use social media to comment on public policy — to register as lobbyists.

Communications professionals working with clients to pitch stories to the media, meet with editorial boards and write op-eds could be lassoed by the ruling that could take effect sometime this year.

“Any attempt by a consultant to induce a third party — whether the public or the press — to deliver the client’s lobbying message to a public official would constitute lobbying under these rules,” an advisory opinion issued by JCOPE states. The ethics commission’s definition of lobbying includes “any direct in-teraction with a public official in connection with an advocacy campaign.”

Ethics ConcernsThe advisory ruling reflects concerns first raised at a JCOPE meeting in May 2015 in response to federal ethics convictions of New York State Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver and former New York Senate Majority Leader Dean Skelos. Those two politicians had teamed with Gov. Andrew Cuomo in 2011 to pass the Public Integrity Reform Act, which created JCOPE in the first place.

The ruling also reflects a concern, ac-cording to POLITICO, “that the number of individuals who help influence government action without registering as lobbyists seems to have swelled.”

But opposition to the ruling is swelling, too. Among the mounting voices against the proposal is the law firm of Emery Celli Brinckerhoff & Abady, which is representing four public relations agencies. The firm’s Andrew G. Celli calls the ruling “overly broad and vague.”

New York’s Decision to Redefine Lobbying Faces Opposition

Pfizer PAC and NABPAC, the PAC of the Na-tional Association of Broadcasters, received the Council’s 2016 PAC Awards March 9 for their outstanding PAC initiatives that show-case creativity, inclusiveness and overall relevance to their organization.

“We had a very competitive group of nominations this year, making the final deci-sion a difficult one,” said Hannah Wesolow- ski, the Council’s associate director of polit-ical engagement. “However, these two PACs showed great creativity in creating cam-paigns and tactics that are reflective of both their goals and their organization’s culture. They were able to implement efforts that not only helped to grow their PACs, but also gain more stakeholder buy-in in the process.”

Building through Buy-In Pfizer and NAB Receive Top PAC Awards at Conference By Mark C. Wills

Continued on Page 3

Pfizer Renews Engagement in PACAs 2015 began, Matt Meehan, director of U.S. government relations and public affairs for Pfizer Inc., faced several challenges re-lated to his company’s PAC — among them, organization-wide distractions (e.g., site closures, company structure reorganization) and a general sense of apathy toward the political process. But Meehan and his team set out to overcome these obstacles and they succeeded.

“We made a concerted effort,” says Meehan, “to embed government relations in many ways — meetings, town halls, emails, newsletters, phone calls, peer campaigns, site events — to renew engagement in our effort to shape and advance the policies and regulations that impact colleagues,

From left: The Public Affairs Council’s Hannah Wesolowski, Pfizer’s Matt Meehan and the National Association of Broadcasters’ Jennifer Flemming

IMPACT | April 2016 | 2

Continued from Page 1Pfizer and NAB Win Top PAC Awards at Conferencethe future success of our company, as well as to stress that a small investment is a wise investment in a time of uncertainty.”

The team’s efforts led to several notable successes: the highest participation rate since the PAC’s inception in 1976 and a sev-en-percent increase in receipts from 2014 to 2015 (and 11 percent growth since 2013).

In previous cycles, efforts centered mainly on donor-only raffles and providing information through PAC newsletters. This time around, Pfizer looked to personalize and target their efforts in order to meet their donors on the issues they cared about, the people they wanted to hear from and the benefits they wanted to receive. With sig-nificant leadership buy-in and engagement, Pfizer PAC was able to conduct dozens of full division- and region-specific campaigns, complete with live launch events, follow-up emails and contests to heighten excitement. Simultaneously, the PAC team identified well-respected PAC members who could share stories and impactful quotes about why they participate in PAC with their peers via email and video.

“By finding partners throughout the company to develop PAC goals, a plan and strategy, and then execute campaigns unique to those divisions, we have created a culture of ownership,” Meehan says. “We have continuously and consistently demon-strated that there is a connection in every-thing we do in the legislative and regulatory environment.”

Another concern Meehan needed to ad-dress was technological: the inability of some eligibles to donate via the PAC’s website. Pfizer’s cybersecurity constraints required a single sign-on through the company intranet, which meant that many mobile devices were unable to make that connection easily. And, of course, any solution needed to work within Federal Election Commission guidelines.

Again, Pfizer PAC looked to identify a solution to provide donors with a way to give how they wanted to give. Pfizer PAC’s new site was reconfigured to give access inside the secured intranet to all PAC eligibles no matter where they were located. This integrated Pfizer’s large solicitable class, who have been less likely and/or unable to con-tribute to the PAC from a traditional desktop website, “into the political conversation,” Meehan says.

This approach paid immediate dividends: in 2015, 67 percent of contributions were made using the mobile option; and website visits increased 343 percent over 2014. This supports the belief that employees — as the driver for PAC growth — are becoming ever more platform-agnostic.

“Having a mobile solution brings the PAC to the donor,” Meehan believes. “This strategy is applicable to any PAC, regardless of size and issue focus.

“And by incorporating the PAC in every-thing we do, it has become evident that if one cares about the success of their work, the work of their department and the orga-nization as a whole, then one ought to care about the PAC.”

NAB Shoots for 10% GrowthWe’ve all heard of the “power of one,” but for the National Association of Broadcast-ers’ (NAB) Jennifer Flemming, that wasn’t enough. In 2015, she sought to attain the “Power of 10”: 10 percent growth in PAC involvement among member companies and individuals.

Flemming, the director of the associa-tion’s NABPAC, led an effort to reach the 10-percent goal — something the PAC hadn’t tried in some time — and by year’s end, the PAC’s donor base and receipts had each grown by 10 percent and there were more member company solicitations than in the previous two years combined.

“Previously, there was never an ongoing campaign with continuity in messaging,” notes Flemming. “Having a consistent theme allowed our donors to latch onto an idea and grow with it. They would consistently see us and our marketing at events and PAC fund-raisers, on our website and in emails.

“We wove it into every touch point we had with them, and in the end, we didn’t have to explain the initiative anymore; peo-ple just knew and understood it.”

The campaign fosters inclusivity by giving individuals the power to make a big difference in a small way, and to do so in a way that’s feasible for everyone as opposed to making one goal apply to an entire roster of eligibles (e.g., “everyone give more or we want more $500 donors”).

Flemming believes the flexibility of the ask was key. “‘Get involved by growing your dollars or donors by 10 percent’ gave the donors options and had a clear objective that translated easily to different situations. We personalized our outreach and targeted our asks in a way that made it easy for donors to participate.”

These principles allowed NABPAC to make its targets tangible, and by having a somewhat general theme, different aspects of the campaign were played up at different events throughout the year, which kept “Power of 10” fun and fresh.

One memorable example occurred during the internal summer solicitation.

“We challenged NAB staff to drive both dollars and participation up by 10 percent,”

Flemming says. “If we reached the dual goal, our chief operating officer would shave his head during the luncheon. Thankfully, the COO held true to his word.” And afterward, a video of the shearing was emailed to do-nors, amusing and encouraging them at the same time.

The campaign also helped to develop a sense of pride and community in what the PAC was trying to accomplish. It helped to build brand awareness and spawned the group’s “Power Players,” an initiative that has rolled over into 2016. These are individuals that are recognized in various ways at events and in communications who don’t just con-tribute to the PAC, but also taking additional steps to support the PAC’s growth.

“What makes ‘Power of 10’ different from other campaigns is our ability to use it among various platforms,” Flemming believes. “It worked internally at NAB, as well as with our member companies and our board. We could use the effort to promote not only fundraising growth but increases in donor participation rates.

“This has great implications for other PACs because it’s easy to implement. It’s a theme that can easily be incorporated and applied to a variety of scenarios. It’s not so narrowly designed that another industry couldn’t use the same elements to promote growth within their own PAC.”

About the AwardsThe PAC Awards (pac.org/pacawards) rec-ognize creativity and excellence in the field and honor political action committees that: (1) are dedicated to compliance; (2) strive for inclusiveness; (3) use creative approach-es to education, fundraising, communica-tion and relationship building; (4) spread civic-mindedness throughout their organiza-tion; and (5) support other PACs’ efforts by sharing their success stories.

The 2015 award winners were Toyota/ Lexus PAC and Air Line Pilots Association PAC.

Recent FPA Supporters

GOLDFiserv Inc.

SILVERFredrikson & Byron PAHorizon PharmaPurdue Pharma

Thank you for your support!

For a full list of the Foundation for Public Affairs’ contributors, visit pac.org/foundation.

IMPACT | April 2016 | 3

Continued from Page 1

Timothy J. Plunkett of the Dentons law firm told Bloomberg BNA that the agency’s effort “risks ensnaring a lot of [people] who wouldn’t typically be aware they were lobby-ing.” In a letter to JCOPE, Emery Celli called the ruling so broad as to include “speaking coaches, graphic designers and marketing experts, to cite but a few examples.”

While many states require registration and reporting of grassroots advocacy, New York is the only one expanding the definition of lobbying such that could include anyone who talks to the media or writes a blog.

‘Misleading Assumption’“Most people, in New York and elsewhere, operate out of a widespread but misleading assumption that activity online is exempt from the regulatory registration regime that governs lobbying,” says Steve Roberts of the law firm of Holtzman Vogel Josefiak Torchin-sky, who spoke in February at a Council workshop on the legal implications of social media communications.

But whether you live in New York or Connecticut, you might be lobbying and not know it. “People often think that because they are not meeting with an elected official in his or her office, they are not lobbying,” Roberts says. “But the law might not see it that way, especially at a time when many state legislators, who believe the Federal Election Commission is not as assertive as they would prefer, think the states should step up and get more involved in regulating campaign-related activism. This includes advocacy generally and not just campaigns and elections.”

Fifty Regulatory RegimesBecause there are 50 states, 50 different regulatory regimes are in place, and all of them can try to define lobbying in their own way, as New York is attempting to do. And they are struggling to keep pace with the technological advances that are changing the way we communicate.

“Today, for example, there are grassroots lobbying campaigns that are conducted ex-clusively on Twitter and Facebook,” Roberts says. “Depending on the state or locality targeted by the campaign, they can trigger a requirement that people involved in such advocacy must register as lobbyists.”

A blogger who advocates for passage of a particular piece of legislation might assume they are simply exercising their right to free speech — like a newspaper columnist. Cit-izens who form an organization to support a cause might think they are doing nothing more than petitioning their government for redress of grievances, another First Amend-ment protection.

But in New York, even talking to a jour-nalist could trigger a registration require-ment. “It should be obvious that requiring someone to report every conversation with an editorial writer is intimidating to both journalists and advocates,” Donna Lieber-man, executive director of the New York Civil Liberties Union, told The Wall Street Journal’s Law Blog.

Lobbyists at both the state and federal level “can live with basic disclosure require-ments,” Council President Doug Pinkham wrote in an Impact column last month. “And a valid argument can be made that disclosure can serve the public interest. But enlarging the definition of lobbying to cover loosely connected activities or media outreach does nothing to improve the ethics or behavior of politicians.”

Unwise and UnworkableThe regulation is “unwise, unworkable and arguably unconstitutional,” according to Ken Paulson, president of the First American Center at Washington, D.C.’s Newseum. Requiring “anyone to have to report to the government before they talk to the press is a very dangerous proposition,” Michelle Rea, executive director of the New York Press Association, told Crain’s New York Business.

But the New York City Bar Association’s Government Ethics Committee calls the agency’s recommendation “both practical and sensible,” presenting “an opportunity to build toward obtaining the goal of providing the public and government officials with an accurate picture of who is spending what to influence the exercise of governmental pow-er.” Common Cause New York also supports JCOPE’s proposal.

In fact, the Bar Association would like to see even broader definitions to require reporting by “all persons participating sub-stantially in lobbying communications with public officials or in artificially stimulated letter, and now e-mail, campaigns.”

Right to Know“Yes, there are First Amendment protec-tions,” Roberts says. “But these protections can be checked by the public’s right to know what’s going on — and who, for example, might be financing an online advocacy cam-paign or an association that is petitioning the government. That’s where the registra-tion and reporting requirements can kick in. It is also true that registration and reporting can in themselves have a chilling effect on free speech. At the very least, companies and associations might decide that all the paper-work (not to mention expense) is simply not worth the hassle.”

The challenges could prove far more daunting that paperwork, however. What the JCOPE wants to determine — and make subject to regulation — is to what extent communications by individuals and organi-zations is orchestrated by a third party. If a consultant “controlled the delivery and had input into the content of” a message, the pan-el’s advisory opinion said, then the consultant’s involvement can be considered lobbying.

Tweeting and RetweetingReportable involvement can extend even to tweeting at a public official — and even retweeting information supplied by consul-tants who might be considered lobbyists. “Associations might have to start worrying about whether they are legally responsible for something posted or tweeted by an indi-vidual who is a member of that association,” Roberts says. “That’s also part of what New York is looking into. And New York is not alone in trying to get a handle on these and related issues.”

A legal analysis issued in February by the law firm of Davis & Gilbert says the new rules “appear headed for a challenge in the courts on First Amendment grounds,” with public relations firms and civil liberties advocates arguing that New York will be un-able to justify restrictions on political speech in the absence of “compelling government interest.”

“If New York carries this effort further, you might see California and other similarly inclined states rethinking their regulatory policies as well,” Roberts says. “That’s the long-term area to watch. The fact is that states are beginning to take a harder look at what constitutes lobbying.

“Fortunately, this has given rise to a growing number but still very small group of lawyers who are making this area of the law a specialty, while companies as well as associations are sensitizing themselves to the legal implications of communicating by social media. Unfortunately, I’m afraid they aren’t doing so quickly enough.”

New York’s Decision to Redefine Lobbying Faces Opposition

IMPACT | April 2016 | 4

Power in Democracies Dependent on Politics

Q You begin the book with an account of the July 2012 blackout in India.A This was the largest blackout in the world. Something like 700 million people, half of the population of northern India — includ-ing that of New Delhi — were without pow-er. Traffic lights were out; railroads stopped. Hospitals and a lot of businesses had backup generators, of course, and the people of India, like much of the developing world, are used to blackouts, though not this severe. They can lose electric power 14 or 15 times a month. But it was still newsworthy and got a lot of attention in the West.

Q Why is this event so significant?A It’s significant because it underscores the fact that a critical service we have come to take for granted is in fact fragile in many parts of the world. And it isn’t just a question of technology. There are political forces at play — determining who has electrical power and who doesn’t. Behind the layer of tech-nology is a layer of political activity. Power companies are regulated and in most parts of the world managed by government. My re-search used high-resolution satellite imagery to determine the distribution of electricity in India, showing where people are supplied with power and where they aren’t. And this is true in a democracy, where you might assume such resources are evenly divided.

Q But isn’t this imbalance to be ex-pected? Even in the U.S., for example, consumers get their electric power through utilities, and utilities are forms of monopoly, granted by government. In most cases consumers can’t choose which company to get their electricity from; governments have made that decision for them. The case of India, in this sense, seems less about democracy than central planning.

A Perhaps so, but my book is about democra-cy in this sense: Even in a democracy, where there is “one man, one vote,” you might ex-pect everyone to be an equal recipient of this service. But I find that there are vast areas where there is no electric power at all in pri-vate homes, where people are poor. But my research indicates something else as well.

Q What is that?A The people of democratic societies are also more likely to have access to electricity than nondemocratic societies. The reason for that is that voters compel leaders to provide access to electricity, though not always in the most efficient way. Politicians campaign on platforms calling for expanded village electrification, which is a very popular cause. You can win votes in Indian elections by sup-

porting grid expansion, for example. Because India is a democracy, politicians choose appealing causes. But of course, even when elected, they have limited control over what is really crucial to making village electrifica-tion possible. The technological aspects of power generation can be boring to voters. What often happens is that politicians can drum up new customers for electricity but not more power generation, so there is no power to provide. Democracy, in that sense, can be a double-edged sword.

Q But in the United States, our under-standing of democracy is not as simple as “one man, one vote.” In a represen-tative democracy like ours, the elected representative represents not only voters, but the competing interests within the city, county, district, region or state. So our elected representatives who campaign for an extension of the grid, for instance, would also be ex-pected to choose between contractors who are paid to do the work necessary to provide electrical or any other form of power. Our politicians also want to land infrastructure projects, for exam-ple, that benefit the companies based in their districts. Our politicians repre-sent the people but also the “special interests.”A I suppose that is all true, and democracy in India or other parts of the developing world of course is not as simple as “one man, one vote.” And there will always be competi-tion among power companies since electric-ity, for one, is widely considered a “natural monopoly.” That means there is large-scale support for standardization in providing this essential service to large publics. A single source is considered the only cost-effective way to do so. I don’t support privatizing or deregulating power companies. I’m not for

Electricity, water and even education are regarded in the U.S. and other advanced democracies as public goods to which everyone, ideally, should have access. But that is not the case in many countries, including democracies such as India. In Power and the Vote: Elections and Electricity in the Developing World, Brian Min, an assistant professor of political science at the University of Michigan, explores how unevenly energy is distributed and what this discrepancy reveals about decision-making in a democracy.

IMPACT | April 2016 | 5

markets determining who gets electricity and who doesn’t. In California, for-profit companies led to price hikes, and the result-ing energy crisis of 2000–2001 ended Gray Davis’ career. And one of the companies that went down as a result of those problems was Enron.

Q You refer to the notion of democracy as a “luxury of the rich.” What does that mean?A It refers to the idea that what Americans take for granted — competitive elections — is not always regarded the same way elsewhere. Elections are not seen as a priority above all other considerations, as we assume. It isn’t universally believed that allowing every citizen to vote always provides the best outcome. This assumption is widely contest-ed in much of the world. There are cases, of course, where elections can actually make things worse, as in Iraq. A rich country can choose its own leaders, but in poor coun-tries, there can be higher priorities or more urgent concerns, such as stability, clarity of policy or economic growth.

Q What should companies that do busi-ness in developing nations learn from what you have discovered about the allocation of electricity even in demo-cratic countries?A U.S. companies need to understand that what we often take for granted here — where electricity is more or less of a given — cannot be assumed somewhere else. The govern-ments of the developing world operated un-der a politics of scarcity. These governments are severely restrained in what they can and cannot do. Here we have an understandable expectation of access. We have our own in-frastructure challenges, of course, but decent roads are more or less a given. That’s not the case in the developing world. We also take for granted concepts like equal protection under the law. But that cannot be assumed in many places in the world. Take China, for instance. China is much more selective in the doling out of goods and services than we have to be, and ideas such as equal protec-tion under the law are, you might say, more “fluid.”

Q Can U.S. firms be helpful in how the selection of goods and services is han-dled in these countries?A Sure, they can. But they need to under-stand that what I’ve called the “fluid” state of some of these ideas cannot be dismissed as a quirk of a different culture. U.S. firms need to understand that universal access to electricity and other forms of energy is not taken for granted. That’s because you can’t assume universal access to anything.

Reach Min at brianmin@umich.edu or 734.615.4708.

Who’s Who … Where

• Caroline Atkinson, formerly deputy national security adviser, White House; now head, global public policy, Google

• Taylor Bennett, formerly communica-tions lead, Eastern North America, Uber; now director, public affairs, Pandora

• Julie Crockett, formerly federal affairs manager, CFM Strategic Communica-tions; now federal regulatory affairs man-ager, American Association of Colleges of Osteopathic Medicine

• Johan “Kip” Eideberg, formerly partner and director, public affairs, Finn Partners; now vice president, public affairs, Associ-ation of Equipment Manufacturers

• Yvonne Hampel, formerly senior legis-lative assistant and press secretary, Rep. Dave Loebsack (D-Iowa); now director, federal government affairs, National Association of Chain Drug Stores

• Michael Hanson, formerly vice president, government relations and external affairs, JCPenney; now senior director, govern-ment and external affairs, Sabre Corp.

Please submit job change announcements to membership@pac.org.

CSR Pays Dividends But Only if PublicizedThere’s little doubt that corporate social responsibility efforts contribute to societal well-be-ing. But there can be benefits for shareholders, too, according to research published in the January 2016 issue of the Journal of Marketing.

A study of 1,725 U.S. firms from 2000–2009 finds that CSR initiatives led to increased stock returns but only in the presence of what Saurabh Mishra and Sachin B. Modi of the McGill University and Iowa State University business schools, respectively, call “marketing capability.”

They also find that this largely unquantifiable benefit to shareholders is evident in some areas of CSR — using clean energy and pursuing diversity in management, for example — but not in “community-based efforts (e.g., charitable giving).”

Previous research demonstrated that publicity efforts “can enable firms to generate great-er awareness about their CSR efforts among consumers and other stakeholders,” but Mishra and Modi’s study is the first to look at the connection between marketing and shareholder wealth.

The “further research” section of the study raises a tantalizing possibility. Among limita-tions of their work, the authors concede, is that “firms skilled in public relations might be able to misrepresent their CSR efforts. Given that firms typically do not disclose their public relations spending publicity, it was not possible for us to control for this factor.”

• S.Y. Lee, formerly deputy press secretary, U.S. Department of Homeland Security; now communications director, The Inter-net Association

• Becky Tallent, formerly assistant to the speaker for policy, Office of Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio); now head, U.S. government relations, Dropbox

• Zoe Thorogood, formerly managing associate, CLS Strategies; now director, public affairs, APCO Worldwide

• Katherine Trinidad, formerly director, worldwide media relations, Lockheed Martin Corp.; now senior vice president, communications and public affairs, American Council of Life Insurers

• Ryan Walker, formerly, chief of staff, Rep. Bob Latta (R-Ohio); now senior director, federal government affairs, BP

For job openings, visit pac.org/jobs.

IMPACT | April 2016 | 6

Talk about that experience.It’s funny because my college friends said my degree was a sham. I studied political science, with a minor in nonprofit manage-ment, which was part of the same academic department at Seton Hall. Why my friends said it was a sham was because I was so seldom in the classroom. I had a D.C. in-ternship, I spent a semester studying abroad, and I finished a semester early and began working full time. Through these hands-on experiences, I learned much more than you could possibly learn in a classroom.

Describe the program.It was called Semester at Sea, where we got 15 credit hours for five classes. We were on a cruise ship where we went to 10 coun-tries — Japan, China, India, Egypt, Turkey, Croatia and Spain, among others. This was a once-in-a-lifetime experience. Between stops, we had class on the ship. On the way to China, for example, we studied interna-tional political economics. When we were in China, we had research to do while we were there including studying economic trends, the business climate, etc. The only rule was that we couldn’t leave the country we were in. Other than that, we were on our own. We could sleep on the ship if we wanted but weren’t required to do so. On the way to each country, we studied sociology and nonverbal communications. While visiting so many different cultures, it was important to recognize the nuances of nonverbal cues among the groups we met with. I use the interpersonal lessons I learned that semester every day in my work in Washington.

How do you think the travel industry is faring?Ours is one of those industries that can react very quickly to what is going on in the greater economy. After the 2008 recession, there was a dip in the travel business, but it has rebounded — and it rebounds quickly after every dip. People cut back on their travel during the recession, but because we understand the importance of face-to-face meetings and we value family vacations, businesses and families added travel budgets back as soon they could. The industry responds quickly for obvious reasons. Hotels can add staff overnight — just as restaurants can. And travel employment within the U.S. is now at an all-time high. There are 15 million employees in travel and, for the fourth consecutive year, we added more than 100,000 jobs last year.

So what issues are most important to your members?Our mission is to grow travel within the United States but also travel by people from other countries coming to visit the U.S. We want to make travel as convenient and enjoy-

You’re from Chicago. Is the city’s reputation for political corruption fair? A number of recent former governors have gone to prison, and the history of corruption in Illinois politics goes back decades.It’s not just Chicago. It’s an issue affecting the entire country, and it’s sad. The larger problem is that for years, people have turned a blind eye to corruption, accepting it as the status quo. Hopefully, that will change in the coming years as the country continues to push for increased transparency. There’s greater scrutiny these days — due, in large part, to social media, nonprofits and every-day people willing to investigate and make their findings known.

And you recently moved back to Chi-cago?I did. I’ve been with U.S. Travel for nearly six years in Washington, but I will still be able to work remotely. I can be in Washington when I need to be, but also work “on the ground,” in a way, in Chicago. Technology has made this possible, of course, but also this organization is serious about its commit-ment to its members and to have a presence that is in the middle of the country. We are determined to grow our presence beyond Washington, which reflects some of our or-ganization’s larger concerns as well as those of all other organizations that lobby.

How did you land in the travel industry?During college, I interned for a consulting firm whose largest client was a hotel chain, so I knew I enjoyed working in the travel and hospitality industry. And I knew I enjoyed travel because of an outstanding experience I had in college when I was getting my under-graduate degree from Seton Hall.

A Visit with … Michael JacobsonDirector, Industry Relations and Political EngagementU.S. Travel Association

able as possible while also making national security the foremost priority. We want to improve the process of travel to the U.S., which means improving the visa process, while at the same time strengthening our security as a nation. We support the Visa Waiver Program, which 38 countries par-ticipate in. Instead of visiting a consulate or embassy, travelers submit a request to travel to the U.S. and undergo their background check online. It is not only more convenient but also cheaper and more secure.

Considering concerns about terrorism, don’t you get some resistance to this program?Sure, which is one reason we’d like to change the name of the program itself. It’s the best program in Washington — with the worst name. But the fact is, for a country to partic-ipate in the program, it is required to share additional data with the U.S., including its terrorist watch lists and its list of stolen and lost passports. This strengthens rather than weakens our national security.

What other issues are important to you?We realize that air travel isn’t as enjoyable as it once was. Complaints are high, and com-petition has decreased due to consolidation, which reduces overall choice for the con-sumer. We need to modernize and improve the whole experience, which means making more funds available for upgrading our airports, for example, and turning over more authority to the local governments where airports are located. Too often, they lack the authority to make improvements, adding runways and gates and other facilities. We don’t have a single airport among the top 25 in the world — and that’s ridiculous.

What important challenges does the public affairs profession itself face?I think organizations sometimes struggle with the difference between a government relations emphasis and an advocacy empha-sis. Five years ago, U.S. Travel really didn’t fully appreciate the importance of advocacy broadly defined. We had lobbyists working on issues important to our members, but we hadn’t really appreciated how important it was to activate our member organizations and their employees. We didn’t really do enough in the grassroots area and didn’t even have a political action committee. It isn’t enough these days to lobby solely in Wash-ington. To be effective, we need to have a larger presence at the local and state levels. I think the entire profession needs to contin-ue to develop its appreciation of advocacy in a broader sense.

Reach Michael at 202.408.2181 or mjacobson@ustravel.org.

IMPACT | April 2016 | 7

POLITICO Europe is read by more than half of the key European Union officials and other opinion makers in Brussels, according to a study by Burson-Marsteller released in late January 2016.

A relative newcomer to the European media scene, POLITICO has demonstrated a high level of market penetration, with 52 percent of 249 Brussels “influencers” sur-veyed reading it at least once a week. At 51 percent, the BBC came in second, with such stalwarts as the Financial Times (39%) and the Economist (30%) lagging well behind the leaders. EurActiv, at 42 percent, ranked in the middle.

It’s a strong showing by POLITICO, which opened its Brussels operations in 2015, after entering into a partnership with the European media company Axel Springer and absorbing European Voice, which was previ-ously owned by the Economist.

The survey, “What Influences the Influ-encers?” (conducted from late October 2015 through mid-January 2016), also found that the BBC is still regarded as the most influen-tial in day-to-day professional decision-mak-ing among Brussels VIPs.

Twitter Close Behind BBCIn what might come as a surprise, a social media platform — Twitter — was close behind the BBC. More than half of key influencers (51%) consult the BBC, but 49 percent check Twitter. The Financial Times and the Economist tied at 48 percent, with POLITICO close behind at 45 percent.

“POLITICO has gotten to the goal post very rapidly,” says Karen Massin, CEO of Burson-Marsteller Brussels. “One key reason for its success is its focus on European Union news. It is very specialized, while the Finan-cial Times and the Economist cast a consider-ably wider net.”

Less Formal StyleAndrás Baneth, managing director of the Council’s European office (located in Brussels), agrees that POLITICO’s focus on EU news is important to its recent rise but points to another factor as well. “POLITICO is simply a better read than the Economist or more stodgy publications.”

POLITICO is “more entertaining,” Baneth says. “It is less formal in its approach. The style is breezier, although it is rarely cyni-cal. It’s wittier and not so dry, and readers respond to that approach. What we’re seeing here, it seems to me, is a move away from traditionally ‘authoritative’ sources and a receptiveness to new voices — both in news and opinion.”

POLITICO’s less formal style also reflects cultural shifts that might account for anoth-er key finding in the survey. Social media — Facebook and Twitter, especially — is rising

in influence among some of the world’s most serious decision makers. “It is striking that social media is now seen as important as traditional news as a go-to source of infor-mation that influences EU decision makers,” Massin says.

Just as social media is no respecter of national boundaries, leaders in Brussels seem less reliant on country-specific sources of news and opinion. National titles “do not register among the most important media — only 5 percent or less respondents cited any national publication as a week-ly-read or influential source of EU news,” says Massin, a native of France who has been with Burson-Marsteller for 15 years, after stints at the European Commission and the United Nations.

First Survey of InfluencersThis is the latest study of what influenc-es the influencers by Burson-Marsteller, which has conducted studies of lobbying in Europe for more than a decade. Another survey, released in 2013 and conducted with Penn Schoen and Berland, found that of 600 respondents in 20 countries, 89 percent agreed or strongly agreed that “ethi-cal and transparent lobbying helps policy development.”

Thirty-seven percent said the most positive aspect of lobbying is its ability to make sure a range of interests and actors are included in decision-making. Twenty-eight percent cited “providing useful and timely information” as lobbying’s most significant contribution.

“We conduct this research mainly so we can give our clients the best possible advice,” Massin says.

Social Media’s CloutSocial media’s importance continues to grow. According to the most recent research, Burson-Marsteller found that Facebook is used at least daily by 52 percent of survey participants, and 35 percent follow Twitter as frequently. YouTube (20%), LinkedIn (13%) and Instagram (7%) rank third, fourth and fifth, respectively. Almost seven in 10 members of the European Parliament say they use Facebook at least once a day.

World leaders are also using social media channels. In its “World Leaders on Facebook” study (also released in January), Burson-Marsteller found that almost 90 percent of all governments and their leaders now have a Facebook presence.

As of January 4, world leaders had pub-lished 302,456 Facebook posts. President Obama “is the most popular world leader on Facebook with 46 million likes on his Barack Obama campaign page,” Burson-Marsteller reports. “Obama is closely followed by Indi-

an Prime Minister Narendra Modi. Modi has more than 31 million fans on his personal page and 10.1 million likes on his institution-al Prime Minister of India page, which is in third position.”

Modi also leads world leaders with more than 200 million Facebook interactions (the number of likes, comments and shares) in 2015 alone. That’s five times as many as Obama’s.More Personal Connections “The significant development is that govern-ment leaders now use social media to forge more direct communications with their audiences,” Massin says. “It’s significant, too, that they are doing so in a more personal way, showing their human side. They post pictures of their families and their pets and important moments in their lives, such as weddings and birthday celebrations.”

As part of what Burson-Marsteller calls its “Twiplomacy” research, the firm an-nounced in early February the results of its survey of Instagram use. Among its findings: The heads of state and government and foreign ministers of 136 countries current-ly have an official presence on Instagram, which represents 70 percent of all United Nations members.

“Corporations, nongovernmental organizations and other sectors can learn a great deal from how governments and their leaders are using social media,” according to Public Relations Tactics in its coverage of the research.

What Influences the Influentials in Brussels?

New MembersAmerican Chamber of Commerce to

the European Union

Calgon Carbon Corp.

Corn Refiners Association

CSAA Insurance Group

Henkel AG & Co.

Howard Stirk Holdings

Manufactured Housing Institute

NationBuilder

Sunovion Pharmaceuticals Inc.

USA Rice

Wildlife Conservation Society

For a full list of members, visit pac.org/directory.

Impact (ISSN 1042-4393) is published by the Public Affairs Council, 2121 K St. N.W., Suite 900, Washington, D.C. 20037. A nonprofit, nonpartisan professional organization of corporate, association and consultant members, the Council is the leading association for public affairs professionals. Its mission is to advance the field of public affairs and to provide members with the executive education and expertise they need to succeed while main-taining the highest ethical standards. Council members are encouraged to use articles from Impact in their own publications, adapting them with local angles whenever possible. Copyright © 2016. For more information, visit pac.org/impact or contact Alan Crawford, editor, at acrawford@pac.org, or Laura Horsley, director, marketing and communications, at lhorsley@pac.org. Please send address changes to pac@pac.org or Public Affairs Council, 2121 K St. N.W., Suite 900, Washington, D.C. 20037.

Rescheduled Event: June 20–22, 2016The Westin Hotel | Alexandria, Va.

Strategic grassroots efforts are evolving. Programs now incorporate many components: traditional advocate engagement, advanced communication tactics and robust technology that makes it all work. Join us to hear how to advance your program in this busy election year and beyond.

grassrootsconference.com

Digital Media and Advocacy SummitJune 23 | The Westin Hotel | Alexandria, Va.

Learning never stops — especially in the world of digital advocacy and public affairs.

Join us to hear from leading digital and communications experts who can help you reach your advocacy goals for 2016.

pac.org/dmas | #DMAS16

National Grassroots Conference

2016 Executive Education ProgramsBuilding an In-District Grassroots StrategyApril 5 | Washington

Impacting International Policy in WashingtonApril 5 | Election Year Compliance Challenges: Site Visits, GOTV and MoreApril 6 | Washington Election Year Engagement StrategiesApril 6 | Washington Local and Community Engagement: A Growing Public Affairs TrendApril 7 | Washington Digital Advertising WorkshopApril 12 | Washington Compliance: Pay-to-Play and Gift RulesApril 12 | Spring Executive MeetingApril 13–14 | Washington Measuring and Communicating the Value of Social Media for Public AffairsApril 19 | Public Affairs in MexicoApril 21 | Methods for Tracking Lobbying ActivitiesApril 21 | Coalitions and AlliancesApril 26 | Washington Grassroots in the States: Amplify Your MessageApril 27 | Washington Compliance: State-Level Best PracticesApril 27 | Washington Effective Ways to Use Your PAC BoardApril 28 | Managing and Auditing Consultants, Contract Lobbyists, Associations and CoalitionsMay 3 | Washington Political Compliance ManagementMay 4 | Washington PAC Fundraising That WorksMay 5 | Washington Employee Engagement for CSRMay 5 | Planning and Managing Issue Advocacy CampaignsMay 10 | Washington Engaging the Scientist, Ph.D. and Other Non-Politicos in Your Political ProgramsMay 11 | Washington Global Social MediaMay 11 |

Online Influencer and Stakeholder MappingMay 17 | Engaging Senior Executives in International Public AffairsMay 18 | Membership OrientationMay 18 | WashingtonUsing Surveys and Focus Groups to Target Your PAC EffortsMay 19 | Using PAC Match to Inspire Your PAC CommunityMay 24 | Washington Measuring and Communicating the Value of Federal Government Relations May 26 | Using Social Media to Engage State LawmakersJune 2 | Lobbying Compliance: Filing Your LD-2 and LD-203June 7 | Developing Effective PAC ChampionsJune 8 | Washington Cultivating Grassroots AmbassadorsJune 8 | Washington Global Business Ethics: Trends and ConsiderationsJune 8 | Get Executive Buy-In for the Public Affairs FunctionJune 9 | Washington Public Affairs Management SeminarJune 14–15 | Washington Stakeholder Mapping: The Value of RelationshipsJune 16 | Washington Stakeholder Engagement and BeyondJune 16 | Washington Building Your Organization’s Brand Awareness in DCJune 16 | National Grassroots ConferenceJune 20–22 | Alexandria, Va. Digital Media and Advocacy SummitJune 23 | Alexandria, Va. Measuring and Communicating the Value of PACsJune 28 | Cross-Cultural IntelligenceJune 30 | Complimentary for International Network membersOut of Session Checklist: State Government RelationsJuly 12 |

April

June

May

For more information and to register, visit pac.org/conferences.

Programs eligible for credit toward the Certificate in PAC & Grassroots Management (pac.org/certificate/pacgr)

Programs eligible for credit toward the Certificate in Public Affairs Management (pac.org/certificate/pa)

Webinar

Attend online or in person

U.S. Office: 2121 K St. N.W., Suite 900 | Washington, D.C. 20037 | 202.787.5950 | www.pac.orgEuropean Office: 22-24 Rue du Luxembourg | Brussels, Belgium B-1000 | (+32) 496.201416

July

Measuring and Communicating the Value of International Public AffairsJuly 13 | Membership OrientationJuly 14 | WashingtonCompliance at the State LevelJuly 20 | Twitter for Advocacy: Influencing Policy in 140 Characters or LessSept. 8 | Post-Election Engagement of Your PAC and Grassroots CommunitySept. 13 | Storytelling for AdvocacySept. 13 | Washington Fly-Ins That Stand OutSept. 14 | Washington Building an Integrated PAC and Grassroots Communications StrategySept. 15 | Washington Using Events and Meetings to Increase Your Grassroots and PAC Impact Sept. 15 | Washington Building Relationships with New LegislatorsSept. 20 |

Membership OrientationSept. 20 | WashingtonGetting Heard: Successful International Media RelationsSept. 21 | GRI, DJSI and Others: What Reporting Platform is Right for Me?Sept. 22 | State and Local Government Relations ConferenceSept. 26–28 | Alexandria, Va.Managing a Global Team: Staffing, Structuring and Maximizing Your Impact AbroadSept. 29 | PAC and Grassroots Videos That Have an ImpactOct. 4 | Effective PAC Management – Part of the Political Management ForumOct. 5 | WashingtonEffective Grassroots Management – Part of the Political Management ForumOct. 5 | Washington Political Compliance Management – Part of the Political Management ForumOct. 6 | Washington Compliance: When Does Senior Management Engagement Qualify as Lobbying Activity?Oct. 11 | Measuring and Communicating the Value of CSROct. 13 |

Regulatory Advocacy: Making an ImpactOct. 18 | Washington

Trends in International Public AffairsOct. 19 |

Fall Board MeetingOct. 19–21 | Dana Point, Calif.

How Analytics Can Help Grow Your PAC Oct. 20 |

October in the Midwest: A State Government Relations WorkshopOct. 20 | Chicago, Ill.

Cuba: An UpdateOct. 25 | Complimentary for International Network membersUsing Infographics for AdvocacyNov. 3 | Global Negotiation: Skills for SuccessNov. 9 | Complimentary for International Network membersMeasuring and Communicating the Value of State Government RelationsNov. 15 | Speechwriting for Public AffairsNov. 16 | Washington How Strategic Communications Drives Public AffairsNov. 16 | Washington Understanding Post-Election and Inaugural ComplianceNov. 17 | Global Stakeholder Engagement: A Case Study on Business-NGO RelationsNov. 30 | Methods for Tracking Lobbying ActivitiesDec. 1 | Washington Reporting Back to PAC DonorsDec. 1 | Creative Content for Advocacy Dec. 6 | Washington State Legislative MonitoringDec. 6 | Membership OrientationDec. 7 | Public Affairs in ChinaDec. 7 | Compliance: LDA v. IRS Filing MethodsDec. 8 | Trans-Atlantic Trends Dec. 13 | Complimentary for International Network members

September

October

November

December

For more information and to register, visit pac.org/conferences.

Programs eligible for credit toward the Certificate in PAC & Grassroots Management (pac.org/certificate/pacgr)

Programs eligible for credit toward the Certificate in Public Affairs Management (pac.org/certificate/pa)

Webinar

Attend online or in person

U.S. Office: 2121 K St. N.W., Suite 900 | Washington, D.C. 20037 | 202.787.5950 | www.pac.orgEuropean Office: 22-24 Rue du Luxembourg | Brussels, Belgium B-1000 | (+32) 496.201416