| Communicating with Congress: How the Internet Has Changed Citizen Engagement |
conclusion
The findings of our research are both heartening and daunting to Congress. They are heartening because it appears that citizens really do want to hear from and interact with their Members of Congress. They are daunting because citizens’ preferred method for doing so – online – is currently a weak point for many congressional offices. It also seems as though congressional offices face a challenge in improving their images, especially with people who contact them, but the opportunity is certainly there for offices that choose to seize it. Up to now, the incentives to congressional offices for genuinely embracing online communications have been unclear, since there has been limited data to demonstrate the need and value to doing so. Our research now offers some compelling reasons. After all, it seems that the people who are most engaged – those who have contacted Congress, who are involved in other political activities, and who are members of interest groups – are even more interested in using online tools for civic engagement than their less politically active counterparts. This research, especially considered alongside previous Communicating with Congress studies, also presents some challenges to the organizers of grassroots campaigns. Interest groups definitely play an important role in how citizens are getting information about Congress and how they are motivated to contact Congress. Even citizens who have not contacted Congress are inclined to trust and want to receive information about Congress from the organizations with which they are affiliated. With that in mind, however, the organizers of grassroots campaigns must acknowledge that their campaigns are necessarily about more than just winning a legislative victory. They are about the democratic process, citizen engagement, and the relationship between Members of Congress and those they represent. Grassroots campaigns must behave responsibly both toward the citizens they are informing and mobilizing and the Members of Congress they are trying to influence. Organized citizen advocacy and interest groups have played a role in the democratic process practically since the founding of our country, but only with the advent of the Internet has it become so easy and inexpensive to organize an advocacy campaign that almost anyone can do it. However, just because something can be done easily and cheaply does not mean it should be done. As greater capabilities become available, interest groups must carefully consider the impact their strategies and practices will have not only on the outcome of the debate they are trying to influence, but also on the long-term health of our democracy. Although our findings present challenges to both Congress and the public affairs community, they are, by and large, very hopeful. The Internet has made it possible to engage more people than ever before and to invite them to participate in the public policy process. People want to hear from their Senators and Representatives, and they are looking to the organizations they trust to give them the information and tools they need to help convey their own views to Congress. More people than ever before appear to be communicating with Congress. This presents great opportunities for Members of Congress and for interest groups to use this momentum to improve citizen participation in the public policy process. The Internet has tremendous potential and power to enhance democratic dialogue. The challenge now is simply to harness it effectively. CwC: How the Internet Has Changed Citizen EngagementRead the full report:  CWC_CitizenEngagement (2.6Mb)
42 pages.
About the Communicating with Congress Project
|
As discussed in the introduction to this report, the goal of our Communicating with Congress project is to
improve the interactions between citizens and Congress. The Internet has affected the relationship between citizens and Congress in many ways, some of which have only begun to be identified and explored. One thing is certain: there are deeply-held frustrations, formidable challenges, and tremendous opportunities on both sides which are often getting in the way of the interactions themselves. There is so much attention being paid to the operational details of sending and receiving messages that it has become easy to lose sight of the big picture. These messages are part of the debate that is at the very heart of a vibrant and robust representative democracy.