Association's Direct Involvment with Lobbying

[Joseph Burkeson, CMI]

I believe that association money raised form membership dues would be best spent on promoting the association and its members and that money directed for political action be raised from voluntary donations and placed is a separate PAC fund.

[Blaine Wiley]

Only if the association has a specific position on licensing, and that position is clearly communicated to the membership prior to their joining, and at any renewal time.

Just my opinion.

[gbeaumont]

Hi to all,

Joe I am basically with Blaine on this one, if the org has a stated regulatory possition and lobbying for that is understood and agreed to by the majority of the membership then I see no issue.

However it it is not a known position, or not agreed democratically then it would be wrong.

What gets me is why would any org want to be spending money on lobbyists, rather than member benefits, or is the answer to that all too obvious

Regards

Gerry

[James H. Bushart]

It is impossible for me to believe that any association with more than 100 members could have all of its membership totally on one side of any issue.

For that association to take a political position in opposition to its own membership, and spend membership dues in that process, is just plain wrong.

I realize that, in the case of FABI, a member must blindly agree to support "legislation", but that seems to be an unusual requirement unique to FABI. I can understand why you guys wish to leave.

[gbeaumont]

Originally Posted by jbushart

It is impossible for me to believe that any association with more than 100 members could have all of its membership totally on one side of any issue.

For that association to take a political position in opposition to its own membership, and spend membership dues in that process, is just plain wrong.

I realize that, in the case of FABI, a member must blindly agree to support "legislation", but that seems to be an unusual requirement unique to FABI. I can understand why you guys wish to leave.

James I agree with you for the most part (shock & horror )

I don't remember anyone mentioning FABI, I thought we were just discussing principles here, did I miss something???

Regards

Gerry

[Paul Sabados]

It is impossible for me to believe that any association with more than 100 members could have all of its membership totally on one side of any issue.

Hey James, I bet if MAHI took a poll, the results would 100%. Big mtg in Jeff City on the 3rd, interested in attending? Sorry about the thread drift.

Paul

[James H. Bushart]

Originally Posted by gbeaumont

I don't remember anyone mentioning FABI, I thought we were just discussing principles here, did I miss something???

Correct me if I am wrong, Joe, but is this not a continuation or derivative of another thread where you pointed out that 60% of FABI dues goes to pay their lobbiest?

[Joseph Burkeson, CMI]

Originally Posted by jbushart

Correct me if I am wrong, Joe, but is this not a continuation or derivative of another thread where you pointed out that 60% of FABI dues goes to pay their lobbiest?

Yes, kinda I just wanted to know if this was a local phenomenon or something that goes on in a much broader arena.

[jmichalski]

Isn't one of the listed benefits of NACHI a "paid Lobbyist" according to the "benefits" page? Who is he/she? How much are they paid? What exactly are they lobbying for?

My thought is that 100% agreement on a position is not necessary for an assocaition to seek to support it politically/legislatively. Nothing ever gets 100% support, yet that does not stop NACHI from spending money on it, pursuing it, etc.

If it is a critical issue, and significant support for it is demonstrated, I see no harm in advancing the agenda with a lobbyist. I am not sure that anyone here really knows/understands where all the money goes anyway, so why not pay a lobbyist?

For all I know, my money goes to Nick - so why not have it go to a lobbyist instead?

[William J. Decker]

I don't believe that professional associations should get involved with political lobbying unless it is understood by the membership that this is one of the assocation's purposes.

The NEA (Teachers Union) is one of the biggest lobbyists, yet a poll of their membership shows that the membership disagrees with the direction the lobbying is taking. Same with the Teamster's Union and many other groups (even the AARP).

In Illinois, we have a specific association, (IHIA) only statewide and not linked to any of the national associations (members of all associations are members in this state one). It's only stated goal is political and legislative lobbying.

I think that the country is too big and diversified for a one size fits all solution.

Just my 2 cents;

[lcapaul]

Originally Posted by wdecker

I don't believe that professional associations should get involved with political lobbying unless it is understood by the membership that this is one of the assocation's purposes.

The NEA (Teachers Union) is one of the biggest lobbyists, yet a poll of their membership shows that the membership disagrees with the direction the lobbying is taking. Same with the Teamster's Union and many other groups (even the AARP).

In Illinois, we have a specific association, (IHIA) only statewide and not linked to any of the national associations (members of all associations are members in this state one). It's only stated goal is political and legislative lobbying.

I think that the country is too big and diversified for a one size fits all solution.

Just my 2 cents;

Will,

I don't have as much problem with Unions, like the Teachers Union using dues to pay the lobbyists to push legilation as I due an Organization like NACHI where the members have no voice in the managment, we don't elect "officials" to represent us in NACHI, Nick appoints them, he can spend our membership fees any way he wants in the name of NACHI, but it won't be representin me. Unions elect their stewards, and officials, if they don't like the way the elected members are spending their money, then they can elect someone who does, or quit the Union, that's even a better deal than the Average American gets with their elected officials lie Congress which has a 19% approval rating, we can try to elect others, usually to little avail, but its not very easy to quit being an American.

[William J. Decker]

Lewis;

I agree.

That is why I believe that NACHI chould not get involved in legislation in states. I also agree that the other associations shouldn't as well.

But because one is, they all (including NACHI) have to be in order to cover their butts and their membership's butts.

I believe that state lobbying is best left to those in the states. You know, it's called federalism.

But, since they asked my preferance, I voted.

[Blaine Wiley]

The only thing we have used a paid lobbyist for in my recollection is when proposed legislation has had an association bias, or was anti NACHI in its nature.

There is a large difference between that, and using members dues to push proposed licensing.

[Erby Crofutt]

An example of the need for a lobbyist (and Nick provided one) would be the original Kentucky HI Laws which had a seat on the board for NAHI and ASHI but NOTHING for NACHI.

My preference was NO association requirement.

That's what we now have. In large part due to the NACHI lobbyist.

[Nick Gromicko]

The only time NACHI hires a lobbyist is when it directly affects the association, not a particular position, such as when we hired a lobbyist to successfully require that NACHI have a seat on the licensing board (the example Erby gave). The Governor signed that NACHI legislation into law.

There are still members who favor having double to triple the number of competitors they currently have to compete with in their markets, and so we don't always fight against licensing because apparently some members want to be overrun by competitors who are just as "licensed" as they are.