Has anyone else had experience they can share in fighting legislation where their natural allies--their own state delegation--is the one they are taking on?

It's an area - your title! - that I'm keen to explore.

In a couple of pieces on the topic in general, I was doubtful that a blog like this one (devoted to process, and generally lacking expertise in the topics dealt with by legislation) could do much more in engaging with legislative process than to explain what the Sam Hill was going on in the Capitol - insofar as we could figure it out ourselves, that is!

Obviously, a blog like yours is rather differently placed when it comes to the problems of the coal industry.

How you leverage that expertise and constituency, I'm not sure: I'll leave others with experience to comment.

But - looking at the energy bill as it's taking shape, there seem to be a host of divisions on particular proposals waiting to be exploited by groups wanting to stymie it. (Always an easier proposition to kill a bill that trying to pass one in a particular shape.)

A couple of Hill pieces (here and here) are suggestive of the difficulties that managers are going to face in both houses - but particularly in the Senate, of course.

No doubt at this very moment, interest group opponents of particular privisions that they fear will be in the bill are playing parliamentarian trying for checkmate in a deft series of moves. Hard to see bloggers not always being on the outside looking in in that sort of discussion, more's the pity!

The mere fact that we are having this discussion, however, is, I think, a clear sign of a growing maturity in the sphere: surely it won't be the last.

I've been an elected official dealing with contentious issues on a (smallish) legislative body in a red state. Here are some ideas for your consideration:

1. Testimony at a hearing is a low leverage place to change minds. The hearing format -- involving time limits, questions that only go one way, and parliamentary procedures (games) -- all serves inertia. If you don't have your majority fairly lined out (in your mind) before the last hearings, you've probably goofed.


2. Legislators are overwhelmed with external information and often weak in knowledge (in their heads). They are busy, and many don't like to read. Others sometimes will read something that is concise, simple, unexpected, credible, and emotionally compelling.


3. Begin early trying to build your majority on the legislative body by engaging in lots of 1:1 conversations, seeking first to understand the current thinking of each legislator, then, eventually, to influence their thinking when you can.

   By starting with questions, you discover where possibilities for leverage lie. Don't hesitate to begin with staff, people the legislator considers trustworthy, and people who are knowledgeable.



4. Build relationships.


5. Help your legislators write the legislation you want (write a draft for them; then shepherd the draft through the process). For this, back-office allies are key. Help your legislator attract partners.


6. Legislators take a psychological beating from the public on almost a daily basis. They are stereotyped, treated rudely, manipulated, insulted, and misunderstood. Daily. Even though some may deserve it, or grow to deserve it, it's pretty awful.

   Legislators quickly learn they cannot be bold in leadership on all things because at a certain (small) critical mass of opposition, people start piling on in a growing cascade of ad hominem and opposition even when otherwise the people wouldn't care. This systems dynamic breads super-caution and leadership failure, and more so over time.

   Try to create an environment that will help the legislator justify taking your position. Talking points, constituency support, other legislators and people to share exposure and responsibility for the legislation, framing the issue for media, etc., all help build that environment.



7. Frame your campaign to serve each legislator's best interests. Help him look good. Make her a hero.


8. Be credible. Lose your credibility, and it won't matter how correct you may be in this case. They stop listening.

--
Are Humans Smarter Than Yeast? (video clip: 8.5min)

Virginia papers are picking up on this: http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/6/ 7/135635/6119

Is this coal to liquid legislation you address the same thing Montana is doing and raving about?  If it is, why does Montana like it.  Carving up those beautiful mountains is a crime in and of itself.  If I could have "big" water, I'd want your mountains.  

A couple of minor editing points:

"Investment" is a positive word.  Maybe change to something like "boondoggle" or simply "massive waste of taxpayer money."  Something like that.

Second, there's no need to introduce the acronym for mountaintop removal mining.  Acronyms are the enemy.  Avoid them wherever possible.  Ditto "CTL" in the last sentence of the pitch.

Third, your third paragraph gets a little lost in the weeds of technical alternatives.  Don't introduce too many variant ideas to the reader when you're trying to make a tight pitch.  Why not just leave it at saying that coal-to-liquids technology doubles carbon emissions?  

A few thoughts:

1.) Blocking legislation is a very different task than passing legislation. There are several different venues to pursue this.

2.) The Senate is an easier place to block something, where a single Senator can place a hold. In fact, this is the easiest way to stop something: identify a member who is supportive of this issue and pressure them to block the legislation. If you've got a national network of supporters, you may be able to encourage them to pressure their members. Off the top of my head, Sen. Boxer springs to mind as a candidate for a hold.

A hold in the Senate can be anonymous (as is the case on the Senate finance disclore bill), and effectively prevents movement on a bill. So much is done in the Senate by unanimous consent (UC) that a hold acts as an objection (thereby scuttling UC) and preventing consideration.

3.) At this point you are more interested in blocking something than pushing your new proposal. While it is valuable to have a policy alternative, it's more important to make it clear that CTL and MTR are a step backward. I would not too heavily promote your alternative, as the effort here is to prevent bad policy more than it is to impliment good.

4.) Target the committee members. At some point this bill should get a hearing, probably in the energy committee, but possibly also in EPW. Try and get a committee member to invite a representative on your side to testify against the bill. In fact, if EPW isn't planning a hearing, getting Sen. Boxer to have one (MTR seems the clear 'in' for that committee) would be a good step. While hearings aren't the best venue to change hearts and minds, it is a good way to let members know that people are paying attention to the issue and won't get a pass. Basically you want to prevent members from going along to get along, something that happens far too often on the hill.

5.) Target other influential Senators who are vulnerable to public pressure (i.e. Presidential candidates). At this stage in a campaign, the Senators running for President are worried about pissing off a constituent group, and are risk averse. Make it clear to them that supporting this legislation is an unnecessary risk with limited benefit. E-mails from dozens of constituents raise the profile in a Hill office, something any decent campaign would be paying attention to.

Good luck.