AAM 2008 Conference Session: Lobbying in the Lead

"Lobbying in the Lead: New Ideas for Strategic Fundraising" focused heavily on an update on federal earmarks. Currently, earmarks are fairly controversial and there is a movement to declare a moratorium on them, but so far that has not happened and in fact earmarks still seem to be somewhat necessary in order to get appropriations passed. They have, however, been greatly reduced--by about 43%. There are now about 11,600 earmarked projects, or $17.2 billion in earmarks out of $3 trillion budget. Roughly $7 billion of those earmarks are for defense, leaving a little over half of the earmarked funds for everything else. There is $18 million in earmarks in the IMLS budget, down from $40 million.

In a nutshell, what all this means is that while earmarks are still an alternative for funding, they should be seen as supplemental rather than a staple.

The good news is, however, that transparency rules now mean that museums can find out more quickly whether they get their earmarks and see who has sponsored various earmarks.

In addition to earmarks, lobbyists are another alternative for museum fundraising. A couple of key points to remember when engaging a lobbyist are to use your other strategic partnerships and sponsorships to help strengthen your case for lobbying and that lobbyist fees are generally $70,000-$350,000 annually and lobbyists are generally paid on a quarterly basis.

Follow-Up on the Smithsonian

Last month I wondered what the Smithsonian would do about the huge amount of money it will require in order to address years of building maintenance for its museums and then learned that what the Smithsonian would do is begin fundraising from private sources. Well, now Senator Dianne Feinstein has crafted a plan called the Legacy Fund that would allot an additional $15 million of federal dollars to the Smithsonian, provided that the institution managed to raise $30 million from private sources. Cristian Samper, acting-secretary of the Smithsonian, was hesitant in his response to this proposal, in part because it isn't a one-to-one match.

Stipulations on matching funds and match offers that are not one-to-one are common enough in the world of private funding. It looks as though the Smithsonian's foray into the world of private fundraising will have a bit of a learning curve.

Ron Paul Demonstrates the Power of Online Fundraising

I'm not here to speak about politics; this is neither the time nor the place to discuss the relative merits or disadvantages of Ron Paul as a political leader. But I do want to talk for a moment about his absolutely amazing fundraising feat on November 5 and what it could imply for the validity of the use of social media and online efforts for fundraising campaigns.

The Christian Science Monitor reports:

On Monday, an independent effort by Paul backers raised a stunning $4.2 million for his campaign, nearly all of it online. At the rate Paul is going, he will have a fourth-quarter funding total that rivals or even surpasses the top-tier GOP candidates.

Now how the heck did he do that? Well, it is true that "Paul backers tied their Nov. 5 fundraising effort to Guy Fawkes Day – which commemorates the day in 1605 when the British mercenary tried to blow up Parliament and kill the king" and has most recently been brought to the attention of the public through the 2005 film "V for Vendetta," starring Natalie Portman and Hugo Weaving, but it's also true that "Paul had established a formidable Internet following even before Tuesday's fundraising coup."

The LA Times reports:

He has substantially more supporters on MySpace and Facebook -- two social networking sites -- than any other Republican. His videos have been viewed more often (nearly 5.9 million times) on YouTube than those of any other candidate, of either party.

Like many Internet advances, this week's fundraising bonanza was powered by Paul supporters rather than by his paid campaign staff.

Yep, that's right: viral marketing and person-to-person campaigns can be effective. Ron Paul seems to be the proof. Last week he was the longest of the long shots for the Republican nomination, but, thanks to Monday's efforts, commentators now believe that Paul's credibility has been enhanced and that the media should take him seriously. I'll be curious to see how other candidates respond, if at all, and I hope that nonprofits are paying attention!

Thanks to the tip off about this incredible story to Don't Tell the Donor.