Suzi Parker wrote:
For any group, to be under the radar in the 21st century is a monumental challenge. That especially goes for one that is lobbying in Washington.
But the Collaborative Environmental Campaign, a coalition of 20 environmental organizations, has been very strategic, and successful, at remaining secret. In fact, the CEC is practically un-Google-able (three hits as of Tuesday), and that suits it just fine. The reason for its covertness? The CEC wants its member organizations, not the coalition, to get the glory.
Most of the information about CEC comes from a paper by two graduate students at Yale University. Dahvi Wilson and Jennifer Krencicki studied the CEC as part of a larger, two-year project that resulted in their master's thesis from the university's School of Forestry and Environmental Studies last May. The pair had unprecedented access to CEC members because the students agreed to let members see the report before it was published.
The CEC formed in 2000 as a fiscal subsidiary of the Partnership Project, a 501(c)3 nonprofit organization that includes 21 of the nation's largest environmental advocacy groups such as the Sierra Club, Greenpeace, the National Resources Defense Council and the
Wilderness Society. Its intent was to create a structure that would allow environmentalists to organize and mobilize.
"In June 2000, many of us recognized that whatever 'compassionate conservatism' meant and with the discussions we had with candidate Bush's policy staff people in his campaign operation, we were likely to face attempts at rolling back environmental rules," said Philip E. Clapp, president of the National Environmental Trust, another CEC member. "We needed to be prepared with a coordinated operation to confront that."
Clapp said that regardless of whether George W. Bush or Al Gore won the White House, environmental groups needed to be organized. "We knew that if there was a Gore administration, there would be new proposals and we would have to respond quickly," he said.
The CEC doesn't have offices in Washington. In fact, it has no office at all. Instead, the coalition lobbies on Capitol Hill and at the grass-roots level using media, opinion research and numerous paid organizers in key congressional states such as Arkansas, Nebraska and Pennsylvania. The CEC, through the Partnership Project, grants money to organizations that are working on various environmental causes at either the federal or state level.
In a closely divided Senate, it's important for the organizers to focus on the states that have moderate "swing" senators who sometimes vote with, and sometimes against, the environmental position of their own party. For example, Sen. Blanche L. Lincoln (D-Ark.) voted to protect the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge but then co-sponsored a bill with Sen. Mike Crapo (R-Idaho) that would radically alter the Endangered Species Act.
"Technically there is no CEC," said
Bill Meadows, president of the Wilderness Society. "There are a number of national environmental organizations who informally agree to policy initiatives. We try to make certain we work together in a collaborative fashion. We pool resources and expertise.
"We have to do it together," he continued. "When a campaign heats up, CEC members gather daily to work on the shared effort. The Wilderness Society might have a lot of members in Denver, Audubon might have a lot in Connecticut, Sierra Club in California, then you have a national power base of environmental organizations that can create pressure in Washington."
The CEC meets regularly by phone to focus on priorities such as endangered species, the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and policies banning the construction of new roads in national forests and protected areas. Actions are taken in the names of the organizations involved, however, not in the name of the CEC. Not every member gets involved in every campaign.
"We can mobilize around specific issues," Meadows said. "We get engaged in campaigns we want to win. We don't choose them because they happen to be the issue of the moment."
He cited the successful campaign to protect the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge as a CEC campaign that worked by the book; no one member could have pulled it off alone. In that fight, CEC organizers sponsored lobby days with state activists who were bused to Washington. Activists also generated thousands of letters, e-mails and phone calls to key elected officials. CEC organizers held news conferences, made office visits and ran paid ads in the key districts.
The tactics are similar in the current campaign over climate change. Now, however, CEC organizers and their activist base are enjoying not having to play defense as they have in the past. Prior to last November's election, the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee was chaired by Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.), a dedicated skeptic of global warming. Under the new chairman, Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), an environmental proponent, global warming is the committee's top priority.
The CEC gets funding from the Pew Charitable Trusts, the Energy Foundation, the Packard Foundation and numerous other foundations. According to the Wilson and Krencicki study, the Partnership Project, with the CEC, had a $2.3 million budget last year.
"It's not a lot of money," said Meadows. "It's enough to sometimes run newspaper or radio ads and raise visibility of the issues."
The only public face for the Partnership Project and the CEC is a website,
http://www.saveourenvironment.org. But the CEC is not mentioned. Press releases on the site have contacts that are connected to one of the coalition members. More visibility would certainly increase fundraising, especially important these days when everyone from Gore to Newt Gingrich is peddling a green agenda.
But the CEC is happy to remain in the shadows. "It works the way it works," Meadows said. "These days, we are able to work more effectively to try and lay out a positive agenda instead of defending bad initiatives."
