Circuits Assembly Online Magazine

The push to keep Terry Schiavo alive showed just how quickly Washington can react when faced with a public outcry (bad) and the possibility of getting on TV (good). (For those just emerging from their caves, the Schiavo case involved a deeply incapacitated woman whose family’s desperate legal battle to keep her feeding tube from being removed pitted them against her doctors – and her own husband.) The case illuminates just why certain complicated and pervasive issues like international trade agreements don’t get more play, either in the press or in Congress.

Every so often the hue and cry goes up among trade association memberships: Why aren’t you doing more for me in Washington? This typically occurs in times of crisis: revenue (and earnings) drops, plant shutdowns, massive job loss. Is this a fair criticism?

To answer that, let’s look at the big picture. Larger companies have their own offices in the Capitol, and tend to conduct their affairs the old-fashioned way: via campaign contributions. Yet for the majority of businesses, political advocacy takes place under the umbrella of various trade associations. When it comes to electronics, the trade groups that spring to mind are the American Electronics Association, the Electronics Industries Alliance and IPC. (ISHM is a professional society – with individuals, not companies, as members – and declines to engage in political action.)

Of the aforementioned groups, the EIA is probably the most effective at influencing the federal government. There are a few reasons for this: Its membership tends to be large, publicly held companies that have deep pockets and share common goals, and it boasts a former member of Congress as its president. AeA may be the best at the local level, helped by 18 lobbying offices spread strategically across the country. In fact, as far as I can tell, AeA exists primarily to lobby government. IPC, which is in most respects smaller than the other two, has a fragmented membership (OEMs, suppliers, EMS companies, board fabricators) with a tremendous (some would say incompatible) mix of small and large businesses, and lacks the financial heft and political ties of the EIA or AeA.

This month, IPC holds its annual lobbying day. The platform: Hold the Bush administration’s feet to the fire on the nation’s existing trade agreements, some of which have been routinely ignored by our larger trading partners (read: China). And the organization’s membership is coming under a bit of fire for not having predicted the China-U.S. trade imbalance and tried to do something about it years ago.

I think that’s unfair; after all, none of the leading electronics trade groups – let alone their critics – were talking about this back in the late ’90s or early 2000s. In the ’90s, the primary lobbying effort revolved around changing federal equipment depreciation laws. That’s a domestic accounting issue, a far different nut to crack than getting the Communist leaders of the world’s most populated nation to do something that would so clearly negatively impact their country.

Ultimately, the trade groups themselves are responsible for maintaining continuity and presence in Washington and elsewhere and helping their respective memberships fashion a platform that is easy for Congress to digest. For the most part, they all do that. Our industry’s trade groups also need to consistently and clearly communicate those platforms, both in Washington and to their corporate members. In that area, they diverge, and this shows in the results.

Success in Washington boils down to two elements: first, an issue so plain and emotional that for better or worse forces government to react (example: the Terry Schiavo case), and second, money… lots and lots of money. The depreciation laws did change, on March 9, 2002, six months almost to the day after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks (a plain and emotional issue if ever there was one) – and Congress acknowledged the attacks as the impetus for the bill.

On the issue of trade, since the Big Three trade groups appear to be in general agreement, it would certainly help if they would merge forces – and finances – to pressure the Administration to move. And, if they truly want change, their members need to belly up to the campaign contribution jar. Anything less amounts to posturing.

Want a successful business? Start a McDonalds. Want success on the Hill? Start a fund.