Jamal Kheiry’s Weblog

Members of the U.S. Congress long ago figured out a way to give themselves raises every year without having to vote on it each time, but this year the mechanism has served to further tarnish their already horrendous image. From a PR standpoint, this story offers another illustration of the dangers of clamming up in the face of uncomfortable media inquiries.

From your perspective as a business owner, PR person, head of a non-profit, or someone else whose image and reputation impact your effectiveness, the short version of the lesson is this: if you are faced with media scrutiny that threatens to make you look bad, the last thing you should do is refuse to respond, either by telling the reporter you have nothing to say, or simply by being inaccessible. Why? Because it allows others – primarily your detractors – to tell your story for you.

In the case of Congress and its 2.8 percent “cost of living” raise, the issue is a no-brainer: almost everyone around the country – that is to say, the people represented by Congress – are losing jobs, reducing work hours, going without raises, wondering if their businesses will survive; in this climate, for Congress to give itself a raise to $174,000 is extremely unseemly. I understand fully the argument that we need high-salaried positions in Congress to ensure that we can attract qualified people and provide at least a modicum of disincentive to bribery and kickbacks.

However, this is an issue of perception during one of the hardest economic downturns in a generation. Surely these people can come up with something to say about it, right? Apparently not:

Finding anyone brave enough to defend the pay hike in Washington these days is like looking for the proverbial needle in a haystack. When they’re asked to comment, usually accessible members quickly go missing, are on vacation, are extremely busy with family members or can’t be reached on their cell phones because they’re in remote locations.

And…

Pelosi’s office declined to comment on the raise.

So what’s the result? The story is heavily skewed against the Congressional pay raise, with taxpayer watch-dog groups excoriating Congress members for their perceived perfidy:

“When you look at the rest of the country, people are hoping to hang on to their jobs, much less get a salary increase or a bonus,” said Steve Ellis , the vice president of the watchdog group Taxpayers for Common Sense.

Other critics say that Congress has done nothing to deserve a raise. “The general public can’t help but think that lawmakers are patting themselves on the back, and padding their wallets, for presiding over the worst fiscal-policy blunders in recent history,” said Pete Sepp , the vice president for policy and communications for the National Taxpayers Union.

And this:

While members of Congress will receive a raise, 12 percent of seniors are living at or below the poverty line, said Daniel O’Connell , the chairman of The Senior Citizens League. A senior who receives average Social Security benefits will get a $63 monthly increase in 2009, he said. The congressional pay raise is expected to cost taxpayers $2.5 million next year. “This money would be much better spent helping the millions of seniors who are living below the poverty line and struggling to keep their heat on this winter,” O’Connell said.

So now the story has been framed by Congressional critics. A few folks who have adopted a voter-friendly position come off as heroes in this discussion:

Four members of Congress from Indiana have announced that they won’t accept the pay increase: Democratic Sen. Evan Bayh, Republican Reps. Mike Pence and Dan Burton and Democratic Rep. Brad Ellsworth. In Florida, Republican Sen. Mel Martinez and Republican Reps. Gus Bilirakis and Ginny Brown-Waite said they’d vote to block the raise if congressional leaders allowed a vote. California Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein said she wanted nothing to do with the raise. Feinstein, the chair of the Senate Rules and Administration Committee , intends to donate her raise to charity, spokesman Phil LaVelle said Tuesday.

These folks look good not because they talked to the media, but because they are talking about turning down taxpayer-financed raises. But this illustrates another important point: the more you clam up in the face of scrutiny, the more you’re going to have your story written for you, and your options restricted when you finally decide to talk.

What can the holdouts say, once they become accessible again? Naturally, they’re going to have to toe the line and turn down the raise. They’ll have a hell of a time coming up with messaging that resonates with their constituencies if they take any other position.