In my opinion, the best lobbying campaign has to go to President Obama and the Hill Democrats for taking on and passing (almost there) healthcare reform. I know some may find it perplexing that I am crediting the Administration with an excellent lobbying campaign due to the fact that I have spent a large portion of my year fighting the Administration on their anti-lobbying campaign, but if we are to look at simply the most complex lobbying effort with the most moving parts, we have to credit these folks. I am making no judgment on whether this is a good or bad thing because only time will tell if this effort was good for our country, but to be on the threshold of keeping a campaign promise as large as “universal healthcare”, the effort has to be considered as one of the top lobbying campaigns of the year.

In breaking down this campaign we need to look at the vision, coalitions and strategic alliances that were needed, the grassroots, grasstops and direct lobbying that went into getting this far with the healthcare bill. Hill Democrats took a huge beating over the summer with the town halls being very adversarial but yet they still managed to squeak the votes by needed to pass legislation that is simply unheard of. Once again, who knows if this is a good or bad thing? The Democrats had uprisings within their own ranks, deadlines that were almost mandated that slipped constantly, the prospect of sliding too late into 2010, opposition and support from large and small groups, bad PR and the more than occasional PR gaffe, but yet, they still managed to herd all the cats together for a historic vote. Being able to overcome and adapt to changing environments is essential in demonstrating the best lobbying campaign.

There is no doubt that Obama, Pelosi, Reid and others moved mountains, twisted arms, cut deals, and aligned themselves with the “right” supporters to get this far in the campaign, but that is what lobbying is about at that level. Make no mistake folks, what the President and the Democrats did was lobbying and they were doing it where the stakes get really high. They weren’t alone in this campaign though. Almost every lobbyist I know had some part to play in this dance; whether it was a large role or a bit part, not to mention the associations and companies in the healthcare industry.

A successful lobbying campaign is often contingent on seizing the right moment in time to make your move. The President came out of the gate fast on this and while some may have said “wait a year” it appears that timing may have been on his side. There are a lot of “what ifs” that could be tossed around but I think the biggest one would be this. What if the Democrats did not have a super majority, would this still be a reality? Sometimes timing is everything!

We’ve seen many exceptional campaigns on various issues this year. Although some of them were more successful than others, I think it’s important to congratulate all organizations for their commitment to political discourse and advocacy for the numerous causes they represent.

I would like to highlight a campaign that impacts the national economy and the association community, Meetings Mean Business, led by the U.S. Travel Association (USTA) and some of the key players in the meetings and travel industry. I was personally impressed with the courage of our friends at the USTA and other organizations involved in the campaign who worked tirelessly to ensure that the meetings community remain a profitable driver of the U.S. economy. Besides a widespread grassroots outreach and an aggressive media campaign, key industry leaders and executives of the organizations that participated in the campaign met with the lawmakers on Capital Hill and the administration at the White House for a series of talks about the state of the industry and its importance to America’s bottom line.

The travel and meetings industry is going to continue facing major challenges, especially now as we’re reminded of our weaknesses by the recent attempted terrorist attack on a commercial flight over U.S. soil. However, this and other organizations will continue to advocate for their important causes, making America a safer and more prosperous place.

With perseverance, the industry will overcome these and other challenges by voicing its concerns and supporting a sector that can be a key contributor to America’s economic recovery. Thousands of trade and professional associations and industry partners depend on a healthy and vibrant meetings industry, most of which hold education and trade events throughout the year. And I know I speak for many of my colleagues in the association community who applaud this important work.

I would add those within the "green" technology sector as winners in 2009. Incentives for electric cars, wind development and other emerging technologies were often found within bills making their way through the legislative process. Some would say the handful of electric car companies, such as the builder of the $120,000 Tesla roadster, made out like bandits. In previous years, these and others were often frustrated that they had many champions on the Hill, but very few who were willing to toss much change into the proverbial tin cup. This year the green sector experienced a trifecta of sorts. The old-school energy sectors, such as coal, were hammered throughout the summer while Congress argued over Cap-and-Trade winners and losers. Folks seemed to wake up to the fact that it was (is) taking more cash to gas up the BMW, Range Rover or Caddy. And more members of Congress than ever before seemed willing to buck the coal and petroleum industries, thereby giving emerging green technologies a window of opportunity never given before.

I agree with Bara on the success of PhRMA's advocacy and lobbying campaign this year. While the results of the industry's efforts have not been finalized (pending conference report), the pharmaceutical industry may have finally turned the corner on its tumultuous relationship with Congressional Democrats. The reimportation debate did not come close to reaching the fevered pitch of previous years due in part to PhRMA's decision to come to the table early to negotiate with the Administration and the Senate Finance Committee.

Losers on this front: companies and trade associations that did not negotiate in good faith, or held out as long as possible before cutting a deal. They will need to be extra vigilant during the conference and rulemaking process!

While the drug industry may have turned a corner this year, no public affairs or lobbying campaign could have turned around public opinion on Wall Street and the financial services community in 2009. The public is furious about TARP and Wall Street's compensation structure. Just as voter anger about the price of prescription drugs influenced Congressional and public debate, TARP and the non-stop headlines about executive pay and employee bonuses will keep the financial services community back on its heels in 2010.

Potential conflicts of interest prevent me from making a best and worst list, but in evaluating the winners and losers in 2009 you can draw a pretty clear lesson.

The best public affairs campaigns of 2009 were those in which organizations won by seeking common ground with their opponents. Where previously, powerful organizations could defy change by simply saying no, in 2009 you had to be for something - and open to giving up some territory - to succeed. In the hottest fights of the year, those who acknowledged change was coming and figured out ways to manage that change emerged in far better shape than those who took a firmly negative stance. In other words, the line between those who said, "yes, but," and those who said, "absolutely not" is probably the boldest line separating best from worst.

Rather than looking at private sector lobbying campaigns, an assignment that kinda makes me yawn, I wanted to look at the best and worst of the Obama Administration's legislative advocacy campaign in its first year. My answer would have surprised me had someone suggested it to me at the beginning of the year. The Administration acquitted itself quite well inside the Beltway, achieving more of its first year legislative objectives than perhaps any Administration in a generation or more. However, the Administration has suffered significantly in its efforts to communicate its message outside the Beltway, and that message appears to have veered too far toward government-oriented solutions in an era where many doubt the government's ability to handle all it is being tasked with and do not trust the government with the powers the Administration has requested. The loss of political capital in the real world may cost the Administration dearly in the remaining three years of President Obama's first term.

First, the good news. Defying the naysayers (this lobbyist included), the Administration made a decision to take on all the issues it raised as priorities in the campaign as legislative priorities in its first year: the economy, health care, climate change, and financial services regulatory reform. Many of us chided the Administration for dreaming too big, for pushing Congress too hard on too many fronts, for pursuing comprehensive reform packages instead of incremental changes more easily moved through an upper chamber bound by the tradition of the minority's power of the filibuster and the need to move things in bipartisan fashion. The Administration also defied critics by remaining above the fray and not engaging in the day-to-day details and specifics of the legislation as the bills moved through both bodies. Folks like me questioned and were critical when executive branch staff were absent from the dealmaking and drafting of bills as they were marked up. Rather, the Administration set out general principles and allowed committee chairmen to work the deals as needed to move legislation. I still am critical of this approach as I think the Administration should have played a more active role in shaping the final product. For instance, the health care bill that passed the Senate was largely shaped by Democratic centrists, in some cases working with Republicans along the way, rather than policy experts from the White House and HHS. Could the Administration have infused the bill with policies more to the President's liking? Probably so. But it's a little hard to sit here today and not marvel at the truly impressive victory the President's team achieved in pushing fundamental health care reform legislation through both bodies in eleven months. Tack on to health care the passage of stimulus legislation early on and movement in the House on financial services reform and climate change and you have one of the most productive legislative sessions Congress has had since World War II. Change was what was promised. Change has been delivered.

But the good news for the President on the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue actually produced bad news for the Administration on Main Street. The "you can believe in" part of Obama's change mantra seems to have been seriously eroded in the policy process this year. The power of the bully pulpit was much weaker than the Administration's power on Capital Hill this year. The President has watched his approval ratings erode by more than 20 points since the weeks following the election. To paraphrase the last President, the uniter turned out not to be much of a uniter. The country is fundamentally split, perhaps more now today, though in a different way, than it was during the last eight years. The Administration's decision to run a legislative campaign to push all its initiatives through as quickly as possible created its own back draft: the Tea Party. Too much government, sacrificing individual liberties, and strengthening federal control over many aspects of daily life from health care to energy was too much for those with a libertarian bent. Combining the President's policy proposals with the continued implementation of the financial industry bailout created a current of populism running against the President, big government, and big business that shows no signs of abating, certainly before the congressional elections next November. The problem for the President is that the Tea Party is not just made up of conservative Republicans, it includes many independents as well. So his base of support has weakened a bit among Democrats, eroded drastically among independents, and created a hardened and impassioned opposition among Republicans and a significant number of independents. The President has been painted as a traditional, big government liberal who is seeking to solve all of the country's ills by strengthening the role of the federal government. And more than 50 percent of respondents in polls think we are fundamentally off on the wrong track in doing so. In a center-right country, big government solutions will run into an electorate looking to take the President's party down a peg, or more, in 2010. The Administration needs to pivot hard from health care in January, not just in emphasizing jobs, but in demonstrating that government is not the solution to every problem. Public-private partnership, incentives through tax policy and market-based solutions, and the good old bully pulpit itself need to form the basis of a re-positioning of the Obama presidency if the passions of the Tea Party and conservatives are to be diffused in time to maintain strong majorities for the President's party in both houses next November. The President mounted the most successful legislative campaign this year. Democratic congressmen and senators must hope the Administration's legislative success will not cost them in the political campaign to come in 2010.