During my 12 years in Google’s Washington, DC, office, I saw up close how third-party organizations move the ball inside the Beltway. Think tanks, trade associations, and advocacy groups can be powerful force multipliers.
Near the end of my tenure, I sketched a plan for a new center-left tech industry association called Chamber of Progress and filed it away until late 2020, when I felt the political environment was ripe.
Five years later, the group I sketched on paper has grown to a global team of 20 people. I know it’s possible to take an idea for a new advocacy group and make it real.
There’s plenty of room in Washington for policy entrepreneurship. Too many traditional trade associations are slow-moving and bogged down by outdated governance. Too many are coasting on heyday victories, unaware that new generations of policymakers haven’t heard of them.
And a wave of new voices has shown that fresh organizations sometimes can be more influential than established ones. Whether you cheer or jeer their agendas, relatively new groups like American Compass and the American Economic Liberties Project demonstrate how lean, mission-driven groups can punch above their weight quickly.
So where should you start if you want to build something new? Simple—think like a startup.
The practices that help Silicon Valley founders build companies translate well to building an advocacy group capable of real impact. Here are four principles policy entrepreneurs should borrow from startups.
Find your product-market fit. In Silicon Valley, product-market fit comes from whether a real constituency wants what you’re offering, not just from the passion you bring. Treat your founding phase as discovery.
Investigate what gap your organization would fill. What problem does it solve, and for whom? Why aren’t existing groups addressing it effectively? And why are you uniquely suited to lead? Passion is necessary, but it isn’t enough.
With Chamber of Progress, I saw an opportunity to create a center-left counterpart to the center-right tech trade association NetChoice. This was at a moment when Democrats were setting the policy agenda and companies wanted a more robust intra-party debate on tech policy.
That hypothesis pinpointed our initial audience: Democratic policymakers who wanted pragmatic, pro-innovation arguments in a language they recognized. When early partners and policymakers told us, “No one else is saying it this way,” that was the “fit” signal to double down.
Choose a funding strategy and let it guide your form. Who funds you will shape what you can be. Will your organization be backed by corporations, individuals, foundations, or so-called dark money? Are you building a trade association, a think tank, an advocacy shop, or a coalition? Form follows funding, and funding follows incentives.
Based on the findings from your discovery phase, decide whether you’re a 501(c)(3), 501(c)(4), or 501(c)(6). Then get inside the heads of prospective funders and be brutally honest: Who has the strongest reason to underwrite this mission in year one? What proof will they need to see in year two?
Many founders try to bolt a perfect legal structure onto a vague revenue plan. Flip the order. Start with your theory of influence and your likely revenue stream and design your organization to match.
Whatever structure you choose, make the logic explicit to your funders, your team, and yourself.
Design governance before you start. During my time at Google, I sat on the boards of the Internet Association and ITI, two traditional tech trade associations. I saw how member company vetoes, cross-pressures, and consensus requirements can sap urgency, blur positions, and trigger the bystander effect.
When I started Chamber of Progress, I followed NetChoice’s model and decided that partner companies wouldn’t sit on our board of directors and wouldn’t have veto power over our work.
Many policy organizations fit somewhere on a spectrum between input and impact. Traditional trade associations maximize member input and, as a result, often put out milquetoast messages that offend no one and persuade no one. Other models limit input, which enables sharper, faster advocacy.
Startups face an analogous decision. Founders choose corporate form and board design up front, because investor contracts and bylaws lock in incentives and speed.
Advocacy founders should be just as intentional. Choose your governance structure early, set expectations clearly, and let your structure serve your mission.
Start small and rack up wins. Don’t open with a multi-year, multimillion-dollar ask for money. Do what startups do: raise a seed round, ship quickly, and earn the right to scale.
Define the smallest credible pilot that would validate your theory of change—a focused campaign in one state, a tight coalition letter, an explainer that reframes a debate, or a staff-briefing series that answers a pressing question.
Measure outcomes—cosponsors added, hostile provisions removed, validators recruited, committees briefed—not effort. If the pilot works, return to funders with receipts and a plan for the next tranche.
In my experience, success begets investment. It’s the advocacy equivalent of equity: You’re motivated to execute, you earn the next round, and you share upside by delivering impact.
Washington doesn’t need fewer voices; it needs sharper ones. If you’re contemplating a new organization, don’t wait for perfect timing or permission.
Write down the need you see. Identify the smallest experiment that could confirm or falsify your hypothesis. Recruit your first three believers. Then launch a pilot and learn fast.
In a town that often rewards caution, speed and clarity are competitive advantages. “Launch a small pilot, prove it works, and the support to scale will follow.”
This article does not necessarily reflect the opinion of Bloomberg Industry Group, Inc., the publisher of Bloomberg Law, Bloomberg Tax, and Bloomberg Government, or its owners.
Author Information
Adam Kovacevich is the founder and CEO of Chamber of Progress, a center-left tech industry coalition.
Write for Us: Author Guidelines
To contact the editors responsible for this story: