By DENNIS CONRAD, Associated Press Writer
December 27, 2007
WASHINGTON - U.S. House members spent $20.3 million in tax
money last year to send constituents what's often the government
equivalent of junk mail meeting announcements, tips on car
care and job interviews, surveys on public policy and just
plain bragging.
They sent nearly 116 million pieces of mail in all, many
of them glossy productions filled with flattering photos
and lists of the latest roads and bridges the lawmaker has
brought home to the district, an Associated Press review
of public records shows.
Some offered advice on topics one would more commonly expect
to see in a consumer-advice column.
"Keep your car properly maintained" to improve mileage,
suggested Rep. Tim Murphy, R-Pa., in a newsletter on how to
deal with rising energy prices.
Rep. David Dreier, R-Calif., offered tips on home improvements.
And Rep. Cynthia McKinney, D-Ga., who lost her primary race
after a high-profile scuffle with a Capitol Hill police officer
last year, sent out a taxpayer-funded newsletter a few months
before the election that included this simple observation:
"Convicted felons can vote," she said, if "your" prison
sentence has been served, parole or probation completed and
fines paid. While campaigning, McKinney, who is black, noted
that blacks make up a disproportionately large share of the
prison population, which she said dilutes their voting strength.
A dozen House members spent more than $133,000 each to send
9.8 million pieces of mass mailings. Total cost? $1.8 million.
Sometimes the lawmakers' taxpayer funded mailings topped what
they paid for direct mail through their campaign funds.
Of the 64 House members with at least $100,000 in taxpayer-funded
mailing expenses and overwhelmingly for mass mailings 42 were
Republicans and 22 were Democrats, the AP review found.
In sharp contrast, 59 lawmakers in the 435-member House 35
Republicans and 24 Democrats spent nothing on mass mailings.
They tended to be the more experienced House members, often
with 14 or more years of service.
Mass mailings cannot be blatantly political, but they still
can have political benefits, said Pete Sepp, a spokesman for
the National Taxpayers' Union, which has condemned mass mailings.
"A taxpayer-financed mailing doesn't have to say 're-elect
me' to have an impact on voters," Sepp said. "A glossy
newsletter splashed with the incumbent's achievements in Congress
can build useful credentials a lawmaker can take with him to
the ballot box. The franking privilege is one of the main cogs
in Congress' PR machine."
Franking, practiced since the early days of the republic,
lets members of Congress send mail with just a signature where
the postage would normally be affixed. Although the mailings
are regulated by a congressional commission to guard against
overt political appeals and cannot go out within 90 days of
an election, they still sometimes take a dig at the opposition.
In a June 2006 newsletter, Rep. Pete Stark, D-Calif., noted
that under the Republican majority, Congress had passed tax
cuts that "benefit the wealthiest Americans at the expense
of working families."
Stark has been a regular among the biggest users of the congressional
franking privilege. For 2006, his mass mailings alone cost
$172,357, an amount large enough to rank him among the top
congressional mailers. House documents reported his overall
mailing costs to be about $37,000 less. The AP received no
explanation for the apparent discrepancy from spokesmen for
Stark, the House Administration Committee and House administration
staff.
Some lawmakers defend the newsletters as a vital way of communicating
with constituents.
"One of the biggest complaints my constituents had (with)
my predecessor was that they never knew what was going on in
Washington," said Rep. Ginny Brown-Waite, R-Fla. "They
never had the opportunity to do surveys, etc. I promised I
would communicate with them regularly."
Brown-Waite is one of the biggest users of bulk mail, with
657,951 pieces at a cost of $129,428 last year. That surpassed
the approximately $110,000 her campaign spent on direct mailings
and related costs.
One taxpayer-funded mailing featured a picture of her and
the headline: "Medicare Prescription Drug Update: The
Time to Act is Now." Another, entitled "Constituent
Service Guide for the 5th District," included a survey
and information about how to obtain U.S. flags, assistance
from federal agencies and an appointment to a military academy.
The House Democratic Caucus encourages members to use the
mailings to communicate with constituents, spokeswoman Sarah
Feinberg said. She said it was a good way for congressmen to
focus on an issue or, if survey questions are used, get a handle
on what constituents are thinking.
That argument doesn't persuade Rep. Ray LaHood, R-Ill., who
said he has never used the mailings in 13 years in Congress. "It's
a waste of taxpayers' money," he said. "I don't believe
in this self-promotion."
LaHood argues that franking should be used only to answer
constituent mail. He has repeatedly introduced bills to ban
mass mailings and just as often the legislation dies in committee.
For the House and Senate combined, the cost of taxpayer-paid
mailings, including mass mailings, letters to individuals and
groups of up to 500 people, was $34.3 million for fiscal year
2006, according to a recent Congressional Research Service
report. In 1988, before more restrictions were imposed on the
use of mailings, the figure was more than three times larger,
$113.3 million.
The biggest senders in the AP analysis included freshmen in
tight re-election fights and veterans who coasted to victory.
Rep. Henry Brown, R-S.C., had the most pieces of mass mailings:
1,257,972. His mass mailings' cost of $171,286 was among the
highest in the House, as was the overall cost of his franked
mail, at $177,705.
Murphy, who advised constituents to maintain cars, was one
of the House leaders in sending out bulk mail, with 1,003,836
pieces. The price tag:$165,650.
Among legislative leaders, the biggest spender was Rep. Thaddeus
McCotter, R-Mich., who last fall became chairman of the House
GOP Conference. He spent $133,053 to mail 844,336 pieces.
Other leaders in the last Congress and the current one were
not big users.
The cost of postage is not the only expense for taxpayers.
Printing and reproduction can add tens of thousands of dollars
to a mailing's cost. The printing cost for one mailing from
McCotter was $30,259.
There is a practical limit on how much can be spent on mailings.
Funding comes from a congressman's office budget, which ranges
from $1.2 million to $1.4 million for payroll and other expenses.
The more spent on mass mailings, the less money is available
for such needs as staff, salaries and district offices.
Senators can also send franked mail, but the amount for each
senator is specific and generally based on the number of addresses
in a senator's state. At no point may it exceed $50,000 a year
for mass mailings. For fiscal year 2004, overall mail allocations
ranged from $31,746 to $298,850.
Rep. Cliff Stearns, R-Fla., who mailed 906,788 pieces last
year and won re-election with 60 percent of the vote, sees
the mailings as helping him do his job.
"Ours is a representative government, requiring an active
dialogue between elected officials and those they serve," Stearns
said in a statement.
Mike Stokke, a political aide and deputy chief of staff to
Rep. Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., when he was House speaker, said
he would advise congressmen to send out mailings when they've
fulfilled an important promise, such as getting money for a
bridge in the district.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(In accordance with Title
17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed
without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest
in receiving the included information for research and
educational purposes. BadConcress.com has no affiliation
whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is BadCongress.com
endorsed or sponsored by the originator.
|
