Free mail privilege draws scrutiny
Published 4:00 am Thursday, December 13, 2007
- Free mail privilege draws scrutiny
WASHINGTON — Oregon Sen. Gordon Smith recently sent a newsletter about health care and education to 92,000 people in Western and Southern Oregon who expressed interest in the issues.
The newsletter mentions legislation Smith has introduced and issues he has worked on, including the State Children’s Health Initiative and a bill that would encourage nanotechnology education in schools. But one of his Democratic opponents, Jeff Merkley, who is seeking to unseat Smith in 2008, said Smith was playing up his work with Democrats in more liberal parts of the state — and thus abusing a centuries-old congressional practice called franking, or sending mail to constituents paid for with taxpayer dollars.
Members of Congress call the privilege an important way to connect with their constituents and respond to questions they receive. But the practice has also been a frequent target of government watchdog groups, which say it is susceptible to being used to benefit the official who sends the newsletters or mass mailings. The word “frank” comes from Middle English, meaning “free,” according to the Congressional Research Service. It also refers to the members’ signature, which takes the place of a stamp on franked mail.
Smith’s spokesman, R.C. Hammond, said there was no abuse and the mailer went to both rural and urban voters in Western and Southern Oregon. The newsletter, which cost $22,000 to produce, was sent only to those areas because of budget constraints, Hammond said. Smith has frequently touted his partnerships with Democrats on issues like health care and mental health legislation.
When asked about Smith’s use of mass mail, he said the goal is to keep people informed.
“The Senate office sends newsletters to Oregonians to keep them informed of important, timely issues before Congress, such as education, health care and natural resources,” Hammond said. “These mailings are approved by the Senate Ethics Committee, which applies strict rules and guidelines.”
Oregon’s other senator, Wyden, does not send newsletters or mass mailings, said spokeswoman Jennifer Holzer. So far this year, Wyden’s office has used the right to send about 22,000 letters in response to questions from constituents, she said.
According to the U.S. Senate historian’s office, U.S. legislators first adopted free mailing in 1775, adapting an English practice that dates to the 1600s.
One of the earliest franking controversies came in 1873, when the Senate banned it following a successful campaign by the Republican Party against the practice. Senators briefly switched to stamps, but two years later exceptions, such as free mailing of agricultural reports, began to creep in. By 1891, franking was back, this time for good.
An Oregon senator cried foul over franking as far back as 1919, according to a New York Times article from that year that chronicled the event. Oregon Sen. George Chamberlain accused the secretary of the Department of War of sending pamphlets defending military courts-martial — which Chamberlain had criticized — to members of the American Bar Association.
“This gross abuse of official position and the franking privilege is one of the thousand evidences of the length to which the Secretary of War will go,” Chamberlain said at the time.
Rep. Greg Walden, R-Hood River, mainly sends letters to update constituents on issues they’ve asked about, said spokesman Andrew Whelan.
“I can only judge from our feedback from constituents, which is, ‘Thank you for keeping us informed,’” Whelan said.
The practice reached its height in 1988, when members sent a total of $113 million worth of mail to constituents. In 2006, Congress spent about $34 million on constituent mail, according to the Congressional Research Service.
Franking costs have fallen in the last 20 years, largely due to restrictions on members’ mail spending. In 1986, the U.S. Senate allotted mail allowances to each member and disclosed each member’s franking spending for the first time. The U.S. House adopted similar policies in 1990.
Senate members are currently limited to $50,000 worth of mass mailings under Senate rules. House members are given a franking allowance, but they are allowed to spend over that amount from some other accounts within their office.
Abuses of the franking privilege have become less frequent in recent years, but the advent of e-mail and the Internet could change that, said Pete Sepp, vice president of the government watchdog group National Taxpayers Union. In 1994, Congress spent $42 million on franking, compared to last year’s $34 million.
Congressional offices could spend their franking budgets to purchase e-mail lists or target e-mails to certain groups of voters, Sepp said.
“Technology is catching up to the franking privilege,” Sepp said. “They could easily purchase lists that target people over 65, members of the chamber of commerce, that sort of thing.”
Spokesmen and spokeswomen for Smith, Wyden, Walden and Rep. Peter DeFazio, D-Springfield, said their offices do not buy e-mail lists with taxpayer money.
To prevent the potential for franking to be abused, Sepp advocated banning franking by members in election years. Franking is already banned 60 days before Senate elections and 90 days before elections in the House.
Most of Oregon’s House members rank in the middle range of spending on mail, according to House records and the National Taxpayer’s Union. But DeFazio ranked in the top 10 in the House in mail spending, at $165,128 in 2005. That cost comes from sending out several newsletters, along with notices for the 20 to 30 town hall meetings he holds each year, said spokeswoman Molly Simms. The goal is to keep people informed, she said.
“He’s quite proud of the fact he makes huge efforts to do that,” Simmons said. “He sees this as his responsibility as a member of Congress, to communicate with his constituents.”