A letter writer complains in today's Rochester Post Bulletin about receiving too many franked puff pieces in Free postage being abused by Kline. Complaints about representatives abusing the franking privilege abound, with Michele Bachmann being the champ in scoring them in Minnesota.
This incumbent advantage was diminished earlier this month. House rules governing Pre-Election Communication Restrictions have put Minnesota's incumbent representatives under a mass mailing and communications blackout.
Here's the general rule:
Section 3210 (a)(6)(A), Title 39 U.S.C. provides that a Member may not mail any mass mailings during the 90 days immediately preceding the date of any election (primary, general, special, or run off) in which the Member’s name will appear on the ballot as a candidate for election or re-election to any public office.
Since Minnesota has a September 9 primary, and all House members are in the Blackout period between August 6 and Nov. 4th for the General Election, many mass franking privileges for Minnesota's representatives were blacked out on June 11. A member need not have an opponent in the primary; his or her name simply has to be on the ballot; unopposed candidates still appear on the ballot in Minnesota's primary.
Here are the rest of the regulations:
A mass mailing is defined as an unsolicited mailing of 500 or more pieces of substantially identical content - whether mailed singly or in bulk - over the course of a legislative year (January 3 of one year through January 2 of the following year).
Mass Communications
Likewise, the Regulations of the Committee on House Administration governing the use of official resources and the Member’s Representational Allowance prohibit the reimbursement of any expenses incurred in support of the preparation, production, distribution, etc. of any mass communication – regardless of media – if such communication occurs during the 90 days immediately preceding the date of any election (primary, general, special, or run off) in which the Member’s name will appear on the ballot as a candidate for election or re-election to any public office.
A mass communication is defined, consistent with the definition of a mass mailing, as any communication of substantially identical content to 500 or more individuals over the course of a legislative year, regardless of media. Examples of mass communications include but are not limited to:
- Automated telephone (“robo”) calls.
- E-communications distributed to a non-subscriber e-mailing list.
- Advertisements (radio, TV, internet, newspaper, etc.) of town hall meetings or of the personal appearance of the Member and/or the Member's employees at an official
- Mass mailings, e.g., newsletters, meeting notices, newspaper inserts, surveys and questionnaires, etc.
- Facsimiles.
- Posters, flyers, leaflets, handouts, etc.
- Video or audio communications for which a Member may incur expenses for production, distribution, and/or broadcast.
The restrictions do not apply to:
- Advertisements for employment and internship opportunities in the Member’s congressional office, U.S. Military Academy Days, and An Artistic Discovery.
- E-communications distributed to a subscriber e-mailing list of residents of the Member’s district.
- Mailings or communications which are in direct response, i.e., a solicited response, to inquiries or requests from the person to whom the response is directed.
- Mass mailings or communications to Members of Congress, government officials (Federal, state, and/or local, and mailings of news releases to bona fide communications media outlets.
- Updates to the Member’s official web site.
- Video teleconferencing services in support of the conduct of a meeting being hosted by the Member.
One issue raised by the use of teletown meetings is their fit within franking regulations. In Lawmakers flock to tele-town meetings, Politico noted this issue:
Rep. Michael E. Capuano (D-Mass.), who chairs the House Franking Commission, the body that oversees lawmakers’ official communication with constituents, said current rules don’t adequately address telephone town meetings.
“The rules are out of the 18th century, and we all know it,” he said. “Many things were never anticipated by the rules, and this is just a classic example.”
The rules carefully prescribe the content of mailings to constituents, limiting, for example, the number of times they may refer to “Republicans” or “Democrats.” Telephone town halls receive no similar scrutiny, although lawmakers must seek approval for any pre-recorded audio messages.
Capuano said telephone meetings are akin to traditional town halls, in which no one censors what lawmakers say. Nonetheless, he said he began an overhaul of the franking rules in December with the aim of addressing new technologies.
If we read the regulations correctly, under current rules, those Representatives who utilize teletown conferences could legally inform those constituents who have signed up, or opted in, that a teleforum is going to take place, and contact only 499 or fewer constituents who haven't signed up.
It's hard to tell if the process of revising the regulations that Representative Capuano discussed is complete, and we have a call in to the Committee on House Administration press secretary to learn the status of the revision process.
Since Walz only holds face-to-face town hall meetings, the answer will be more relevant for voters in the Second and Sixth, where John Kline and Michele Bachmann have substituted the new technology for the more traditional meetings.
In Brian Davis on Franking Privileges, our friend Hal Kimball at Blue Man noted in May that Davis had complained about the perceived advantage of Walz's franked mass communications to residents in the First. With the blackout now in place until after the general election, Davis's perceived disadvantage is largely moot.
Image: 19th Century Harper's cartoon, "Beauties of the Franking Privilege."
Comments