E-mail has been standard in the House of Representatives since about 1995, but the technologically slow moving body is just now making it easier to communicate with constituents.
In September the House Administration Committee voted 5-3 along party lines to let members send e-mail to constituents within 90 days of a primary or general election without getting prior approval from the Franking Commission, which governs House correspondence. Before then, members could respond to constituents, but couldn't send unsolicited mass communications by e-mail or hard copy without priorr approval from the Franking Commission. This was to prevent use of Congressional resources for political advantage. Also, any e-mail sent to more than 500 people at any time had to be approved by the Franking Commission. E-mail now must still be solicited, but does not need prior approval before it is sent.
Some members said the old rules were inconsistent with the available technology.
"People are coming into the modern era, and they are realizing it is a great way to communicate with constituents," said House Administration Committee Chairman Bob Ney, ROhio. "We had the anthrax come in to the House, and our mail system completely imploded. It is back up and running. But let's face it: if you send email, it is going to reach [constituents] quicker."
In addition, he said, the technology should save money because there is no cost of paper, envelope and postage.
While House rules prohibit political statements in constituent e-mail any time, the last 90 days before an election are perhaps more crucial. Critics of the change contend that just sending email shortly before an election benefits congressmen, no matter what the message says.
"Anyone who runs for this office understands the enormous advantage that incumbents have already," said U.S. Rep. John Larson, D-Conn., the ranking minority member on the committee, at the hearing in September. "This just adds to that advantage and flies in the face of what is a reasonable 90-day cutoff with respect to information and information that can be gained or received through a political process, through candidate committees as well, with no bipartisan review, with no opportunity for public disclosure where one can see what is actually going out in that email."
Ney disagreed.
"I don't view it as incumbent advantage, I view it as incumbent services. You get elected, and you have to respond," he said. "To respond you have to have staff and e-mail."
Information in newsletters has to be selected carefully to avoid scrutiny from the Franking Commission or banishment to the e-mail trash bin by the constituent.
"The challenge is frankly to make [a newsletter] that does not sound political," said Brad Fitch, deputy director of the Congressional Management Foundation, a non-partisan organization working with Congress in an attempt to make it more productive. "People want basic information. They don't want these things to look like campaign commercials."
Critics are concerned that the email could turn into spam. Because some House members purchased commercial address lists, there is a possibility they would send mass e-mails to everyone on the lists.
Although members of Congress can send an initial e-mail to someone on a commercial list, the recipient has to subscribe to the newsletter to continue receiving e-mail. Ney said a person has to opt in to keep gathering messages and cannot be subscribed automatically by not opting out.
If e-mail is sent out that does not follow rules, the Franking Commission can apply sanctions after the fact, he said.
Although the issue seems benign in terms of partisanship, Ney said the party line vote surprised him.
"The initial statements that we heard were that some of the Democrats thought it was a good policy," he said. "They must have taken a second look at it, and somebody decided it gave the Republicans an advantage."
Elizabeth Bellizzi, minority communications director for the Committee on House Administration, said Larson expressed interest in looking at the rule, but did not say he supported the change.
"He wasn't right off the bat slamming his fist down," she said. "His comments were just a very innocent 'Let's take a look at it, sounds interesting.'"
Although e-newsletters and updates are common in the private sector, as of March 2003 they weren't in Congress. The Congress Online Project, part of the Congressional Management Foundation, found that 38 percent of House members and 32 percent of senators have some sort of newsletter.
Fitch said that all should change now because of the new rule.
"One would expect to see an explosion [in the number of e-newsletters]," he said.
No comments:
Post a Comment