A little-known congressional privilege that allows spending TAXPAYER MONEY for massive postage bills is called “FRANKING”.  Mass mail is defined by House rules as more pieces of similar mail sent during a single session of Congress.

A 2008 article written by Michael Owens, reporter for the Bristol Herald Courier newspaper notes the perk, which essentially allows members of Congress to send mail with just their stamped signature, is known as the “congressional frank”.

The following are excerpts from that article which goes on to say that postal carriers nationwide hand-delivered $5.8 million worth of  ”franked” mail  … just in the FIRST NINETY DAYS of 2008 … according to congressional documents.

Rick Boucher is a regular on the MASS-MAIL TOP-SPENDER LIST.  Records show that just during the first quarter of 2008, he spent $39,680.00 to cover Southwest Virginia.

Proponents (incumbents) call the privilege a legal blessing that allows congressional members to keep in touch with constituents and notify them of upcoming votes and important events.  Without it, they say, representatives could not meet the out-of-pocket expense of keeping constituents informed.  Some incumbents contend that it is their personal duty to update constituents.

Detractors of the franking privilege, like Pete Sepp of the watchdog group National Taxpayers Union, argue that such mailers are little more than  free advertising for incumbents bent on re-election.  Sepp wrote in an e-mail to the Bristol Herald, “Since incumbents can easily spend over $100,000 on postage and printing alone, the positive spin they can build with that kind of money forces challengers to dig deeper into their pockets.”

Often times, stamped on these mailings are the words:  “Public Document” and/or “Official Business”.  Then, in small italics below that is the line:  “This mailing was prepared, published and mailed at taxpayer expense.”

With franked mail, the line between constituent information and campaign litetature can be thin.  House law bans mass-mailings within 90 days of a primary or an election.  It is interesting to see how many mass mailings go out just in time to meet the 90-day deadline before an election.  Rob Russell, a challenger for the 1st District seat in Tennessee, stated, “It seems to me that the timing would lead me to believe … that [the brochures] are masquerading as information when it ’s really campaign literature.”

Additionally, Congressmen receive donations to their re-election campaigns.  Some of that money is then also spent on additional postage.  For example, Boucher spent an additional $29,259 on postage during his re-election.  (He ran unopposed).  The newspaper article stated, “That figure could easily top $100,000 in a heated election … though he does not foresee such spending in his uncontested election this year.” 

Another major advantage of “franking” is the continual name recognition.  Even with the high-cost  postage war dependent on donations , mass campaigning would be much easier with a free ride on name recognition, said Dr. Phil Roe, a challenger for the Republican nomination in Tennessee.  Roe’s campaign had spent $726 on mail, records show.  He said, “You’re spending a lot of money to get your name out there … When you pay for it yourself, you tend to be a little more judicious on who you send it to.”

Again, incumbents like Boucher, say that franking allows them to notify constituents of important events and UPCOMING VOTES.

Here is a question for the citizens of the 9th District.  When do you recall EVER receiving mailings from Boucher which inform you as to his ….. VOTES? 

Here is a typical statement from Mr. Boucher as quoted in the Bristol Herald Courier:  “I don’t think that what I am sending could be considered political.”

Really?

You be the judge.

Here are some excerpts from reader reactions to reporter Michael Owens’ article:

“Term limits – the only way to get rid of waste like this!  Term limits for both sides of the aisle!”

“If I’m reading this right, our tax money is paying for this, and if I am, this is ludicrous.  Our tax money can be better spent than on this.  Is there no way to involve a broader audience without this exorbiant debt?  Like a main website or something.  This money could be better spent on issues of our states that really need help and not this bull”

“Now is the time to start thinking!’

“This article is a great way to inform all taxpayers about how our tax-money is being directed to personal use by politicians, and it’s done legally.  I hope all readers can grasp the true meaning of all the ‘franking’ benefits that the politicians have voted themselves!  I wish the public would turn their brain ON!”

Again, Rick Boucher, …… “I DON’T THINK WHAT I’M DOING COULD BE CONSIDERED POLITICAL.”