Rossputin.com: Rational Thinking About Our World

In the interest of full disclosure: I know Jeff Crank personally and have contributed to his campaign. I do not live in the 5th Congressional District, and support Jeff because I believe he's the best man for the job.

see "Lamborn’s mail bill bigger than most" (CO Springs Gazette, 4/16/08)
http://www.gazette.com/articles/lamborn_35288___article.html/mail_district.html

Members of Congress have a "franking privilege", allowing them to send mail to constituents without paying for postage. Of course, there are perfectly reasonable uses for franked mail, such as answering direct questions from citizens.

An interesting study of the franking privilege, including a description of its costs and criticisms was released by the Congressional Research Service just a few months ago:
http://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL34274.pdf

We now have news that Colorado Congressman Doug Lamborn spent over $135,000 on franked mail, by far the most of any Colorado congressman, in 2007.

The report in the Colorado Springs Gazette notes that while franked mail gets approved by a congressional committee (I'm sure they're sooooo strict), some of the mailed pieces look very much like campaign material rather than the sort of constituent communications which are appropriate for franking.

There has been some academic research suggesting that the franking privilege offers an advantage to incumbents. And one would obviously expect an incumbent to believe that, if he can send campaign-like material to voters without cost while challengers pay for postage. An interesting conclusion in one study of franking was that "in 2004 Democrats and Junior Members felt most vulnerable in upcoming elections as they sent more franked mail than their Republican and Senior counterparts." To be clear, it is hard to know whether Democrats spent more than Republicans in that year because Republicans were in the majority or because Republicans actually are more fiscally responsible. Some years ago, I would have bet on the latter, but given the GOP performance in the past 6 years, I'm not so sure.

In any case, Lamborn's abuse of the franking privilege is an embarrassment for a congressman who has a good voting record on fiscal and tax issues. Indeed, it is yet another in a string of embarrassments for Lamborn in his home district and another reason I believe the Club for Growth made an error in endorsing him despite Lamborn's solid record on Club issues. I continue to believe that Jeff Crank will be just as good on these issues, and would be a far more effective representative of his district. Lamborn simply doesn't have a good enough grasp of major issues for the district, especially military issues. And even after Lamborn's two years in Congress, Crank almost certainly has a better understanding of how to work through the bureaucratic maze to get things done (since Crank worked for many years in the office of Congressman Joel Hefley who retired in 2006.)

From my own research, I do not believe there is any official central repository of the information about which members of Congress frank how much mail. However, with some delay due to the tremendous amount of work involved, the National Taxpayers Union does publish this type of information. As of today, the most recent compiled data is for 2005.

Here's an interesting comment from a friend at NTU: "As for 2007 data, we constantly caution the media (sometimes to no avail) that the data in the printed volumes is extremely volatile. In most years, $25 million or more of "adjustments" are made to House Members' records by the lawmakers themselves, often 6 months to a year after the fact. That's why we usually wait for at least two additional quarters of data released subsequent to a given year before we are sufficiently confident in the accuracy of the numbers to make them public. In other words, we would want to receive the 1st and 2nd quarter books of 2008 in order to look for corrections to records of 2007."

The lack of franking information easily available to the public implies that it's information Congress doesn't want us to have. A Roll Call article from October, 2007, give some hints why that may be true:

Almost three decades of Members mailing glossy newsletters and legislative updates to their constituents has cost taxpayers more than $1.4 billion — and most of it was spent during election years....

But the CRS report suggests that Members don’t use franking to just send updates to constituents throughout the year. Instead, franking costs skyrocket during August of election years — right before the 90-day period prior to an election when Representatives aren’t allowed to send mass mailings. There’s also a spike in December of odd-numbered years, suggesting a scramble to get out mail on lawmakers’ accomplishments over the year. In December 2005, close to $6 million was spent on official mail, while in August 2006, more than $4 million was spent. This pattern implies that franking has become a campaign tool, said Tom Schatz, president of Citizens Against Government Waste.

Indeed, the fact that the Senate and House each have (different) rules about not using franked mail within some time period before an election is strong evidence that they realize the privilege is being used for campaigning, despite the theoretical existence of a process to approve franked material.

As for Lamborn, some of his glossy mailings seem obviously like campaign material...things like "Lamborn on family issues" (according to a CD-5 resident who has received these mailings), talking about Lamborn's positions on issues rather than anything he's actually done.

Other questions arise about Lamborn: What mailing lists is he using? Are the mailings going to all CD-5 voters, just Republicans, or just a subset of Republicans (such as people who voted in the last election, party delegates, etc)? Unfortunately, I do not believe this information will be easy to get. And since I have to earn a living doing things other than investigations, I'll have to leave that leg-work to a motivated reporter.

For comparison, I contacted the office of Senator Wayne Allard and was informed that Allard has never done a franked mass mailing, and has only used franked mail to 1) answer constituent questions, 2) send letters to federal agencies, and 3) notify constituents (who had specifically requested such notification) of upcoming town meetings.

Lamborn's apparent abuse of the franking system represents more than a small departure from fiscal responsibility. Instead it shows a continuing willingness to tread the line, or maybe cross the line, in both the ethics and the law regarding political campaigns.