Just Wondering – Why Franking?

I just got my second piece of mail in the last three weeks from my Congresswoman, Jahana Hayes. I also got a solicitation piece from someone running for her seat, David X. Sullivan. Timing seems interesting. That aside, the big difference between the two is, we paid for Representative Hayes’ glossy pieces and Mr. Sullivan’s was paid by “Sullivan for Congress”.

Representative Hayes’ piece touts how she is working “gavel-to-gavel” for us. She participated in 16 bipartisan hearings on education. She supported 65 bills related to education and another bill that would invest $100,000,000 for “College for All”. It goes on and on taking credit for funding totaling $75,600,000,000! What she doesn’t talk about is the franking privilege she enjoys giving her and other incumbents a distinct advantage over any challengers.

With technology available today, why do we allow Congress to continue to use tax dollars for what is basically, campaign materials? Yes, the amount spent has dropped from over $100 million a year to around $17 million but that is money that can be used elsewhere, like education. She already has a website and newsletter to which constituents can subscribe. She can and does send out regular emails. So why the need for a glossy direct mail piece?

Several attempts have been made to eliminate this taxpayer funded advertising but have failed. No surprise there. Controls introduced include having to print on every piece, ”This mailing was prepared, published and mailed at taxpayer expense.” You’ll notice the font of this message is much smaller than those of the Representative’s “accomplishments”. The effort to include the cost of the mailing failed while Mr. Sullivan’s piece contains two lengthy paragraphs on the legal issues of campaign contributions. Maybe it’s time to resurrect eliminating or at least, telling the truth about how much franking is costing us taxpayers?