Is Your Elected Official Really Listening?

Oliver Wendell Jones asks: "In the past few weeks, since the Sept. 11 incident, I have tried to become much more involved with what's going on politically. It started with my sending e-mails to the members of the senate committee discussing H.R. 2500 (secure encryption) and received very polite e-mails from almost eveyone stating one of two (or sometimes both) generic messages. Not one of their e-mail responses included anything stating their feelings for or against H.R. 2500, so I have no idea if my e-mails had any effect." While I'm all for automated responses to take off the pressure in terms of response time, I'd at least expect aides to take care of these things. Autoresponses aren't enough, and when someone takes the time to write a Representative, whether it be snail mail or email, someone should respond. Of course, if they don't respond to written messages, try calling them directly and make sure an aide knows why you are calling. How many of you have tried and failed when attempting to ping your Rep on government issues that were important to you?

"The two responses I was able to receive were:

• They agreed that terrorists are bad.
• If I was a constituent of their state (i.e., I could vote for them) to please respond with my mailing address in their state (I did include my snail-mail address and I do not live in their states) and they would get back to me.

Of course, the impression I got after all of this, was that if I couldn't vote against them in an upcoming election, they didn't care about my opinion.

I also sent e-mails (and one fax) to the Representatives and Senators of my state (Indiana) on this same topic and received responses similar to those I had received from the others (terrorists are bad, mmmkay?)

Last week, in response to another request from the EFF, I sent snail-mail letters to my Senators and Representative concerning the SSSCA. This time I received a two page, snail-mail form letter reiterating that terrorists are still bad, which doesn't seem to have anything to do with the SSSCA.

Has anyone had any luck actually getting their point across to an elected official, and if so, what's the secret?" I think we can all agree that terrorists are bad, but so are bad laws that interfere with our rights. Several of these are trying to progress their way through the House and the Senate and it would be nice to know how the Representatives stand, one way or the other. How can one cut thru the rhetoric and get concrete information out of those who are supposed to be your duly elected representatives in government?

Comments

Are you really surprised?

[GearheadX]

Right now America is operating in a wartime mentality, and if there's anything that's gotten the American people in more trouble it's got to be decisions made by our leaders during wartime related to its citizens.

A 'security' matter is currently operating under a whole different sort of buzzwords and considerations than it would not be operating under were we at peace. Or at least thought we were at peace.

Re:The Senators Aren't

[Masem]

Actually, in light of the slashdot article, I'd argue that in this particular case, they are listening to the majority of their constituents in that they (the people represented) want tougher measures as to prevent further terrorism acts in the future. Because we are a representative democracy, the majority should take precidence. Of course, we are talking about the here and now opinions; in five years if these powers are no longer needed to fight terrorism at the same scale and are instead used for non-terrorism-related domestic law enforcement, then the people may B&M that they don't want them.

A better argument would be the DMCA or SSSCA; a bill that really supports maybe on the order of 100's of "people" (given that corporations are considered 'persons' under the law) that would benefit compared to the thousands or millions of constituents that would recieve no benefit and most likely 'penalties' from higher costs, etc, when these bills may pass. At this point, I would question how representation is really supposed to work.

(And yes, I've tried submitting the passage story too, denied.)

Re:Thoughts

[sphealey]

Find me one negatory personal freedom provision the US made in WWII or Vietnam that has stuck through to this day?

People imprisoned for life for criticizing the President under the Alien & Sedition Acts (WWI) were not released, in some cases, until 1925; they had felony convictions on their records and for the most part their lives were destroyed.

US citizens of Japanese descent had their lives and livelihoods destroyed when their property and businesses were confiscated during WWII, and they were imprisoned for 3-4 years in concentration camps. Most of these people never regained anything like the lives they have prior to the confiscation (IHMO the 2nd worst thing, after slavery, that the people of the US have done to themselves).

The people who had the misfortune to disagree with the ultra-right during the Cold War in many cases had their lives destroyed, whether by Senator McCarthy or other more subtle "anti-communists".

Any more questions?

sPh