Slashdot Mirror
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?
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?
"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.
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?
When a huge event like Sept. 11th occurs, it's usually followed up by loads of mail (snail and electronic). A representative only has so much time to respond to mail. If you get a response, consider yourself extremely lucky you did, kind of like winning the lottery.
You can often call, write letters, or even stop by the offices of these local guys. At least, then you will have a feeling of having your message heard.
Of course these only effect state laws, not the national anti-terrorist or SSSSCA crap.
Hand-written or typed letters
Hand-written or typed letters
Hand-written or typed letters
Let's keep saying it a few more times, and maybe it will sink in.
Senators don't read Slashdot.
Representatives don't read Slashdot.
GWB doesn't read Slashdot.
Few of them read their email. What do you do with your un-solicited email? Guess what they do?
Hand-written or typed letters!
Get a pen.
Get some paper.
Get an envelope.
It's not that hard.
Hand-written or typed letters.Thank you.
I have written my Congressman via snailmail numerous times and always been responded to, on topics ranging from video game violence to copyright law. The problem with E-mailing your congressman is that it's way too impersonal, IMO. I'm sure the Congressman is getting WAY more e-mail than snailmail and they get easily backlogged, especially in the days of SPAM. It's also easy to just setup an autoresponder and forget about it.
If you want to write your Congressman, take the time to write an ACTUAL letter, print it out on nice stationary, and use the good old United States Postal Service to deliver it. Words on paper carry more weight than words on a computer screen.
Do you really want your words to be heard?
Execute? [Y/N] _
Considering that the Senate Passed the Anti-Terrorism Bill with an overwhelming 96-1 vote. Reading through the quotes in the linked article, it is particularly disturbing how most of the senators see nothing wrong with the bill and are opposed to limiting the duration of the bill as the House wants to.
The house hasn't voted on their version of the bill yet so there is still time to inundiate your representatives with phone calls, faxes and letters.
It just takes time. Do you know how many letters, e-mails, and phone calls the Representatives and Senators get each day? When the peanut butter and jellly sandwich patent came to light I fired off an e-mail to my representative, Frank Wolf (R-VA). Six weeks later I got a reply from one of his staffers who had looked into the matter, decided that the pb&j that was patented was more like a pop-tart than a traditional pb&j, and was therefore novel enough to be patentable. I sent a note thanking him for looking into the matter.
Best Slashdot Co
I worked for a Congressman for three months as an intern, and I can tell you this:
You're right - nobody cares.
I filled out, entered, filed, etc. etc. etc., hundreds upon thousands of constituant letters, non-constituant letters, return envelopes, return letters, etc, etc, etc. Do you honestly think that anyone has the time to respond to over 10,000 letters a month on an individual basis?
While everyone's thoughts matter, there's just no way to be fair about replies. I've read - quite literally - hundreds of letters that were actually handwritten or typewritten from people with scores of different concerns. To be fair, however, all I was ever allowed to do was send the standard reply letter and trace the Congressman's signature.
It sucks, I know. I've written George Bush, Bill Clinton, and Dubya tons of e-mail, snail mail, etc. on tons of different issues.
I've not once gotten a personal reply - not even from a secretary.
It sucks, but when you get like 100,000 correspondances a month, you can't really reply to them without tipping the scales towards a few select individuals who you deem 'worthy'.
But isn't everyone equally worthy?
Oh well...just keep writing, maybe it will happen!
SMasters
maleboja@ici.net
I once wrote my state representative with my concerns about a recent commercial expansion in my area. The traffic was becoming more than a small problem, as people were becoming increasingly gridlocked and late for work and school buses couldn't get to their stops in time to get local children to school in time for their first class. The increasing number of people shopping in the area also brought more crime, as parking lot stick-ups became frighteningly more frequent and carjackings happened in the area for the first time.
A few days later I got a letter thanking me for my concern and assuring me that my representative was co-operating with other representatives to get new road projects going in the area and limit further large-scale commercialization (re: shopping centers) in the area. I was more or less pleased with this reply.
Imagine my surprise when a few days after that I got another letter thanking me for supporting my representative's co-operation with business leaders who wanted to expand to our area. The letter went on to promise that my representative would push for more commercial zoning, promising an influx of new jobs to my area.
*sigh*
My sigs always suck.
I regularly write Paul Wellstone and Mark Dayton in the Senate and Martin Sabo in the House. Wellstone ususally sends a fairly relevant form reply, Dayton has yet to get back to me (although he also gets less from me because he doesn't have e-mail (!) available). Sabo always sends me a letter in the mail that addresses the issue a raise, and explains how he voted on relevant legislation and why - even when he voted contrary to the position I state. I admire that a lot.
Vote in primaries. Vote in elections. If your representative dissapoints you and fails to respond to your concerns, make sure they know you will be voting against them in the next primary and why. Just you doing that won't change the world. But just a few thousand people in your state doing it could have a huge effect on the actions of congress. We all know the Religious Right is politically quite powerful compared to its absolute size. Why? Because they are active and unified. That's all. I don't like their issues or tactics but their political technique is rock solid and represents democracy in action.
It Is the Nature of Information to Transgress Artificial Boundaries
I've seen that "tell me your address so I know you're one of my constituents" thing before. Makes sense to me, as long as you're contacting them about something that the entire House or Senate is considering. But what about issues that are currently in committee? I've read that this is where the real "action" happens on new bills, and is therefore the best place to get bad things changed. Even if I don't have a representative on the committee, shouldn't my opinion count just as much as anyone else's?
*starts rummaging for civics book*
-beme
1971
Here's how to get your letter through:
FAX - it gets read, you get snail mail back, and the snail mail may be relevant.
by this method,
Helms - wrote that he supported Ashcroft.
Edwards - sent a copied speech he made on the Senate floor, irrelevant to what I wrote him about.
Price - wrote back a letter stating that he was concerned about safe-guarding our civil liberties in the wake of the tragedy and that he shared my concerns.
I met Price briefly at a public appearance he made- he said if I wrote his office a letter and marked it PERSONAL, that he'd get it instead of an aide, and that we could schedule some time to discuss my concerns.
Email has seemed to leave a lesser impression that printing and mailing my letters, or faxing them.
Actually, I haven't tried for two reasons. One is the natural inclination of mine that since it's "wartime" most people really won't care (heck, most representatives only listen with one ear open during peacetime). But it goes beyond that.
Personally, I think "nerds" should step back and ask themselves whether it's really necessary to have what they consider "freedom". I'm all for freedom of speech, but in day-to-day life do with really need to encrypt everything? Further, given that people are dying, can there at least be a temporary moratorium on personal freedom to prevent further killings.
Nerds like conspiracies. They like the X-Files and love to think there's some higher "man" out there trying to dictate how they should act. Truth of the matter is: every wartime provision ever made negatively affecting personal freedom has either been mitigated or repealed over time. Find me one negatory personal freedom provision the US made in WWII or Vietnam that has stuck through to this day? If anything, these occasional provisions make us value our personal freedoms more.
I for one believe in logic, and my statement still stands to this day. People on these boards continually say "I'd rather be dead that lose my freedom of speech". I say, "What's the point of freedom of speech if you're already dead?"
What I've learned: the government doesn't have to listen to the citizens or acknowledge them. All they have to do is grease the right wheels to get into an election, then spend enough to get their name out. The less voters know about each candidate, the better for both sides, because then the race becomes about personality and party affilitation rather than having to deal with voters.
Even starting somewhat locally (in terms of the Federal Govt.), I've never gotten very far. In the 5 years I've lived where I do, I have snail-mailed my U.S. representative exactly 2xs (note: Before I moved here, I never mailed anyone at all). After the 1st, I got no response. After the 2nd, I got a form response 4 months after the fact which basically said that 'issues are important to this office'. The letter did not mention the bill I was protesting, and arrived months after votes had been cast.
I snail-mailed my State govt. rep. on one bill, too, and have since received occasional mailers from the state govt., but no response to the issue that concerned me.
"The girl makes Godot look punctual." -- Buffy
I would have thought finger was a more appropriate analogy in this case, since you're actually expecting the remote host to return information. Then again, "fingering your representative" could be misconstrued as something inappropriate...
-- If no truths are spoken then no lies can hide --
I know that my elected officials respond to email, because I have twice recieved personal, thought out responses from Virginia officials (Former Governor Jim Gilmore and Sen. John Warner.) after sending in email. I know from talking to others that Senator Allen also gives some serious weight to email. Of course, tech is extremely important to the economy in Virginia, I somehow doubt that officials in the midwest pay as much attention to email.
Right now people trying to get involved need to realize that the government does not have much time to talk with us. Both email, snailmail, and phone calls are flooding capitol hill faster than staffers can deal with the correspondence. Officials are extremely busy legislating, meeting with each other, with the president, foreign officals and diplomats, and other people who are generally more important than the guy back home who wants an audience of some sort to talk about things that any ACLU lobbyist knows more about.
That does not mean, however that the officials are not listening. Staffers keep track of every email, letter, and phone call, and keep the officials posted on what the voters want. If you want to get a point across, keep up the letters. Support groups that lobby your point of view. Just remember to cut your officials some slack for not getting back to you during these trying times.
sPh
Often times, because email is a global thing and can easily be impersonated, elected officials are not super keen on acting on random emails they get since you may be from outside their district/state.
I've emailed my local reps a few times in Wisconsin, and I've always included my address to attest to my residency. I've even gotten responses (albeit by snail mail).
Yeah, maybe you might think they're old-timers for not adopting the internet, but they've got to make sure they're speaking for their constituents, not just others around the state/country/world.
I wrote my first political opinion paper recently.
I found my specific three representatives' names, email addresses, and postal addresses. In case you were asleep in Civics classes, that's one Congressperson in the House of Representatives that hails from your district (area) of your home state, and two Senators who hail from your home state. I also found the same information for George Bush, the President.
I wrote my letter, which you can read at http://www.halley.cc/ed/politics/. A fair first letter; the only thing I would have changed would be to specifically reference the bill number . The features of the letter:
I got printed letters back which stated each representative's viewpoints on the exact matter (and that the issue had not yet been sent from the Congress to the Senate). The Congressperson stated how they voted and why. The Senators described their current rationale on the issue.
While the letters did not contain any quotes or specific references to my own letter, they were appropos to my opinions, very articulate, very on-point and organized. I imagine that these were cranked out form letters, but in that case, they must have a very well-tuned library of form letters on each subject that they were addressing in their representative works.
I have not heard from GWB's office on this matter.
[
Money
Money
Money
Maybe if we say that a few more times, it will sink in. I had a friend who was a senior foriegn policy advisor in the office of one of the Florida Senators, and we talked about constituent mail one day. She said they usually put the lowest/newest intern on the mail answering duty, and the contents of the mail never trickle up past that person.
I asked her, that person doesn't give a report or something at the end of the day? Nope. do you even keep a tally of where people stand? Nope. Does it matter if the writers are actually constituents or not? Nope.
She said most people who write in are nuts, and they just don't care about them at all.
They do write back to everyone, but wake up: Patrick Leahy is not writing back to you, an 18 year old that just moved to DC from Vermont is.
If you want to have any impact on legislation, there is only one thing they listen to: money. Unless you can get a big enough group, say 1 million people, to all go to the capital on the same day...
-Mike
PS I lost a lot of confidence in our government that day.
Go to your district office, or better yet, the DC office, IN PERSON. You'll get heard. VERY few people will bother, and the ones that do, count
-- 73 de KG2V For the Children - RKBA! "You are what you do when it counts" - the Masso
"The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty
decreases." (Thomas Jefferson)
"The word politics is derived from the words "poly" meaning many and
"ticks" meaning blood sucking parasites" (Anonymous)
"The only idea they have ever manifested as to what is a government
of consent, is this --- that it is one to which everybody must
consent, or be shot." (Lysander Spooner)
"They that give up essential liberty to obtain temporary safety,
deserve neither liberty nor safety." (Ben Franklin)
"Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force"
(George Washington)
"A society of sheep must in time beget a government of wolves"
(Juvenal)
"The ideal tyranny is that which is ignorantly self-administered
by its victims. The most perfect slaves are, therefore, those which
blissfully and unawaredly enslave themselves" (Dresden James)
"In free governments, the rulers are the servants, and the people
their superiors and sovereigns. For the former, therefore, to return
among the latter is not to degrade but to promote them"
(Ben Franklin)
"A congressman is a pig. The only way to get his snout from the trough
is to rap it sharply with a stick" (Henry Adams)
"Arms discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe and
preserve order in the world as well as property. Horrid mischief
would ensue where the law abiding deprived the use of them."
(Thomas Paine)
"The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge
to rule" (Menken)
"The right to be left alone...the right most valued by civilized men"
(Louis Brandeis)
"Sooner or later all politicians die swallowing their own lies"
(Claire Luce)
"Patriotism means to stand by the country. It does not mean to
stand by the president or any public official, save exactly to the
degree he himself stands by the country." (Theodore Roosevelt)
"Does the government fear us? Or do we fear the government?
When the people fear the government, tyranny has found victory.
The federal government is our servant, not our master!"
(Thomas Jefferson)
"Their nature...is to argue and procrastinate, yet we persist
in electing lawyers to Congress" (Ben Franklin)
"Liberals can understand everything but people who
don't understand them" (Lenny Bruce)
"Most stupid people are conservative, but not all conservatives
are stupid" (John Stuart Mill)
"For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing
to know the whole truth, to know the worst, and prepare for it.
(Patrick Henry)
"Our acts of liberty are our strongest propaganda"
(Paul Goodman)
"Americans are so enamoured of equality they would rather be equal
in slavery than unequal in freedom" (Alexis de Tocqueville)
"Education - compulsory schooling, compulsory learning - is a tyranny
and a crime against the human mind and spirit. Let all those escape
it who can, any way they can" (John Holt)
"To know what you prefer, instead of humbly saying Amen to what the
world tells you you ought to prefer, is to have kept your soul alive"
(Robert Louis Stevenson)
"There is no such thing as a majority right. Only those who understand
and act according to this principle can promote true freedom"
(Harry H. Hoiles)
"The hardest thing in the world to understand is the income tax"
(Albert Einstein)
"Democracy is a form of religion, it is the worship of jackals by
jack asses" (H. L. Menken)
"Peace, commerce, and honest freindship with all nations - entangling
alliances with none" (Thomas Jefferson)
"Government at its best is a necessary evil, and at it's worst an
intolerant one" (Thomas Paine)
"No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
(Thomas Jefferson, proposal Virginia Constitution, June 1776)
"That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize
Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of
conscience; or to prevent the people of the United states who are
peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms..." (Samuel Adams)
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your
right to say it" (Voltaire)
"You need only reflect that one of the best ways to get yourself a
reputation as a dangerous citizen these days is to go about repeating
the very phrases which our founding fathers used in their struggle
for independence." (C. A. Beard)
Dear Oliver Wendell Jones,
We wish to thank you for your recent posting to Slashdot. As a loyal Slashdot reader, it goes without saying that without posts like yours, our community would not function. It is posters like you who make Slashdot the destination for thousands of thoughtful procrastinators from work and study every day.
Your topic, "Is Your Elected Official Really Listening" is something which requires our utmost attention. Do not for a moment think that loyal Slashdot readers such as myself are not giving grave consideration to your post, unless it is a humorous post. In that case, do not for a moment think that your post is not filling us heartily with frivolous glee.
As a loyal Slashdot reader, I wish to thank you again for your insightful post, and we will be considering your matter. Thank you for your thoughtful involvement in our community. It is that community spirit which makes this website the great website that it is. Just remember that there are many ways you can contribute to your community on this issue, and volunteer work should be the first one on your list.
Thank you again,
Loyal Slashdot Readers.
;-P
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
Of course I send them to my representatives. In the state of Oregon, I am stuck with Sen. Wyden (D- Ore) and Sen. Smith (R- Ore)and am represented by Rep David Wu (D- Ore) in the house. I write one of them at least every month on topics ranging from the environment, SPAM, technology issues, and many others.
Every time I have gotten a response from one of them. Why would you expect a response from a representative of another area anyway ? It is not their job to represent your views in congress, but those of their constituents.
So, I stopped arguing with her. I drove my car to the nearest Blockbuster and rented the excellent "In the Name of the Father", a real story where innocent Irish people are abused by British officers under a brand new anti-terrorist act. I got my point.
[... Movie Spoiler: 4 innocent Irish people spent 15 years in British prisons before being able to defend themselves again in front of a tribunal and having their case dismissed. One of them had half of his family put in jail with him, with jail time up to 14 years. His dad actually died in jail...]
I have sent emails to my Governor before (incidentally about that video game bill in CT) and I, too, immediately received an automated response back, but then a couple of days later I received a personalized email from one of his aides, thanking me and telling me that they passed on my message to the Governor (because he asked to be informed about praise or slander from the younger generation).
Then several days later they even sent me a copy of the Governor's veto and ANOTHER personalized letter thanking me for my insight. Nothing too big, but it should at least show that politicians, or at least their aides, read their email.
Now I would bet (trying not to sound like a rant) that email from Joe Schmoe who's not from a politician's district was probably read, but not given the attention that you might have wanted.
Try this:
Since your representative is supposed to be REPRESENTING your interests, and you want to speak out against another politician. Why not send a letter to the Rep from YOUR district and urge them to speak out against and/or inform the other politician or perhaps even (what the heck) the whole house?
Who knows? It might just all come together and work the way you'd like it to?
Don't send a couple of emails to the wrong person, and then whine about it when they don't call you up personally.
After all, how does it go?
"Learn the system and THEN f**k the system?"
That's just my 2%
Lather, rinse, repeat.
"Whadda'ya watchin'?"
"Angry Monkey."
"That HORRIBLE monkey."
Back in my days as a radical right-wing leftist, I wrote dozens and dozens of letters to government officials, ranging from Bill Clinton to Bruce Babbitt (Sec. of the Interior) on a variety of social justice and environmental issues. Real letters, neatly presented, correct grammar, polite, all that stuff -- and what did I receive in response?
From Mr. Clinton's office, I received a very consistent set of form letters signed by a staffer, usually thanking me for expressing support for the President. Of course, they were replying to a letter wherein I'd strongly declared my lack of faith in his leadership. Clearly, they never actually read what I sent -- or if they read it, they didn't want to respond to my actual words.
Back then, I was in Colorado (damn, I miss it), and the best responders were Sen. Ben Campbell (who helped me with some DOI FOIAs), and US Rep. Scott McInnis. Other CongressCritters and the Executive Branch sent form letters that often had nothing to do with the subject of my letter! I'd write about nationalizing the workforce, and "Clinton" would thank me for support NAFTA (which, in its current form, I don't support!)
Ugh. Very disheartening. Which is one reason I stopped lobbying as an individual. Too much work writing a letter for no discernable affect.
All about me
Just a tip -- I've heard my congressperson on a few call-in radio shows over the years, and there's inevitably this exchange:
Caller: I want to know what your position is on HR 9999.
Congressfolk: (Oh Shit! A Bot!) I'm sorry, but you'll have let me know specifically what bill that is because the numbers change all the time and I don't keep track of them.
Caller: Uhhhhh.
The problem is that there's too many people being paid or otherwise convinced to lobby congress and write form letters on particular issues. Politicians have to have a fairly good sense on how to filter these out. The big tip-off is when the person doesn't let on any details of the legislation. (Recall the Slashdot story on MS running a paid "I love MS Innovation" letter campaign. The only thing uncommon about this is that it was driven by a computer company.)
Furthermore, the "send an e-mail" idea is worthless. Do you have any idea how many e-mail lobby campaigns that congresspeople get flooded with. It's usually one step above spam (chainmail or web forms), but it's not like your suggestion is any more sophisticated than something Joe AOL could dream up. Write a letter and make sure it looks like you wrote it.
Whenever I hear the word 'Innovation', I reach for my pistol.
Where I grew up, the mayor was also the Junior High librarian. That "representitive of the people" kept telling me to Shush! Bastard...
Waltz, nymph, for quick jigs vex Bud.
Congresspersons typically autorespond to emails and send a letter response regarding the specific issue to those persons that have emailed them, given they are constituents. They do not typically personally respond to those living outside their district. I used to be a legislative correspondent in DC, and that's how we did it.
I think I'll stop here.
The idea of influencing an elected official by writing a letter betrays a common naive notion about the way representative democracy works in general and the way it works in the United States in particular.
The factors that influence a Congressman's or Senator's vote are
what the majority of people in his district think about an issue
how strongly those people feel about an issue
his own informed or uninformed opinion on an issue
the need to co-operate and compromise with his colleagues in order to get his favorite legislation passed or some other bill defeated.
If you want your elected rep's attention, join some organization of like-minded people that can guarantee your rep some votes on election day or some money for his campaign. The president of that organization will have the ear of the representative on a regular basis. You will also find that this president will listen closely to your opinion because he wants your vote in the organization's next election and because he wants you to renew your membership and pay your dues.
If you want to talk directly to your elected representative, get elected president of that organization.
This system makes sense in a crude kind of way because by joining an organization you show you feel strongly enough about an issue to contribute money and attend meetings. It also allows the elected rep to talk to someone who speaks for more than just himself.
As an individual citizen, your influence is properly limited to the vote you cast on election day. If you want more influence, you have to get out from behind the keyboard and hustle a bit.
I think it really depends on the Member you're working for. I've interned up on the Hill twice (once on the Senate side for the now-retired Howard Metzenbaum (D-OH), and once for a still-serving House Member (from my original home district in Ohio, also a Dem). Metzenbaum got a lot more mail than the Rep did, which only makes sense since he represented all of the State as opposed to a district of about 500,000 (a bit smaller then the average district size, I know).
Both treated issue mail the same way though. Mail was sorted and prioritized in the following order, from highest to lowest, in both offices (more or less).
1.) On-topic mail from constituents (for the Senator, from any Ohio resident, for the Rep, from district residents). "On-topic" mail translates to snail mail, either handwritten or typed, that clearly states the bill number (the official bill name is also helpful in routing the mail to the right staff member). "Constituents" also includes businesses and interest groups based in the district or State.
2.) On-topic e-mail from constituents (which was printed out) (though Metzenbaum retired before the full advent of e-mail contact with constituents, so this is based on the Rep's policy).
3.) On-topic mail from non-constituent interest groups (NRA, ACLU, U.S. Chamber of Commerce, etc.)
4.) "Non-specific" mail from constituents. "Non-specific" ranges from letters that refer to issues in general without a direct reference to a bill number or title, e.g., "current U.S. copyright law sucks", to general rants about issues or the Member, e.g., "you take away my right to carry a firearm and I'll bust your ass".
5.) Non-specific e-mail from constituents. We printed these out and made some attempt to categorize them. As with non-specific constituent snail mail, if it's too weird, e.g., "aliens are playing around with my cows at night", "immigrants are responsible for all ills in the country", it gets pitched.
6.) Non-Constituent on-topic mail re: a particular bill sponsored by the Member or being discussed in a committee that the Member belongs too. Forwarded directly on to the appropriate Member (i.e., to the Rep. or Senator that represents the writer - if you live in CA and write a letter to an OH Rep on the Appropriations Committee they don't see it).
7.) Non-Constituent on-topic e-mail - we printed it out and forwarded it to the appropriate Member. This was before e-mail really took off as a general communications medium for Congress (1997 in the Rep's office), so they may automatically forward it or discard it now, due to the sheer volume.
and a special category
8.) "Form" mail, from either constituents or non-constituents. "Form" mail consists of those little ripout cards you get sometimes in the mail from particular interest groups (NRA used to do a lot of these). Form mail from constituents would get logged (i.e., the number of cards on a particular issue would be recorded) and the constituent would get a form letter in response. Form mail from non-constituents is forwarded on to the appropriate member. There's a variation on this where people send in a letter on their own stationary or e-mail with the exact same text, obviously in response to an interest group call to do so. This type of mail, while accorded higher priority than the little cards, was still not taken as seriously as a letter from a constituent that doesn't spout back interest group boilerplate text. So if you get e-mail from EFF telling you to write in about a particular law it's probably a good idea to come up with your own way to phrase things - don't copy and paste.
Issue-related correspondence was never forwarded onto the Member without going through a staffer first. And by the way - even if a letter was marked "Personal" the interns still open it, at least in the offices I worked in. Usually the appointment secretary (equal in influence to the Legislative Director and the Chief of Staff, since they determine who gets facetime with the Member) will do a quick scan through the mail and pick out the really personal stuff (letters from family and close friends), though sometimes they would miss things and we'd get some interesting "background" on the Member.
Besides the interns, Staff eyes are always the first pairs of eyes to see any correspondence on issues. For most issues, the letters were logged (i.e., this many people want you to vote against a bill, this many for the bill; these local businesses for, these local businesses against; these interest groups for, these interest groups against), and each constituent receives the same letter re: each bill or issue (tweaked to make it more on point if necessary if there was anything uniquely personal or important about the original letter or sender - i.e. letters from Boeing's president get a more tailored response then do those from John Q. Public in Seattle). My Members would never see issue-related correspondence unless they specifically asked to see it. In that case, staff would usually give them copies of mail falling within categories 1, 2, and 3. Letters that had personal anecdotes in them, e.g., "my business has had to lay off 20 workers due to the effects of the DMCA", were more likely to be seen by the Member than those that just talked about the issues in general. They're just more interesting to read and they make great fodder for speeches and talking points.
Several things that really impressed me (I had come to Congress under the impression that individual citizens really had little influence on their Member's opinions and votes):
1.) Your opinion DOES matter to them (particularly if you write it yourself, include a personal story about how the law or issue has or would affect you, live in their District or State, and send it via snail mail), even if you're just writing on behalf of yourself. Business letters, particularly from those businesses that employed a LOT of people in the Member's state and district, did get attention (though small businesses were not ignored). Even though it seems unfair, this really makes sense (to me at least), because though businesses often represent only their own interests that are counter to those of the public in general, they employ the people who vote and live in the Member's district or state. And the people who vote and live in the district or State are the people that really matter the most to the Member. (And yes, I know that the Congress represents all of us, even those that don't vote - I'm just telling you what the reality was in the offices I worked in).
2.) Staffers are REALLY important. Members are so busy that unless they have a particular interest or need, they don't have time to research the issues they vote on. Staffers in Congress, like those in the Executive branch, usually determine what the Member sees and what they know. If you really want to talk to the people that are going to put together the position paper the Member reads, call the D.C. office of the Member in question and ask to talk to the staffer in charge of the particular topic or bill. Follow up the call with a snail mail letter.
3.) Effort matters. One of the reasons that snail mail, fairly or not, is given more credence then e-mail is because it's seen as taking more of an effort to write, print out, and send to the Member. Effort, in the Congressional staffer's mind, translates to how much a constituent cares about an issue. If they care enough to send a personally composed letter via snail mail, they REALLY care. E-mail is just too easy to write and send.
4.) If you don't live in the Member's district or State, your opinion will probably have more weight if it's delivered via an interest group - i.e., give money to the interest groups that you support so that they can afford to send or hire lobbyists to make their case to the Member in person. Even though non-constituent correspondence is forwarded onto the appropriate Member, usually that Member will not have much of an impact on the bill in question in the all-important committee process (though this varies according to the Chamber, it's a lot harder for a House Member to get the views of his constituents considered in the drafting process if he's not on the committee that's working on the bill - Senators have a easier time of it - it's just a smaller, more personal, setting). Lobbyists that represent large interest groups with lots of money are really important - it's well worth your while to make sure that the groups who advocate positions that you support can compete with big business.
In closing, I do want to say that I was also impressed with the fact that the Members I worked for (and their staff for that matter) really had a sense of serving and representing the people of their district or State. They really cared about the opinions of the people they represented and worked for. I think their sense of service and responsibility is probably shared among most members of Congress. They're not all cynical power-hungry moneygrubbers up on the Hill.
Tig
(Hey, that gives me an idea...)
Hi, my name is Dave Rhodes. I was a congressman from a little-known state and wasn't allowed to vote myself a pay-raise one year. The bills were piling up, and the cocaine dealers and hookers stopped taking IOUs. My BMW was about to be repossessed and my house in Switzerland was badly in need of repairs before winter set in. I was in real trouble!
Then I got the idea: why not use the office of congressman to make money? So I sent out a mass-mailing to all my constituents, saying:
Soon I was inundated with checks! I was able to pay the hookers and coke dealers again. Then the MPAA lobbyists found out and they raised their payment and I sent out another mass-mailing and soon I had a full-fledged, drag-out, intense bidding war on my hands! My Swiss house's roof got repaired before the first snowfall, and my Beamer is completely paid off now!
I am telling you, this scheme works! Please forward this email about this Great Opportunity to 5 cronies in the House or Senate. Soon we'll all be rich!
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
My girlfriend is a Legislative Correspondent for her congressman. Here's how it all works.
Most every representative and senator has at least one "Legislative Correspondent". This staffer is responsible for dealing with mail and responding to it.
IF YOU ARE NOT A CONSTITUENT, DON'T EXPECT A RESPONSE. They're not going to waste time/money on you; it's S.O.P. for all congressional offices.
If you are a constituent, your letter/email will be assigned to an issues category and have basic information from it entered into a database (which keeps track of who you are, where you live, what other letters you've sent, basic stuff like that). If a letter exists which addresses your issue, it'll get printed out and sent back to you. If not, either the legislative correspondent will write a letter on it -- which can require a good deal of research -- or, especially if it's an important, popular issue, will have a "Legislative Assistant" write the letter, typically someone who knows more about the particular issue. The new response letter typically will be read by the "Legislative Director", the chief of staff, or even your congressperson.
Once the letter is revised and approved, it will be mailed to you. Some offices reply via email -- if you emailed them; other offices always issue snail mail. Always, always, always include your mailing address in your letter.
In my g/f's office, email has the same status as written letters. I don't know if this is a universal practice. I do know that their email system and database software is universal. It's best to submit your email via your congressperson's web site (http://www.senate.gov/, http://www.house.gov/), because it's easier to get info from it into their database.
Once your letter/email has been responded to, they will file a paper copy of it and that will be that. Whether it has an effect is entirely dependent upon your congressperson's politics, campaign financing interests, and staffers, and upon the political wind, and upon how reasonable and articulate your correspondence is. If you sound crazed at all -- and remember that congressional staffers majored in poly sci, not CS; their passions are not your's -- they'll think you're loony.
An important fact to keep in mind is that some congressional offices have months' worth of backlog. It will take TIME to get a response, especially as there's a lot of mail pouring into the Capitol these days. My g/f's office strives for two weeks turnaround, max, and that's a very good number.
---
Congressional correspondence is important, obviously, but you may be able to be more persuasive by talking with the right legislative assistant. Call up the office, explain to whoever answers the phone that you'd like to talk to the appropriate legislative assistant about your issue, and if the right LA isn't there, leave your phone number. If you take this tact, however, it's very important to know about the issue and to be prepared to talk about it in a reasonable and personable manner. Think soft sell. Be prepared to concede some points. Be prepared to prioritize sub-issues, what's non-negotiable for your vote, why you feel that way, and also what you could live with. Be prepared to demonstrate the ramifications of possible legislation, how it affects you, and how it affects others (especially other constituents). If you're a business leader, or work for a notable employer, or are an influential and/or notable and respected citizen, your voice will carry some impact. If you can be a source of reliable information and input for your congressperson, his/her staffers will be grateful.
Got it?
Good.
-- Jon
This question is being phrased as "Do representatives...?" This is as silly as "Do consumers...?" Given that we're individually experimenting here with our own contact attempts to individual reps, what we need is a tracking of results, by rep. Of X contacts by phone | fax | mail | email | Website | personal | other to representative R, Y were responded to personally | by form (appropriately | inappropriately) | not at all and the subsequent position taken by R was possibly influenced | contrary to the position urged in the constituent | non-constituent, contributor | non-contributor communication.
If we can collect the data, we've got folks hereabouts who can mine it, right? The solution is not generic, but respects the individual we're trying to influence | buy | coerce.
"with their freedom lost all virtue lose" - Milton
Why do you think anyone outside of the high-tech-business-complex takes email seriously?
Write your congressman. Type your letter on good bond paper, in a high quality envelope, properly addressed. Make your case as well-reasoned and literate as you possibly can. Send them letters
worthy of a head of state or elected official.
Do not simply write your congressman "one and done." Develop a relationship with your representative's office over a period of years, by writing letters, participating in their campaign, or even joining the political party that they represent.
Don't send them an email during the busiest time they have ever had, and then act surprised that they didn't take the time to read your rant.
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
This is a question I think everyone asks when they first get politically active. The answer is, "Mostly...kinda." There are ways that are effective for lobbying; but to a certain degree, if what you're asking for veers to far away from either 1) public perception or 2) their own personal beliefs, they will end up ignoring you. This is a major failure of our legal system, IMO, but there's a solution: vote people into office who more closely represent the views of American citizens.
There's a longish section on our site about this subject, here.
In a nutshell, though, email just isn't very effective. Fax and snail mail is good; phone calls are especially effective if you are articulate. Stating your opinion clearly and concisely is important; if you ramble on about civil liberties, they won't quite "get" it. If you say, "Vote no on this particular bill, and here's why" that is more likely to have an effect.
The final point is this: right now everyone's in a hubbub, and 10x as many people as usual are contacting their representatives. They are just going to be less responsive right now. On top of that, everyone is so concerned with _feeling_ that they don't have time for _thinking_. This is unfortunate, but I think that it will pass as time goes on.