Congress Loves Spam -- If It's From Congress

Makarand writes "According to this NY Times article (registration required), while Congressional members were busy passing the U.S. anti-spam law that will go into effect on January 1, they were also busy sending unsolicited e-mail to their constituents. This activity was aimed at growing the subscriber base receiving their political messages because these email lists are not subject to the normal 90-day blackout period before an election where members are forbidden to use taxpayer-supported Congressional mass communications. Consumer advocacy groups say that this policy may be unfair to the challengers because this loophole could be used by elected officials to communicate with voters right up to Election Day."

Comments

Full TEXT

[Anonymous Coward]

WASHINGTON, Dec. 27 -- Even as Congress was unanimously approving a law aimed at reducing the flow of junk e-mail, members were sending out hundreds of thousands of unsolicited messages to constituents.

The spasm of activity is aimed at attracting voluntary subscribers to the lawmakers' e-mail lists, which would not be subject to House rules that normally impose a 90-day blackout before an election for taxpayer-supported Congressional mass communications.

In September, the House Administration Committee voted, 5 to 3, along party lines to allow e-mail messages to the subscribers to be sent in the blackout period, but maintained the ban on free postal mail from House members to voters. The policy change affected only House rules and was not part of the junk e-mail legislation.

At least 40 House members have bought or agreed to buy e-mail address lists from at least four vendors. The lists, which each have tens of thousands of addresses, are generally created by a process called e-mail appending, taking voter registration files from a member's district. The next step is to cross match them with large databases of names and e-mail addresses assembled by consumer data companies like Equifax, which has a database of more than 75 million e-mail addresses. E-mail addresses can usually be found for 10 percent to 20 percent of the voter file.

Many members of Congress praise the new policy for allowing cheaper and more effective communications with constituents. But consumer advocacy groups say the policy may unfairly give an advantage to incumbents over challengers because it allows elected officials to use government resources to communicate with voters right up to Election Day. In addition, the consumer advocates say, sending bulk e-mail messages to constituents who have not agreed to receive it is essentially electronic junk mail, or spam.

The ability to communicate with constituents at taxpayer expense, the franking privilege, is one of the most cherished and controversial perks of office. For 30 years, advocacy groups have lobbied and sued Congress to try to close loopholes and stop abuses of the privilege.

Critics say the policy has created a significant new loophole.

"The core value is that you don't want to leverage technology to increase incumbent advantage," said Celia Viggo Wexler, research director at Common Cause, a group that has sued to limit franking. "What is troubling is that essentially the House is saying, `O.K., you can communicate with the constituency up to an election, and we're not really going to check what you are saying with them.' The point is without that kind of oversight, it's ripe for abuse."

Before the change, e-mail was subject to the same treatment as regular postal mail. Correspondence sent to more than 500 constituents had to obtain approval from the franking commission and was subject to a 90-day blackout before an election. But individual responses to citizens were not subject to the restrictions.

Congressional officials said the old policy was too cumbersome.

"Anything over 500 e-mails you had to submit that to the franking commission," said Brian Walsh, the Republican spokesman for the House Administration Committee. "There was going to be a delay of a couple of days to get approved. We didn't feel that was consistent with the technology that existed."

The new policy says that lawmakers can freely send messages to voters who have agreed to subscribe to their e-mail lists. To build such lists, House members are sending huge amounts of bulk e-mail messages to their districts in the hope that some voters will subscribe.

The unsolicited messages go out from Congressional offices as often as twice a month. The unsolicited messages, which have to stop 90 days before an election or a primary, are still subject to approval from the franking commission.

"They are regulating commercial spam, and at the same time they are using the franking privilege to send unsolicited bulk communications which a

It is the Members responsibility to inform

[Chatmag]

It's the Congressional Members duty to keep their constituents informed. In a representative government, our elected officials must promote two way communication.

The Congress Online Project Nine Benefits of a good web site, number 3: "Targeted communication with key audiences. Web sites can help build ongoing relationships with key audiences by providing targeted features and information. Timely, informative sections of a Web site devoted to a single issue, for example, can attract people who care about the issue and keep them coming back for more. And issue-based e-mail updates provide the opportunity to regularly communicate with people who subscribe."

In order to fulfill the requirements of the Congressional "Franking" priviledge, Members would have to clearly identify emails sent to their constituents, with proper headers, From address, etc.

Also, in order to provide documentation that they are reaching their constituents, they would most likely be required to maintain an email mailing list.

I highly doubt that the Members would use the shotgun email tactic of spammers.

Really not as bad as it sounds...

[JaredOfEuropa]

From the article:

The lists, which each have tens of thousands of addresses, are generally created by a process called e-mail appending, taking voter registration files from a member's district. The next step is to cross match them with large databases of names and e-mail addresses assembled by consumer data companies like Equifax, which has a database of more than 75 million e-mail addresses. E-mail addresses can usually be found for 10 percent to 20 percent of the voter file.
...
The new policy says that lawmakers can freely send messages to voters who have agreed to subscribe to their e-mail lists. To build such lists, House members are sending huge amounts of bulk e-mail messages to their districts in the hope that some voters will subscribe.
...
The unsolicited messages go out from Congressional offices as often as twice a month. The unsolicited messages, which have to stop 90 days before an election or a primary, are still subject to approval from the franking commission.

So...

- politicians are targetting their constituents only.
- the unsolicited messages are still subject to the 90-day rule, and only contain an invitation to subscribe to a mailing list.
- politicians are free to send whatever they please to people on the mailing list.

That all sounds fine to me... Congress isn't really placing themselves above the law, and the fact that they can spam those on their subscriber mailing list at the taxpayer's expense, doesn't bother me that much. In truth, they should just get rid of the entire 'franking privilege', not just this minor part of it.

But when all's said and done... if you spam me, I don't vote for you. It is that simple :)

Re:Nothing New

[WCMI92]

I do as well. I see it this way...

Politicians shouldn't be trying to influence me. I should be influencing THEM. But in the "nanny state" we are becoming, more and more people, unfortunately, have the misguided idea that it's the government's (and hence, the politician's) job to TAKE CARE OF US...

Let them run ads and put up signs at election time, as that's stuff I can CHOOSE to eyeball or listen to. But they don't need to be calling me or spamming me. THAT, to me is a government invasion of my privacy.

Typical of a group of politicians who have been in office, and therefore power, too long...

Write laws that have no prohibitions on THEMSELVES. This was one of the big things the Democrats were doing in the 40 years they ran Congress. And changing things to that Congress had to live under the laws it passed was one of Newt's biggest planks in the "Contract for America".

(Congress used to be exempt from, among other laws: The 1964 Civil Rights Act, the Social Security Act, and the OSHA Act.)

Leave them in power 10 years and they act the same way...

I'm beginning to think the best strategy is to always vote against incumbents. No matter what the party of their particular beliefs.

Note too the implications that the new (illegal, but upheld anyway) CFR "Amendment" to the Constitution can prohibit what can be said via e-mail 90 days before an election...

So, is it soon to be illegal for me to say anything negative about Robert K. Byrd 90 days before an election on MY OWN website?

Scary stuff. Don't say I didn't warn you people either. CFR and the misguided Supreme Court just allowed a wedge to be inserted into the first amendment's protection of our right to criticize the government. Sledgehammers are being readied to drive that wedge further...

When Congress exempts ITSELF from a law it expects us peasants to live under, it's safe to say it's a bad law they are passing.

Re:Commercial

[McDutchie]

Spam is generally defined as being `unsolicited commercial email`

Er, no. A definition that is at least as common, and makes a lot more sense, is "unsolicited bulk email".