WASHINGTON - US House members spent $20.3 million in tax money last year to send constituents what is often the government equivalent of junk mail - meeting announcements, tips on car care and job interviews, surveys on public policy, and just plain bragging.
They sent nearly 116 million pieces of mail in all, many of them glossy productions filled with flattering photos and lists of the latest roads and bridges the lawmaker has brought home to the district, an Associated Press a review of public records shows.
Some offered advice on topics one would more commonly expect to see in a consumer advice column.
"Keep your car properly maintained" to improve mileage, suggested Representative Tim Murphy, a Pennsylvania Republican, in a newsletter on how to deal with rising energy prices.
And Representative Cynthia McKinney, a Georgia Democrat who lost her primary race last year, sent out a taxpayer-funded newsletter a few months before the election that included this observation:
"Convicted felons can vote," she said, if "your" prison sentence has been served, parole or probation completed, and fines paid. While campaigning, McKinney, who is black, noted that blacks make up a disproportionately large share of the prison population, which she said dilutes their voting strength.
A dozen House members spent about $133,000 each to send 9.8 million pieces of mass mailings. Total cost? $1.8 million.
Sometimes the lawmakers' taxpayer-funded mailings topped what they paid for direct mail through their campaign funds.
Of the 64 House members with at least $100,000 in taxpayer-funded mailing expenses - and overwhelmingly for mass mailings - 42 were Republicans and 22 were Democrats, the review found.
In contrast, 59 lawmakers in the 435-member House - 35 Republicans and 24 Democrats - spent nothing on mass mailings. They tended to be the more experienced House members, often with 14 or more years of service.
Mass mailings cannot be blatantly political but they still can have political benefits, said Pete Sepp, a spokesman for the National Taxpayers' Union, which has condemned mass mailings.
"A taxpayer-financed mailing doesn't have to say 'reelect me' to have an impact on voters," Sepp said. "A glossy newsletter splashed with the incumbent's achievements in Congress can build useful credentials a lawmaker can take with him to the ballot box. The franking privilege is one of the main cogs in Congress's PR machine."
Franking, practiced since the early days of the republic, lets members of Congress send mail with just a signature where the postage would normally be affixed. Although the mailings are regulated by a congressional commission to guard against overt political appeals and cannot go out within 90 days of an election, they still sometimes take a dig at the opposition.
In a June 2006 newsletter, Representative Pete Stark, Democrat of California, noted that under the Republican majority, Congress had passed tax cuts that "benefit the wealthiest Americans at the expense of working families."
Stark has been a regular among the biggest users of the congressional franking privilege. For 2006, his mass mailings cost $172,357, an amount large enough to rank him among the top congressional mailers. House documents reported his overall mailing costs to be about $37,000 less. The AP received no explanation for the apparent discrepancy.
Some lawmakers defend the newsletters as a vital way of communicating with constituents.
"One of the biggest complaints my constituents had [with] my predecessor was that they never knew what was going on in Washington," said Representative Ginny Brown-Waite, Republican of Florida. "They never had the opportunity to do surveys, etc. I promised I would communicate with them regularly."
Brown-Waite is one of the biggest users of bulk mail, with 657,951 pieces at a cost of $129,428 last year. That surpassed the approximately $110,000 her campaign spent on direct mailings and related costs.
The House Democratic Caucus encourages members to use the mailings to communicate with constituents, spokeswoman Sarah Feinberg said. She said it was a good way for congressmen to focus on an issue or get a handle on what constituents are thinking.
That argument doesn't persuade Representative Ray LaHood, an Illinois Republican who said he has never used the mailings in 13 years in Congress. "It's a waste of taxpayers' money I don't believe in this self-promotion."
