Franked mail and ‘leveling the playing field’

May 4, 2009   •  By Jeff Patch
Default Article

One of the most prominent arguments of so-called campaign finance reformers is that regulations are needed — such as contribution limits and taxpayer financed campaigns — to “level the playing field.”

What’s left out — beyond the fact that “leveling the playing field” is a constitutionally invalid reason for campaign finance regulation — are other assets to a campaign that cannot be so easily leveled.

Take, for instances, one of the many perks of incumbency: franked mail.

A story in Monday’s Roll Call ($) explains that next year, the House of Representatives’ Chief Administrative Officer (CAO) has requested a huge increase in the budget for franked mail, which allows members of Congress to send glossy literature to constituents touting their accomplishments (similar to campaign literature).

… [the CAO] asked appropriators to raise the Members’ Representational Allowances — which fund everything needed to run offices, including salaries, travel and supplies — by $90 million, citing increases “due to the election year cycle.”

“In an election year the expenditures increase and then decrease in a non-election year,” the request reads.


The fiscal 2010 request includes an extra $16 million for franked mail — an 80 percent increase from fiscal 2009. The stated reason: Members send more mail to their constituents during an election year.


“It’s an incredibly naked admission that Members of Congress abuse the franking privilege for electoral purposes, even though the rules say they don’t,” said Pete Sepp, spokesman for the National Taxpayers Union.

A spokesman for the CAO says the increase is simply due to an increase in legislative activity in the second year of a congressional term, and House rules prevent mailings 90 days before an election. Even so, the privelege of blanketing constituents with mail touting their accomplishments is a huge benefit to incumbents. A “level playing field” from a campaign finance perspective (such as taxpayer financed campaigns) puts challengers at a disadvantage. Incumbents also benefit from higher name recognition, greater media access and other perks of office not available to most challengers.

The request for 2010 provides for $35 million for franked mail — or just over $80,000 for each of the 435 members of Congress.

If campaign finance “reformers” were serious about “leveling the playing field,” the recently-introduced Fair Elections Now Act would provide challengers with $80,000 to spam their potential constituents and a requirement that journalists interview and publish comments from challengers in every story featuring an incumbent.

Perhaps then the argument that the government needs to “level the playing field” would be exposed as the ridiculous farce that it is.

Jeff Patch

Share via
Copy link
Powered by Social Snap