ePluribus Media Community || citizen journalism, for the people, by the people

CT CD-02 -- Garnering those votes thru HOUSE.GOV

by Cho

Sat Oct 21, 2006 at 11:02:04 AM EST

We all get 'em.

Those glossy mass mailers from the current office holder's congressional offices, purporting to be "constituent newsletters" but really aimed at showing why the representative is doing his or her job, thus deserving re-election.

Nothing illegal. Nothing unethical. Just the old-time "incumbent advantage," albeit one particularly galling to those supporting the challenger.

But with an email from the CT CD-02 Republican incumbent's house.gov address this Wednesday, it went a little more high tech, and seems, at least to this political neophyte, a tad too coordinated to meet my smell test on ethics.

more below the fold. [bumped. rba]

commentary :: :: :: buzz-it!

From my admittedly naive perspective, I always understood that the incumbent's congressional offices could not directly campaign for his or her re-election, since doing so would most definitely break campaign finance law against using residents' federal taxes for campaigns (instead of, oh, for things like port security, proper equipment for the troops, Katrina clean-up, or even funding the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) mandate).

So color me annoyed this week to receive an email from Simmons (R) CT-CD 02's offices at house.gov reminding me of all his great legislative contributions on that very subject, energy, I had written him about -- probably well over a year and half ago -- when I asked him for his vote against drilling in ANWR.

Since the incumbent Simmons (R) is involved in a too-tight-to-call race with the challenger Joe Courtney (D) for the CT-CD02 seat, the e-mail hit a nerve synapse. So I asked other members at the Democratic Town Committee that night if any of them had received emails from the Simmons (R) house.gov address. One had, but for her, the house.gov email touted Simmons' record on her issue -- education.

That seemed a tad too coordinated, a tad too sophisticated, dare I say, too convenient: emails targeting constituents' special interests right before the election, certainly okay had they been from Simmons' campaign (paid for by), but these two were from, as I said, house.gov

So I contacted the Courtney folks, and ... yup, all over the state, lots of Connecticut residents had been getting emails this week from Simmons' house.gov email address. Which means, my taxes have paid for a constituent mailing that conveniently occurs right before a tight election, targeting voters' special interests.

Legal or not, seems a tad unethical.

CT CD-02 -- Garnering those votes thru HOUSE.GOV | 9 comments (9 topical, 0 hidden)

The pressure is on (5.00 / 3) (#1)

I've received TWO push pollings for Repub candidates in the past two days. And both for state legislature candidates.

Phone numbers were masked - just listed as Out of State. The incumbents are Dems.

We're also seeing flyers that are horrible - anti-choice with pictures of aborted fetuses. (I haven't rec'd one myself - yet). It was reported last nite on local TV. No sponsor mentioned on these flyers either, and only in a district near me so far. The news went to the Republican candidate and she says "I know nuthing!". The Dem attacked is not real happy about it either.

I don't remember seeing so many flyers or commercials in any other election - especially a mid-term!

by kfred on Sat Oct 21, 2006 at 10:54:36 AM EST

Molly Ivins nails my mood. (5.00 / 2) (#2)

ELECTION DAY STILL A LONG WAY OFF

Stunning coincidence. The verdict in the long-running trial of Saddam Hussein in Iraq is now due two days before our congressional elections in November. Astounding. How ineffable.

... snip ...
Put me in the depressive Dems camp. We always look good going into the last two weeks, until we get hit with that wall of Republican money (though I do think Ohio is beyond political recall at this point for the R's). Of course, both sides always complain about unfair advertising, but I must admit that almost all political advertising strikes me as ludicrous and I don't notice the D's looking simon-pure. A little shading, a little emphasis here and there -- I'm hard to shock on political ads, but I do get more than miffed when they take the truth and just stand it on its head.

Read the rest of Molly's piece hereELECTION DAY STILL A LONG WAY OFF at creators.com

by Cho on Sat Oct 21, 2006 at 11:08:59 AM EST

Unethical, indeed. (5.00 / 2) (#3)

A couple of weeks ago, I received a similar taxpayer-paid "reminder" mailing through the USPS from my state senator, and I had exactly the same thoughts - the timing of such mailings stinks.

That said, yours came from house.gov, and we at ePluribus Media have done extensive research into the House IT systems.

It's high time people knew just whose hands those messages pass through, election season or not.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
by wanderindiana on Sat Oct 21, 2006 at 11:30:37 AM EST

: Amen, wander (5.00 / 1) (#4)

...and if you guys want the header information on the email, I saved it.
Also, there's significant time spent in this coordination... the body of the text was specifically tailored to my interest. Say that the Simmons congressional staff already had maybe 10 such emails prepared, they still had to match 'em (or tag 'em) to match constituent letters and petitions. There's paid time involved.

by Cho on Sat Oct 21, 2006 at 11:48:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Arghhhh! (5.00 / 2) (#5)

Cho's on to something, I think. That house.gov connection is a stinker.

The reason for the Arghh! above is because I just got a phone call from a 0000 phone number. I swear it was a recording, which I believe is illegal here. They were talking SO fast (which does not work for Midwestern ears) that I had difficulty hearing what they said. It was for Mike Hatch - which is fine, but what a waste of monies! Robocalls on speed, indeed!

by kfred on Sat Oct 21, 2006 at 12:13:39 PM EST

National v. local (5.00 / 2) (#6)

This type of campaign activity is precisely where a national response is required. Granted Molly Ivins is one of the sharpest wits out there (and always spot on), but she is not a spokesperson for a political party.

Toolz: The DNC has a substantial amount of available tech - including their own fully-equipped networks - that should be in service right now, but as far as I can tell it is not being used. [See: QRS New Media].

by rba on Sat Oct 21, 2006 at 12:28:58 PM EST

Unfortunately (5.00 / 1) (#7)

the Democrats are years behind the Republicans in the technology and information management. The Dems are neophytes in comparison. I would prefer we take an altermative route to the Dems trying to match what the Republicans have done and work toward instituting publicly funded elections. The money to build the networks, obtain and use the data comes with too many strings attached.

by standingup on Sat Oct 21, 2006 at 09:15:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Curious (none / 0) (#8)

Who is that network designed for if not the Party? With the advent of readily available video-over-IP, those studios could literally be an ad factory. And part of the QRS installation was a serious network upgrade, meaning it's possible to stream anything they want.

I agree with publicly financed campaigns, but the tools are there today, and I think remain seriously underutilized.

by rba on Sat Oct 21, 2006 at 09:35:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

: I was speaking (none / 0) (#9)

of network in a broader sense than Qrsnewmedia.com. The repbulicans have mastered the art of determining the audience and the issues that are important to the audience. They can be much more effective, dollar for dollar, by selective targeting and delivering the message that audience will be receptive to hearing that will in turn send them to the polls to vote. For some reason, unknown to me, the other party has failed to keep up with developing the same resources to use to their advantage. The midterms this year may be the best test yet of the republicans 72 hour strategy.

by standingup on Sat Oct 21, 2006 at 10:55:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]