Jennifer Parello lives in Riverside and also keeps a post office box in nearby Palos Heights. Rep. Harris Fawell (R-Ill.) is her congressman. But recently, she received congressional mailings from Reps. Marty Russo and William Lipinski, as well.
Why would Russo and Lipinski, Democrats from South Holland and Chicago, respectively, care about Parello? Because starting next January, under Illinois` redistricting plan, she will live in the redrawn 3rd Congressional District rather than in Fawell`s 13th District.
Although Russo and Lipinski will represent their old districts until the end of the year, they also are battling for the 3rd District`s Democratic nomination, which will be determined in the March 17 primary.
Besides, the mailings didn`t cost the politicians anything, because they franked the mail.
Franking, which allows members of Congress to send taxpayer-financed mail to constituents, was begun in the late 1700s to keep citizens informed about issues in Congress.
But several incumbents, including a half-dozen Chicago-area House members, are using it to appeal to voters outside their districts, giving them an advantage over challengers who must raise funds to pay for such mailings.
Rep. George Sangmeister, a Mokena Democrat who must run in the new 11th District, said he has sent about 360,000 pieces of bulk mail outside his district. With each piece costing about 12.5 cents, Sangmeister has sent $45,000 worth of mass mailings outside his district, paid for by taxpayers.
”I`m not sending out campaign literature,” Sangmeister said. ”This is approved by the franking commission and is reviewed by the (House) Ethics Committee, and it has their complete approval.
”When I was running in `88 against an incumbent who used mass mailings throughout the district over and over and over again, I realized that he was informing his constituents at the time as to what he thought were the issues,” Sangmeister said. ”I had to accept that, (I) never made one complaint.”
Lipinski and Russo declined to comment on the practice of sending franked mass mailings beyond current district boundaries, as did Rep. Gus Savage, a Chicago Democrat.
While some might object to the practice, it is perfectly legal, said Jack Dail, a Republican staff member on the House Commission on Congressional Mailing Standards, known informally as the House franking commission. A 1973 law allows incumbents to dip into franking allowances to send mass mailings into areas that will be added to their districts during 10-year
redistrictings, he said.
When House members send franked mailings outside their districts, they cannot project themselves as representing those areas, Dail said.
There appears to be limited policing by the commission.
”It`s up to a member to tell us that they`re sending mail into a redistricted area, or we wouldn`t know,” Dail said. Members are allowed to make self-laudatory remarks, he said, as long as they are related to
”official business” and are not ”personal or political.”
Although franked mass mailings are supposed to inform constituents of events in Congress, some of the surveys, brochures and newsletters clearly are aimed at boosting lawmakers` images. Mailings often contain self-congratulatory articles about members introducing or supporting legislation described as critical to the area.
Staff members for Democratic Reps. Charles Hayes and Dan Rostenkowski of Chicago, and Republican Rep. John Porter of Wilmette, said those lawmakers also have sent franked mass mailings beyond their districts.
House Minority Leader Bob Michel of Peoria has sent franked mass mailings outside his district, but also has signed on as co-sponsor of a bill recently introduced by Rep. William Thomas (R-Calif.) to forbid the practice.
Republican representatives Fawell, J. Dennis Hastert of Yorkville and Philip Crane of Mt. Prospect, and Democratic Rep. Sidney Yates of Chicago have not sent taxpayer-financed mailings beyond district lines because they consider it improper, the lawmakers or their staffs said.
David Keating, executive vice president of the National Taxpayers Union, a 200,000-member public interest group, is among those who believe the practice is unfair.
For incumbents, he said, ”It`s like playing basketball with a 6-foot-high hoop, and your challenger has to shoot at one that`s 10 feet (high).
”We also call this a form of stealth campaigning, because no one knows how much is being spent (by incumbents) in the new districts,” Keating said. ”The information is just not available to the public,” unless the incumbent discloses it.
