Order Code RL34274
Franking Privilege: Historical Development and
Options for Change
December 5, 2007Updated September 8, 2008
Matthew Eric Glassman
Analyst on the Congress
Government and Finance Division
Franking Privilege: Historical Development and Options
Options for Change
Summary
The franking privilege, which allows Members of Congress to transmit mail
matter under their signature without postage, has existed in the United States since
colonial times. During the 18th and 19th centuries, the franking privilege served a
fundamental democratic role, allowing Members of Congress to convey information
to their constituents about the operations of government and policy matters before
Congress. Conversely, it also provided a mechanism for citizens to communicate
their feelings and concerns to Members (prior to 1873, Members could both send and
receive mail under the frank). Congress has also occasionally granted the
privilege privilege
to various executive branch officers and others. Although the rise of
alternative alternative
methods of communication in the late 19th and early 20th centuries have
arguably arguably
reduced the democratic necessity of franking, Members of Congress
continue today
to use the frank to facilitate communication with their constituents.
The franking privilege has carried an element of controversy throughout
American history. During the 19th century, the privilege was commonly attacked as
financially wasteful and subject to widespread abuse through its use for other than
official business. Although concerns about cost and abuse continued in the 20th
century, strong criticism of the franking privilege developed regarding the use of the
frank as an influence in congressional elections and the perceived advantage it gives
incumbent Members running for reelection. Contemporary opponents of the franking
privilege continue to express concerns about both its cost and its effect on
congressional elections.
In attempting to balance a democratic need for the franking privilege against
charges of abuse, Congress has routinely amended the franking statutes. In general,
the franking privileges granted to Members at any given point in time can be defined
by five dimensions: who is entitled to frank mail, what is entitled to be franked, how
much material can be sent, where franked material can be sent, and when franked
material be sent. Historically, changes to the franking privilege typically have not
altered all of these dimensions at once, resulting in a wide variety of legislative
arrangements of the franking privilege. Similarly, proposed options for future
legislative changes may involve altering some, but not all, of these dimensions.
This report will be updated as legislative action warrants. See also CRS Report
RS22771, Congressional Franking Privilege: Background and Current Legislation;
CRS Report RL34188, Congressional Official Mail Costs; and CRS Report
RL34085, Election Year Restrictions on Mass Mailings by Members of Congress:
How H.R. 1614 / S. 936 / S. 1285 Would Change Current Law.
Contents
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
History of the Congressional Franking Privilege . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Origins of the Franking Privilege . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Early Franking Law, 1789 - 1873 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Significant Restrictions, 1873 - 1895 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Franking Restored, 1895 - 1973 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Franking Reform, 1973 - 1977 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Contemporary Reforms, 1986- - Present . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
Mass Communications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Contemporary Activities of the Franking Commission . . . . . . . . . . . . . 910
Other Recipients of the Franking Privilege . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Vice President . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Congressional Officers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1011
Former Members of Congress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Members-elect . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1213
Relatives of Members of Congress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Former Presidents and Widows of Presidents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Executive Branch Officials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1314
Postmasters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Soldiers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Criticism of the Franking Privilege . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Cost of Franking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Illegal Abuse of Franking Privileges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1516
Incumbency Advantage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1617
Technological Advance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1718
Defense of the Franking Privilege . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1718
Linking Citizens and Representatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1718
Facilitating the Spread of Political News . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1819
Institutional Defense of Congress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Dimensions of the Franking Privilege . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1920
Who Has the Franking Privilege? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1920
When Can the Frank Be Used? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1920
What Materials Can Members Send Under the Frank? . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
How Much Franked Mail Can Members Send? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2021
Where Can Such Materials Be Sent? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Options for Future Franking Change . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Abolish the Franking Privilege . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2122
Prohibit Mass Mailings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2122
Prohibit Unsolicited Mailings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Extend the Pre-election Ban on Mass Mailings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2223
Give Franking Privileges to Electoral Challengers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2223
Reduce the Allowance Given to Members for Franked Mail . . . . . . . 2223
Increase Cost Disclosure Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Concluding Observations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2324
Franking Privilege: Historical Development
and Options for Change
Introduction
The franking privilege, which allows Members of Congress to transmit mail
matter under their signature without postage, has existed in the United States since
colonial times. During the 18th and 19th centuries, the franking privilege served a
fundamental democratic role, allowing Members of Congress to convey information
to their constituents about the operations of government and policy matters before
Congress. Conversely, it also provided a mechanism for citizens to communicate
their feelings and concerns to Members (prior to 1873, Members could both send and
receive mail under the frank). Congress has also occasionally granted the
privilege privilege
to various executive branch officers and others. Although the rise of
alternative alternative
methods of communication in the late 19th and early 20th centuries have
arguably arguably
reduced the democratic necessity of franking, Members of Congress
continue today
to use the frank to facilitate communication with their constituents.
The franking privilege has carried an element of controversy throughout
American history. During the 19th century, the privilege was commonly attacked as
financially wasteful and subject to widespread abuse through its use for other than
official business. Although concerns about cost and abuse continued in the 20th
century, strong criticism of the franking privilege developed regarding the use of the
frank as an influence in congressional elections and the perceived advantage it gives
Members running for reelection. Contemporary critics of the franking privilege
continue to express concerns about its cost and its effect on congressional elections.
In attempting to balance a need for the franking privilege against charges of
abuse, Congress has routinely amended the franking statutes. In general, the franking
privileges granted at any time can be defined by five dimensions: who is entitled to
frank mail, what is entitled to be franked, how much material can be sent, where the
franked material can be sent, and when franked material can be sent. Changes to the
franking privilege typically have not altered all of these dimensions, resulting in a
variety of legislative arrangements of the privilege. Similarly, proposals for future
changes may involve altering some, but not all, of these dimensions.
CRS-2
History of the Congressional Franking Privilege1
Since 1789, Congress has statutorily altered the franking privilege numerous
times.2 In addition, other bodies empowered to regulate congressional use of the
frank — the House and Senate, the U.S. Postal Service, the House Administration
Committee, the House Commission on Congressional Mailing Standards, the Senate
Rules and Administration Committee, and the Senate Select Committee on Ethics
and their predecessors — have exercised their authority to reform the governance of
the franking privilege.
Origins of the Franking Privilege. The franking privilege has its roots in
17 century Great Britain. The British House of Commons instituted it in 1660 and
free mail was available to many officials under the colonial postal system.3 In 1775
the First Continental Congress passed legislation giving Members mailing privileges
so they could communicate with their constituents, as well as giving free mailing
privileges to soldiers.4 In 1782, under the Articles of Confederation, Congress
granted Members of the Continental Congress, heads of various departments, and
military officers the right to send and receive letters, packets, and dispatches under
the frank.5
th
Early Franking Law, 1789 - 1873. After the adoption of the Constitution,
the First Congress passed legislation for the establishment of federal post offices,
which contained language continuing the franking privilege as enacted under the
Articles of Confederation.6 Under the Post Office Act of 1792, Members could send
and receive under their frank all letters and packets up to two ounces in weight while
Congress was in session.7 Subsequent legislation extended Member use of the frank
to a specific number of days before and after a session, first by 10 days in 1810, then
1
Only Members of Congress are discussed in this section; other persons eligible for the
franking privilege are discussed later in this report.
2
This report does not cover penalty mail or other subsidized mailings. Penalty mail, defined
as official mail of officers of the United States other than Members of Congress that is either
required by law or sent upon official request, may be sent through the mails under official
penalty covers, without payment, subject to law and regulations. See 39 U.S.C. § 3202,
3204. The penalty mail system developed in the 19th century to replace use of the frank by
executive branch officials. The name “penalty mail” is derived from official envelopes
originally used to carry such mail. Printed on the envelopes were the phrases “official mail”
and “A penalty of $300 is fixed by law, for using this envelope for other than official
business.”
3
Post Office Act, 12 Charles II (1660); Carl H. Scheele, A Short History of the Mail Service
(Washington: Smithsonian Institution Press, 1970), pp. 47-55.
4
Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774-1789, 34 vols., ed. Worthington C. Ford et al.
(New York: Johnson Reprint Corp., 1968), vol. 3, p. 342 (Nov. 8, 1775).
5
Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774-1789, vol. 23, pp. 670-679 (Oct. 18, 1782).
6
Act of Congress, Sep. 22, 1789, 1 Stat. 70. See also Act of Congress, Aug. 4, 1790, 1 Stat.
178; Act of Congress, Mar. 3, 1791, 1 Stat. 218.
7
Act of Congress, Feb. 20, 1792, 1 Stat. 232, 237.
CRS-3
by 30 days in 1816, and finally to 60 days in 1825.8 The Act of 1825 also provided
for the unlimited franking of newspapers and documents printed by Congress,
regardless of weight.
Scholarly work suggests that franked mail played an important role in national
politics during the early 19th century.9 Members mailed copies of acts, bills,
government reports, and speeches, serving as a distributor for government
information and a proxy for the then non-existent Washington press corps, providing
local newspapers across the country with information on Washington politics.10
Because franking statutes allowed Members to both send and receive franked mail
during much of the 19th century, constituents could also mail letters to their Senators
and Representatives for free.11
According to one scholar, Members spent up to three hours each day signing
their names on envelopes, some Members franking up to 3,000 items daily when
Congress was in session and occasionally hiring ghost-writers to sign their signature
for them.12 This led one Member to describe the House of Representatives as a
“bookbinder’s shop.”13
In 1845, Congress passed comprehensive franking legislation that instituted an
accounting system, in which executive departments would pay for mail through
general tax revenue, in hopes of easing the burden on the Post Office Department and
reducing paid mail rates.14 Members of Congress continued to have their franking
privilege paid for out of postal revenue.15 The accounting system was repealed in
8
Act of Congress, May 1, 1810, 2 Stat. 592, 600; Act of Congress, Apr. 9, 1816, 3 Stat. 264,
265; Act of Congress, Mar. 3, 1825, 4 Stat. 102, 110.
9
See Richard R. John, Spreading the News: The American Postal Service From Franklin
to Morse (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1995); Edward G. Daniel,
“United States Postal Service and Postal Policy, 1789-1861” (Ph.D. diss, Harvard
University, 1941); Ross Allan McReynolds, “History of the United States Post Office, 16071931,” ( Ph.D. diss, University of Chicago, 1935).
10
John, Spreading the News: The American Postal Service From Franklin to Morse, p. 57.
11
In addition, the Post Office Department did not require prepayment for mail until January
1, 1856. See Act of Congress, Mar. 3, 1885, 10 Stat. 642.
12
John, Spreading the News: The American Postal Service From Franklin to Morse, p. 58.
Prior to the use of pre-printed envelopes containing Member names, some Members resorted
to using rubber stamps with their signatures on them. See Ross M. English, “Franking
Privilege,” included in Donald C. Bacon, et al., eds, The Encyclopedia of the United States
Congress (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1995), pp. 222-223.
13
Kelly B. Olds, “The Challenge to the U.S. Postal Monopoly, 1839-1851,” The CATO
Journal, vol. 15, no. 1 (Spring/Summer 1995), p. 7.
14
Act of Congress, Mar. 3, 1845, 5 Stat. 732. As detailed later in this report, use of the frank
had a significant impact on the cost of paid mail. The 1845 law also required postmasters
to use special envelopes for free mail, a precursor to the penalty mail envelope later
developed.
15
The Act of 1845 also extended the period of time Members could use the privilege to the
(continued...)
CRS-4
1847 in favor of an annual appropriation to the Post Office Department to subsidize
free and franked mail costs.16 After repeal of the accounting system, executive branch
use of the frank reverted to the pre-1845 system.
Significant Restrictions, 1873 - 1895. Popular perception of abuse of the
franking privilege during the middle of the 19th century led Congress to abolish the
privilege in 1873.17 Members were provided with special stamps for official
government communications, including responses to constituent letters, paid for out
of the contingent funds of the House and Senate, but could not use free mail to
contact constituents unsolicited.18
Over the following 22 years, the restrictions were gradually relaxed. In 1874,
reduced postal rates for mailing the Congressional Record and bound public
documents were approved.19 In 1875, Members were permitted to send printed
speeches and reports for free under their frank, as well as seeds and agricultural
reports.20 In 1891, Congress allowed Members to send mail under their frank to any
officer of the federal government.21 Finally, in 1895, Congress restored the general
right of Members to mail under the frank, including unsolicited mail to constituents.22
Franking Restored, 1895 - 1973. After the franking privilege was restored
in 1895, Members were allowed to send (but no longer receive) “any mail matter to
any Government official or to any person, correspondence, not exceeding one ounce
in weight, upon official or departmental business.”23
In 1904, the franking weight limit was raised to four ounces.24 In 1906, Congress
explicitly prohibited the loan or use of the frank by anyone not legally entitled to use
the frank, as well as use of the frank for the benefit of anyone not legally entitled to
15
(...continued)
December following the end of a session of Congress.
16
Act of Congress, Mar. 3, 1847, 9 Stat. 188, 201. The appropriation was increased in 1851
but then abolished in 1872. See Act of Mar. 3, 1851, 9 Stat. 587, 591; Act of June 1, 1872,
17 Stat. 199, 202. See also Daniel, “United States Postal Service and Postal Policy, 17891861,” pp. 452-454.
17
Act of Congress, Jan. 31, 1873, 17 Stat. 421; Act of Congress, Mar. 3, 1873, 17 Stat. 559.
18
These official stamps were also used for all official mail sent by employees in the
executive branch. In 1877, the stamps were discontinued and replaced with so-called penalty
envelopes, the basis for the contemporary penalty mail system. 19 Stat. 336 (Mar. 3, 1877).
19
Act of Congress, June 23, 1874, 18 Stat. 231, 237.
20
Act of Congress, Mar. 3, 1875, 18 Stat. 340, 343.
21
Act of Congress, Mar. 3, 1891, 26 Stat. 1079, 1081.
22
Act of Congress, Jan. 12, 1895, 28 Stat. 601, 622.
23
Act of Congress, Jan. 12, 1895, 28 Stat. 601, 622, secs. 85, 86.
24
Act of Congress, Apr. 28, 1904, 33 Stat. 429, 441.
CRS-5
use it.25 In 1926, when the 69th Congress consolidated and restated the general and
permanent laws of the United States, both penalty mail and the franking privilege
were placed in Title 39, the Postal Service.26
In 1953, in order to encourage fiscal responsibility and allow for more accurate
financial management of the Post Office Department, Congress began reimbursing
the Department for franking costs, which the Department would treat as revenue.27
In order to properly account for these costs, the Post Office Department also began
systematic accounting of congressional franked mail costs.
Beginning in 1961, Congress passed legislation that allowed Members to frank
mail to “postal patrons,” without a name or street address on the mailing.28 Strong
objections to this policy, largely in the Senate, triggered a repeal in 1962.29 After a
year of inter-chamber negotiation over such mailings, a compromise was reached:
each chamber would handle “postal patron” mailings as it saw fit.30 That was the first
instance of the House and Senate having different franking policies.
The “postal patron” legislation also implicitly expanded the definition of
“official business.” Previously, a limited (albeit flexible) definition — including
department documents to be forwarded and related correspondence — had been the
common interpretation of the 1895 provisions. The House report accompanying the
1961 postal patron statute, however, suggested that the new law would help Members
deliver “information on the issues pending before Congress” to their constituents.31
The nature of the postal patron provision meant that newsletters, questionnaires, and
constituent reports might now be included in “official business.”
During this period, the Post Office Department was responsible for monitoring
and regulating the use of free mailings. Post Office Department general counsel
issued advisory opinions concerning use of the frank, and the Post Office Department
attempted to collect postage due on mailings it found improper.32 Although the Post
25
Act of Congress, June 26, 1906, 33 Stat. 467, 477.
26
Act of Congress, June 30, 1926, 44 Stat. Pt. I, 1256-1257.
27
P.L. 83-286; 67 Stat. 614. The act also directed executive branch penalty mail, also
previously paid for out of the budget of the Post Office Department, to be charged against
agency budgets and treated as revenue.
28
P.L. 87-332; 75 Stat. 733.
29
P.L. 87-730; 76 Stat. 680.
30
P.L. 88-248; 77 Stat. 803.
31
U.S. Congress, House Committee on Appropriations, Treasury and Post Office
Departments and the Tax Court of the United States Appropriations Bill, report to
accompany H.R. 10569, 86th Cong., 2nd sess., H.Rept. 86-1281 (Washington: GPO, 1961),
p. 17. The law also limited postal patron mailings to the district a Member represented.
32
In several cases, the Post Office Department was unsuccessful in collection efforts. See
Comment, “The Franking Privilege — A Threat to the Electoral Process,” American
University Law Review, vol. 23 (Summer 1974), p. 888, n. 33.
CRS-6
Office Department issued franking regulations,33 enforcement placed the Post Office
in an awkward position, as an executive branch agency charged with monitoring the
activities of Congress.34 In 1968, the Post Office Department stated that, although it
would continue advisory opinions, “the final judge as to whether or not the franking
privilege has been properly used must be the Congressman himself.”35 In 1971, the
Postal Service36 discontinued offering advisory opinions.37
With the Postal Service no longer offering advisory opinions, a series of
lawsuits were brought in 1973 in response to alleged franking abuses by Members
of Congress preceding the 1972 election, including a direct challenge to the
constitutionality of the privilege. Some of the lawsuits contended that the franking
statutes were being broken by Members of Congress; other lawsuits contended that
the frank was unconstitutional because it gave incumbents an unfair advantage over
challengers in congressional elections.38
Franking Reform, 1973 - 1977. In response to the legal challenges and a
general sense that Congress was losing control over the franking privilege to judicial
decisions, a new comprehensive franking statute was passed in 1973.39 It included
tighter definitions of the types of mail eligible for the frank, prohibited Member mass
mailings (defined as 500 or more pieces of substantially similar unsolicited mail) less
than 28 days before primary and general elections in which the Member was a
candidate for public office,40 and restricted the frankability of the Congressional
Record to items that would be frankable if sent as letters.41 The statute created the
33
For instance, in April 1968, the Post Office Department issued The Congressional
Franking Privilege, which offered guidance and illustrative rulings on the frankability of
different mail matter. Post Office Department Publication 126, “The Congressional Franking
Privilege,” April 1968.
34
Comment, “The Franking Privilege,” p. 888.
35
Memorandum of Timothy J. May, general counsel, Post Office Department, Dec. 26,
1968, in U.S. Congress, House Committee on Post Office and Civil Service, Subcommittee
on Postal Service, Law and Regulations Regarding Use of the Congressional Frank,
committee print, 92nd Cong., 1st sess., CP-14 (Washington: GPO, 1971), pp. 5-6.
36
The Post Office Department was reorganized as the Postal Service in 1970. P.L. 91-375;
84 Stat. 719.
37
Letter from David A. Nelson, senior assistant postmaster general and general counsel,
United States Postal Service, to Thaddeus J. Dulski, chairman, House Committee on Post
Office and Civil Service, Aug. 12, 1971, in Law and Regulations Regarding Use of the
Congressional Frank, pp. 6-7.
38
See, e.g.,Common Cause v. Bolger, 512 F. Supp. 26, 32 (D.D.C. 1980).
39
P.L. 93-191; 87 Stat. 737.
40
Subsequent interpretive rulings in the House and Senate have produced a more precise
definition of “candidate” for the purposes of the pre-election mail ban. See CRS Report
RL34085, Election Year Restrictions on Mass Mailings by Members of Congress: How H.R.
1614 / S. 936 / S. 1285 Would Change Current Law, by Matthew E. Glassman.
41
Since Members could insert anything they wanted into it, the Congressional Record had
(continued...)
CRS-7
Commission on Congressional Mailing Standards (“Franking Commission”) to
oversee the use of the frank in the House, and designated the Senate Select
Committee on Standards and Conduct to make routine decisions regarding the use
of the frank by that chamber.42
The Commission on Congressional Mailing Standards, consisting of six
Members chosen by the Speaker, three from each major political party, including a
chairman selected by the Speaker from among the Members on the Committee on
House Administration,43 was authorized “to (1) issue regulations governing the
proper use of the franking privilege; (2) to provide guidance in connection with
mailings;44 and (3) to act as a quasi-judicial body for the disposition of formal
complaints against Members of Congress who have allegedly violated franking laws
or regulations.”45
Franking reform continued in 1977, when the House and Senate amended their
respective chamber rules. A temporary House Commission on Administrative
Review, created in July 1976, recommended, with respect to the franking privilege,
placing a ban on the use of private funds to print mailings distributed under the frank,
limiting Members to six district-wide mailings per year, extending the pre-election
mass mailing ban to 60 days from 28, and requiring that postal patron mailings be
submitted to the Franking Commission for review.46 The commission’s
recommendations on the franking privilege were subsequently adopted by the
House.47 The Senate adopted a resolution that extended the pre-election mass mailing
ban to 60 days, placed a ban on the use of private funds to prepare franked materials,
and required Senators to file public copies of postal patron mailings.48
Contemporary Reforms, 1986 - Present. Although the reforms of the
1970s addressed perceived problems of franking abuse, the cost of franking increased
41
(...continued)
long been a loophole for mailing things that would have otherwise been unfrankable. See
Andrew H. Wasmund, “Use and Abuse of the Congressional Franking Privilege,” Loyola
University of Los Angeles Law Review, vol. 5 (Jan. 1972), pp. 65-67.
42
43
44
P.L. 93-191, secs. (5)(a), (6)(a).
P.L. 93-191, sec. (5)(b).
This authority includes the issuing of advisory opinions on individual mass mail items.
45
P.L. 93-191, sec. (5)(d)-(f). The Senate Select Committee on Standards and Conduct was
given similar authority in sec. (6)(b)-(e).
46
U.S. Congress, House, Communication from the Chairman, Commission on
Administrative Review, Report on Financial Ethics, 95th Cong., 1st sess., Feb. 1977, H. Doc
95-73 (Washington: GPO, 1977), pp. 19-20.
47
48
H.Res. 287, 95th Cong., 1st sess, agreed to in the House Mar. 2, 1977.
S.Res. 110, 95th Cong., 1st sess., agreed to in the Senate April 1, 1977. Congress later
statutorily required both Representatives and Senators to pay the costs of franked mail from
funds specifically appropriated for that purpose, and prohibited the use of supplemental
funds from private and public sources. See P.L. 101-520, 104 Stat. 2279.
CRS-8
dramatically between FY1970 and FY1988.49 In response, Congress placed individual
limits on Members’ mail costs and required public disclosure of individual Member
franking expenditures.
In 1986, the Senate established a franking allowance for each Senator and for
the first time disclosed individual Member mail costs.50 In 1990, the House
established a separate franking allowance for its Members and required public
disclosure of individual mail costs.51 The act also required the postmaster general to
(1) monitor use of the frank by each Representative and Senator; (2) notify each
Member on a monthly basis of the amount of his or her franking allowance used; and
(3) prohibit the delivery of franked mail in excess of a Member’s allowance.52
Tighter restrictions were also placed on Member mass mailings. Since October
1992, Members have been prohibited from sending mass mailings outside their
districts.53 This action followed a U.S. court of appeals ruling that found the practice
unconstitutional.54 Since October 1994, Senators have been limited to mass mailings
that do not exceed $50,000 per session of Congress. Senators may not use the frank
for mass mailings above that amount.55
In 1995, the House consolidated Members’ allowances for clerk-hire, official
office expenses, and mail costs into a single allowance, “Member’s Representational
Allowance” (MRA). Although a Representative’s franking expenses were still
restricted to the mail costs portion of the MRA, Members could use excess funds in
the mail costs allocation for clerk-hire or office expenses.56 In 1999, House
regulations were amended such that the combined funds in the MRA may be used
without limitation in any one allocation category, subject to law and House
regulation.
In 1996, Congress extended the pre-election cutoff for Representative mass
mailings to 90 days from 60, required each mass mailing to contain the statement,
“This mailing was prepared, published, and mailed at taxpayer expense,” and
49
For a historical overview of franking costs, see CRS Report RL34188, Congressional
Official Mail Costs, by Matthew Glassman.
50
S.Res. 500, 99th Cong., 2nd sess., agreed to in the Senate Oct. 8, 1986.
51
Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, FY1991, P.L. 101-520, 104 Stat. 2254, 2279, sec.
311.
52
Ibid., sec. 311(b).
53
Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, FY1993, P.L. 102-292, 106 Stat. 1703, 1722, sec.
309.
54
Coalition to End the Permanent Government v. Marvin T. Runyon, et al., 979 F.2d 219
(D.C.Cir. 1992).
55
Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, FY1995, P.L. 103-283, Stat. 1423, 1427-1428,
secs. 5, 108.
56
Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, FY1996, P.L. 104-53, 109 Stat. 514, 519.
CRS-9
required that the Statement of Disbursements of the House contain Member mass
mailing information.57
During the 106th Congress, the Committee on House Administration (at the time
called the Committee on House Oversight) adopted a policy requiring advisory
opinions for all unsolicited mass communications.58 More recently, the House
Administration Committee established new franking regulations regarding e-mail.
E-mails to constituents on subscriber lists, however, can be treated as solicited
mailings not subject to the pre-election or mass mailing restrictions.59
During the 109th Congress, in response to allegations of misuse, the Committee
on House Administration adopted a resolution restricting mass mailings made by
House committees.6058 The committee funding resolution for the 109th Congress limited
House committees to an aggregate franking cost of $5,000, and prohibited the use of
committee funds for the production of material for a mass mailing unless the mailing
fell under specific exceptions related to committee business.6159 Before mailing, the
chairman or ranking minority member of a committee is required to submit a sample
of the material to the House Commission on Congressional Mailing Standards for
approval. In addition, no committee is permitted to send franked mail into a
Member’s district within 90 days of an election in which the Member is a candidate.
In May 2007, the restrictions were extended by the House Administration Committee
through the 110th Congress.62
Contemporary Activities of the Franking Commission. The day-to-day
operations of the Franking Commission are extensive. The commission offers both
formal and informal advisory opinions on the eligibility for the frank of roughly
6,000 to 8,000 pieces of mail each year.63 Since its establishment in 1973, the
57
Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, FY1997, P.L. 104-197, 110 Stat. 2394. 24142415, sec. 311.
58
U.S. Congress, Committee on House Oversight, Report on the Activities of the Committee
on House Oversight during the 106th Congress, 106th Cong., 2nd sess., H.Rept. 106-1056
(Washington: GPO, 2001), p. 14.
59
House of Representatives, Member’s Handbook, available at [http://cha.house.gov/
index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=208#electronic_comm], visited Nov. 19,
2007.
6060
Mass Communications. During the 106th Congress, the Committee on
House Administration (at the time called the Committee on House Oversight)
adopted a policy requiring advisory opinions for all unsolicited mass
communications.61 Mass communications are defined as any unsolicited
communication of substantial identical content to 500 or more persons in a session
of Congress, and includes mailings, advertisements, automated phone calls, video or
audio communications, and e-mails.62 E-mails to constituents on subscriber lists,
however, can be treated as solicited mailings not subject to the pre-election or mass
mailing restrictions.63
57
Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, FY1997, P.L. 104-197, 110 Stat. 2394. 24142415, sec. 311.
58
Resolution of the Committee on House Administration, April 21, 2005, available at
[http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=109_house_hearings&doci
d=f:21196.wais], visited November 19, 2007.
6159
H.Res 224, adopted in the House April 27, 2005; see U.S. Congress, Committee on House
Administration, Providing for the Expenses of Certain Committees of the House of
Representatives for the 109th Congress, report to accompany H.Res. 224, 109th Cong., 1st
sess., H.Rept. 109-224 (Washington: GPO, 2005), p. 4.
6260
Resolution of the Committee on House Administration, May 7, 2007, available at
[http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=110_house_hearings&doci
d=f:36562.wais], visited November 19, 2007.
63
Interviews with Charles Howell and Ellen McCarthy, Committee on House
(continued...)
CRS-1061
U.S. Congress, Committee on House Oversight, Report on the Activities of the Committee
on House Oversight during the 106th Congress, 106th Cong., 2nd sess., H.Rept. 106-1056
(Washington: GPO, 2001), p. 14.
62
Certain communications, such as news releases and information posted to Member
websites, are exempted from these restrictions. See House of Representatives, Member’s
Handbook, available at [http://cha.house.gov/official_and_representational_expenses.aspx],
visited Sept. 8, 2008.
63
House of Representatives, Member’s Handbook, available at [http://cha.house.gov/
index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=208#electronic_comm], visited Nov. 19,
(continued...)
CRS-10
Contemporary Activities of the Franking Commission. The day-to-day
operations of the Franking Commission are extensive. The commission offers both
formal and informal advisory opinions on the eligibility for the frank of roughly
6,000 to 8,000 pieces of mail each year.64 Since its establishment in 1973, the
commission has issued regulations and made rulings regarding, among other things,
the allowable content of franked mail; the size, number, and placement of
photographs in franked newsletters; and disclosure of Member mass mailings for
public examination.6465
The Franking Commission also handles, on average, about four or five formal
complaints each year about particular pieces of franked mail.6566 After a finding of fact,
the commission is empowered to punish Members if appropriate. Inadvertent
violations typically result in the Member simply reimbursing the House for the cost
of the mailing. More serious violations can result in Members losing a portion of
their representational allowance, or referral to the House for further action.6667
Other Recipients of the Franking Privilege
Historically, Congress has regularly expanded and contracted the group of
individuals granted the franking privilege. Currently, the franking privilege is granted
(with differing restrictions) to Members of Congress, the Vice President, certain
congressional officers, former Members of Congress, former Presidents, former Vice
Presidents, widows of Presidents, and a relative of a Member who dies in office. In
the past, Congress has granted the franking privilege to high-ranking officers in the
executive branch, postmasters, military leaders, and soldiers during wartime.
Vice President. The Vice President is currently eligible for the franking
privilege under similar terms as Members of Congress.6768 The Vice President was first
granted the franking privilege in 1792.6869 Prior to 1873, the Vice President was treated
as an official of the executive branch who had the franking privilege, and thus could
use the frank without time or weight restriction. When the frank was restored in
1895, the Vice President was again granted the privilege.69 He was, however, subject
to similar restrictions as Members.
Congressional Officers. Currently, the secretary of the Senate, the sergeant
at arms of the Senate, each of the elected officers of the House (other than a Member
of the House), the legislative counsels of the House and Senate, the law revision
counsel of the House, and the Senate legal counsel are granted the franking
63
(...continued)
63
(...continued)
2007.
64
Interviews with Charles Howell and Ellen McCarthy, Committee on House
Administration, Apr. 3, 2007.
6465
U.S. Congress, House Commission On Congressional Mailing Standards, Regulations on
the Use of the Congressional Frank By Members of the House of Representatives
(Washington: GPO, 1998), pp. 5, 9, 19.
6566
Franking Commission rules provide specific procedures for the filing and disposition of
complaints. See Ibid., pp. 33-45.
6667
Interviews with Charles Howell and Ellen McCarthy, Committee on House
Administration, Apr. 3, 2007.
6768
39 U.S.C. § 3210(b)(1).
6869
Act of Congress, Feb. 20, 1792, 1 Stat. 232, 237.
69
Act of Congress, Jan. 12, 1895, 28 Stat. 601, 622.
CRS-11
privilege.70
CRS-11
1895, the Vice President was again granted the privilege.70 He was, however, subject
to similar restrictions as Members.
Congressional Officers. Currently, the secretary of the Senate, the sergeant
at arms of the Senate, each of the elected officers of the House (other than a Member
of the House), the legislative counsels of the House and Senate, the law revision
counsel of the House, and the Senate legal counsel are granted the franking
privilege.71 This follows a historical pattern of Congress granting the privilege to
various officers of the legislative branch.
Former Members of Congress. Former Members of Congress are currently
eligible for the franking privilege for the 90-day period immediately following the
date on which they leave office.7172 Prior to 1847, former Members of Congress were
not granted any franking privileges. In 1847, Congress authorized former Members
to send and receive public documents, letters, and packages under the frank until the
first Monday of December following the expiration of their term of office.7273 In 1863,
the privilege for former Members was repealed; in 1872 it was restored.7374 Former
Members lost the privilege when Congress abolished all franking in 1873.7475 In 1875,
former Members were granted reduced rate postage for nine months after the
expiration of their terms.7576 In 1877, the date of expiration of the privilege was
changed to the first day of December following the expiration of the Member’s term
in office.7677 In 1895, Congress repealed the reduced rate privilege and restored the
franking privilege. Former Members were again granted the franking privilege until
December 1. After the Twentieth Amendment77Amendment78 shifted the end of the congressional
term to January 3 from March 4, Congress adjusted the date of expiration on the
frank for Members of Congress to June 30 from December 1.78
70
70
Act of Congress, Jan. 12, 1895, 28 Stat. 601, 622.
71
39 U.S.C. § 3210(b)(1).
7172
39 U.S.C. 3210(b)(3). The privilege is restricted to the sending of mail relating to the
closing of their office. During the same period, former Members may send and receive as
franked mail all public documents printed by order of Congress (39 U.S.C. 3211).
7273
Act of Congress, Mar. 1, 1847, 9 Stat. 147, 148. This structured the franking privilege of
former Members to run from the end of the previous Congress until the constitutionally
prescribed default start of the 1st session of the next Congress, approximately 275 days.
Article 1, section 4 of the Constitution directed Congress to meet “on the first Monday of
December, unless they shall by Law appoint a different Day.” Prior to the adoption of the
20th Amendment, congressional terms ran from March 4th of odd-numbered years to March
3rd of the following odd-numbered year, as Congress under the Articles of Confederation set
March 4th, 1789, as the first day of the First Congress under the new Constitution. With rare
exceptions, prior to the 20th Amendment, new Congresses did not begin their first session
until the following December.
7374
Act of Congress, Mar. 3, 1863, 12 Stat. 701, 708; Act of Congress, June 8, 1872, 17 Stat.
283, 306.
7475
Act of Congress, Jan. 31, 1873, 17 Stat. 421.
7576
Act of Congress, Mar. 3, 1875, 18 Stat. 340, 343.
7677
Act of Congress, Mar. 3, 1877, 19 Stat. 319, 336.
77
Ratified Jan. 23, 1933.
78
Act of Congress, June 18, 1934, 48 Stat. 1017, 1018. Although this change only slightly
altered the amount of time former Members could use the frank, it illustrates a development
in the congressional intent of granting the franking privilege to former Members. The
original 1847 law was structured to allow former Members use of the frank until the
beginning first session of the next Congress. The 1934 law was structured to give Members
use of the frank for a specified length of time, unrelated to the start of the next session of
(continued...)
CRS-1278
Ratified Jan. 23, 1933.
CRS-12
term to January 3 from March 4, Congress adjusted the date of expiration on the
frank for Members of Congress to June 30 from December 1.79
In 1970, Congress authorized Members to send and receive as franked mail all
public documents printed by order of Congress, until the last day of June following
the expiration of their term in office.7980 In 1973, Congress moved the expiration date
to April 30.8081 In 1975, Congress enacted the current law, authorizing the franking
privilege for former Members for 90 days following the expiration of their term in
office, and only for the sending of mail related to the closing of their office.8182
Upon expiration of their term in office, Members who at some point during their
career served as Speaker of the House are granted enhanced franking privileges. For
five years after leaving Congress, former Speakers are granted the same franking
privilege as current Members of Congress. This privilege entitles them to send as
franked mail correspondence related to their official duties and to send and receive
public documents ordered printed by Congress.8283
The franking privilege was first authorized for a former Speaker in December
1970. H.Res. 1238 authorized a general allowance package for the outgoing Speaker,
John W. McCormack, who was scheduled to retire from the House at the end of the
91st Congress.8384 McCormack was granted a franking privilege for 18 months beyond
the 90 days granted to former Members. In 1974, Congress permanently authorized
the franking privilege and other allowances to any former Speaker upon expiration
of his/her term as a Representative, for “as long as he determines there is a need
therefor.”84 In 1993, Congress limited the period of time for use of the allowance to
five years.85
Members-elect. Persons elected to Congress, prior to being sworn in, are
currently granted the franking privilege on the same terms as sitting Members of
Congress.86
78
(...continued)
79
Act of Congress, June 18, 1934, 48 Stat. 1017, 1018. Although this change only slightly
altered the amount of time former Members could use the frank, it illustrates a development
in the congressional intent of granting the franking privilege to former Members. The
original 1847 law was structured to allow former Members use of the frank until the
beginning first session of the next Congress. The 1934 law was structured to give Members
use of the frank for a specified length of time, unrelated to the start of the next session of
Congress. The legislative history suggests that in 1934, Congress understood the purpose
of the law as giving former Members a period of time to close up unfinished business and
dispose of their allotment of public documents, not as a mechanism for providing
uninterrupted communication between constituents and representatives. U.S. Congress,
Senate Committee on Printing, Allotment of Public Documents and Date of Expiration of
Franking Privilege to Members of Congress, report to accompany S.J.Res. 130, 73rd Cong.,
2nd sess., S.Rept. 1253 (Washington: GPO, 1934), p. 1.
7980
P.L. 91-374; 84 Stat. 719, 754.
8081
P.L. 93-191; 85 Stat. 737, 741.
8182
P.L. 94-177; 89 Stat. 1032.
8283
2 U.S.C. § 31b-4.
8384
H.Res. 1238, agreed to by the House Dec. 22, 1970. For more information on the general
allowance of former Speakers, see CRS Report RS20099, Former Speakers of the House:
Office Allowances, Franking Privilege, and Staff Assistance, by Matthew Glassman.
84
P.L. 93-532; 88 Stat. 1723.
85
P.L. 103-69; 107 Stat. 692, 699.
86
39 U.S.C. § 3210(b).
CRS-13
CRS-13
therefor.”85 In 1993, Congress limited the period of time for use of the allowance to
five years.86
Members-elect. Persons elected to Congress, prior to being sworn in, are
currently granted the franking privilege on the same terms as sitting Members of
Congress.87
Relatives of Members of Congress. Certain relatives of Members of
Congress are eligible for the franking privilege when a Member dies in office.
Originally enacted in 1968, this law extends the franking privilege to the spouse of
a Member who dies in office. The privilege exists for 180 days and is to be used only
to send mail related to the death of the Member.8788 In 1981, the statute was broadened
to allow a member of the immediate family of the Member who dies in office to have
the franking privilege in the event that there is no surviving spouse.8889
Former Presidents and Widows of Presidents. Former Presidents have
routinely been granted the franking privilege by statute, and in 1958 a general statute
was passed providing franking privileges for all former Presidents.8990
Since 1800, Congress has regularly, except for two instances, granted the
franking privilege to widows of former Presidents. From 1789 until 1973, the
privilege was granted through individual pieces of legislation.9091 The first such grant
was to Martha Washington in 1800.9192 In 1973, Congress enacted general legislation
to provide the franking privilege to all future surviving spouses of Presidents.9293
Unlike Members of Congress and other federal officials legally entitled to use
the frank, few restrictions regarding weight, substantive content, or volume of use
have been placed on the franking privilege of former Presidents or widows of
Presidents, particularly prior to 1973.9394 As governed by the 1973 law, the current
franking privilege for Presidents, spouses of Presidents, and surviving spouses of
Presidents applies only to “nonpolitical mail sent within the United States and its
territories.”94 No limitation is imposed on volume of use or weight of franked
mailings.
Executive Branch Officials. Since 1873, officials in the executive branch
have used penalty mail for official government correspondence.95 Prior to 1873,
officials in the executive branch were occasionally granted the franking privilege:
87
85
P.L. 93-532; 88 Stat. 1723.
86
P.L. 103-69; 107 Stat. 692, 699.
87
39 U.S.C. § 3210(b).
88
P.L. 90-368; 82 Stat. 278.
8889
P.L. 97-69; 95 Stat. 1041, 1043.
8990
P.L. 85-745; 72 Stat. 838.
9091
Of the 34 U.S. Presidents who died prior to 1973, 23 were survived by a spouse. Only two
— Mrs. John (Letitia) Tyler and Mrs. Andrew (Eliza) Johnson — were not granted the
franking privilege. Mrs. Harry (Bess) Truman and Mrs. Lyndon (Lady Bird) Johnson, whose
husbands died in December 1972 and January 1973, respectively, were granted the privilege
in a law enacted in 1973.
9192
Act of Congress, Apr. 3, 1800, 2 Stat. 19.
9293
P.L. 93-191; 87 Stat. 737, 742, Sec. 311.
93
Ibid.
94
Prior to 1973, the privilege was granted without restriction on the political content of the
mail.
95
Act of Congress, Jan. 31, 1873, 17 Stat. 421.
CRS-1494
Ibid.
CRS-14
territories.”95 No limitation is imposed on volume of use or weight of franked
mailings.
Executive Branch Officials. Since 1873, officials in the executive branch
have used penalty mail for official government correspondence.96 Prior to 1873,
officials in the executive branch were occasionally granted the franking privilege:
heads of departments, the President and Vice-President, and high ranking military
officials.
Postmasters. Early franking statutes granted the franking privilege to local
postmasters. For many citizens seeking postmaster positions, the franking privilege
was as important, or more important, than the salaried compensation for the job.9697
When Congress chose to end the franking privilege for postmasters in 1845, over
one-third quit.9798 The privilege was restored in 1847.9899 When the general franking
privilege was abolished in 1873, postmasters were restricted to the use of penalty
mail for official government communications.99100
Soldiers. The first franking statute, passed by the Continental Congress in
1776, authorized free mail for Revolutionary soldiers.100101 Similar legislation has
occasionally been provided to American soldiers in other conflicts.101102
Criticism of the Franking Privilege
Contemporary critics of the franking privilege generally articulate four
objections: (1) the franking privilege is financially wasteful; (2) the franking
privilege is abused for private and political gain; (3) the franking privilege gives
unfair advantages to incumbents in congressional elections; and (4) the franking
privilege has become outdated with the advent of other forms of communication.
Cost of Franking. Although the word “frank” is derived from the Latin
francus, meaning “free,” the franking privilege is not free. Despite reforms that
reduced franking costs by over 70% between FY1988 and FY2006FY2007, critics continue to
to view the franking privilege as an unnecessary public expense. In FY2006, overall
congressional mail costs were $34.4 million. Prior to the reforms of the later 1980s
and early 1990s, franked mail costs increased significantly, reaching a peak of $113.4
million in FY1988.102 Critics of the franking privilege contend that it is an
unnecessary government expenditure that could be better spent elsewhere.103
96During FY2007,
Congress spent $17.5 million on official mail according to the U.S. Postal Service,
95
Prior to 1973, the privilege was granted without restriction on the political content of the
mail.
96
Act of Congress, Jan. 31, 1873, 17 Stat. 421.
97
Ross Allan McReynolds, “History of the United States Post Office, 1607-1931,” p. 189.
9798
Ibid., p. 189.
9899
Act of Congress, Mar. 3, 1847, 9 Stat. 188, 201.
99100
Act of Congress, Jan. 31, 1873, 17 Stat. 421.
100101
Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774-1789, vol. 3, p. 342 (Nov. 8, 1775).
101102
See, e.g., P.L. 65-254, 40 Stat. 1057, 1150, which provided during World War I that
“letters written and mailed by soldiers, sailors, and marines assigned to duty in a foreign
country engaged in the present war may be mailed free of postage.”
102
For more information on contemporary mail costs, see CRS Report RL34188,
Congressional Official Mail Costs, by Matthew Glassman.
103
Grover Norquist, quoted in Emily Yehle, “CRS: Franked Mail Has Cost $1.4 Billion,”
Roll Call, Oct. 2, 2007, p. 18.
CRS-15
CRS-15
representing approximately 4½ tenths of one percent of the $3.85 billion budget for
the entire legislative branch for FY2007.103 During FY2006, Congress spent $34.3
million on official mail.
These expenditures continue a historical pattern of Congress spending less on
official mail costs during non-election years than during election years. However,
analysis of monthly data on official mail costs indicates that, due to the structure of
the fiscal year calendar, comparisons of election-year and non-election-year mailing
data tend to overstate the effect of pre-election increases in mail costs, because it also
captures the effect of a large spike in mail costs from December of the previous
calendar year.104
During the past 20 years, franking reform efforts reduced franking expenditures
in both even-numbered and odd-numbered years. Even-numbered-year franking
expenditures have been reduced by almost 70% from $113.4 million in FY1988 to
$34.3 million in F2006, while odd-numbered-year franking expenditures have been
reduced by over 80% from $89.5 million in FY1989 to $17.5 million in FY2007.
Concerns about the public expense of franking have existed virtually
continuously since the earliest days of the nation. Two estimates made in the 1840s
suggest that Congress was franking 300,000 letters and 4.3 million documents each
year, with free mail accounting for more than half of the mail leaving Washington
each day.104105
These arrangements strained the Post Office Department. Combined with
franking privileges granted to local postmasters and executive branch officials, a
significant portion of mail in the United States was posted for free. Because the Post
Office Department was expected to generate revenue to cover costs, franked and
other free mails forced the adoption of higher rates for paid mail.105106 Memorials from
many state legislatures urged Congress to restrict franking and reduce postage
rates.106 Between 1840 and 1845, the postmaster general repeatedly asked Congress107 Between 1840 and 1845, the postmaster general repeatedly asked Congress
103
Throughout this report, cost figures are based on U.S. Postal Service data found in the
Annual Report of the Postmaster General, additional data provided by the Postal Service,
and mass mailing information contained in the Statement of Disbursements of the House and
the Report of the Secretary of the Senate.
104
See CRS Report RL34188, Congressional Official Mail Costs, by Matthew Glassman.
105
Olds, “The Challenge to the U.S. Postal Monopoly,” pp. 7-8; Daniel, “United States
Postal Service and Postal Policy, 1789-1860,” pp. 450-451.
106
U.S. Congress, House Committee on the Post Office and Post Roads, Franking Privilege
and Rates of Postage, 28th Cong., 1st sess., H. Rep. 483, Serial Set 446 (1844), pp. 7-10.
107
For example, see U.S. Congress, Senate, Resolution of the General Assembly of Vermont,
28th Congress, 2nd sess., S. Doc. 70, Serial Set 451 (1845); U.S. Congress, Senate, Resolution
of the General Assembly of New Hampshire, 28th Cong., 2nd sess., S. Doc. 8, Serial Set 449
(1844); U.S. Congress, Senate, Resolutions of the Legislature of New York, 27th Cong., 2nd
sess., S. Doc. 291, Serial Set 398 (1842).
CRS-16
to abolish or restrict the franking privilege, or to have the government pay for free
mail through general tax revenue instead of postal revenue.107108
Illegal Abuse of Franking Privileges. As with concerns about cost, critics
have long objected to the franking privilege because of its abuse for illegal private
and political gain. During the 19th century, abuse of the franking privilege — either
through loan of the frank to non-authorized users or its misuse by those entitled to
the privilege — was common.108109 Reports to Congress during the mid-19th century
routinely suggested that the laws prohibiting private use of the frank were universally
“disregarded,” most people possessing the privilege used it as a “private convenience
for themselves and their friends,” private companies regularly “secured envelopes
with the frank on them,” and that “a very small proportion of the matter transmitted
through the mails [under the frank] ha[d] any reference to the actual business of
Congress.”109
104
Olds, “The Challenge to the U.S. Postal Monopoly,” pp. 7-8; Daniel, “United States
Postal Service and Postal Policy, 1789-1860,” pp. 450-451.
105
U.S. Congress, House Committee on the Post Office and Post Roads, Franking Privilege
and Rates of Postage, 28th Cong., 1st sess., H. Rep. 483, Serial Set 446 (1844), pp. 7-10.
106
For example, see U.S. Congress, Senate, Resolution of the General Assembly of Vermont,
28th Congress, 2nd sess., S. Doc. 70, Serial Set 451 (1845); U.S. Congress, Senate, Resolution
of the General Assembly of New Hampshire, 28th Cong., 2nd sess., S. Doc. 8, Serial Set 449
(1844); U.S. Congress, Senate, Resolutions of the Legislature of New York, 27th Cong., 2nd
sess., S. Doc. 291, Serial Set 398 (1842).
107110
John Quincy Adams, during his first year as a United States Senator (1803)
noted that the franking regulations requiring all Senators to leave a copy of their
signature with the local postal clerk for verification purposes were universally
ignored.111 There is also the famous (and perhaps apocryphal) story of a Member
franking his horse for transportation back home, claiming it was a “public
document.”112 The franking privilege of the postmasters was also valuable as a partybased patronage benefit, especially in the smaller offices.113 In 1840, Amos Kendall,
auditor to the postmaster general, franked 13,000 letters to postmasters throughout
the country, suggesting they subscribe to his newspaper, and implicitly threatening
them politically if they did not.114
108
U.S. Post Office Department, Postmaster General’s Annual Report, 1840, 26th Cong., 2nd
sess., S. Doc. 1, Serial Set 375 (1840), pp. 481-482; Post Office Department, Postmaster
General’s Annual Report, 1842, 27th Cong., 3rd sess., S. Doc 1, Serial Set 418 (1842), p. 724;
Post Office Department, Postmaster General’s Annual Report, 1843, 28th Cong., 1st sess.,
S. Doc 1., Serial Set 431(1843), p. 605.
108109
For an overview of 19th century franking abuses, see Daniel, “United States Postal
Service and Postal Policy, 1789-1860,” pp. 449-458.
109
110
U.S. Congress, House Select Committee on Retrenchment, Franking Privilege — To
Abolish, report to accompany H.R. 292, 27th Cong., 2nd sess., H.Rept. 452, Serial Set 408
(1842) p. 1; U.S. Congress, House Committee on the Post Office and Post Roads, Franking
(continued...)
CRS-16
John Quincy Adams, during his first year as a United States Senator (1803)
noted that the franking regulations requiring all Senators to leave a copy of their
signature with the local postal clerk for verification purposes were universally
ignored.110 There is also the famous (and perhaps apocryphal) story of a Member
franking his horse for transportation back home, claiming it was a “public
document.”111 The franking privilege of the postmasters was also valuable as a partybased patronage benefit, especially in the smaller offices.112 In 1840, Amos Kendall,
auditor to the postmaster general, franked 13,000 letters to postmasters throughout
the country, suggesting they subscribe to his newspaper, and implicitly threatening
them politically if they did not.113Privilege, report to accompany S. 177, 30th Cong., 1st sess., H.Rept. 608, Serial Set 526
(1848), pp. 6-7.
111
Charles Francis Adams, ed., Memoirs of John Quincy Adams, Comprising Portions of His
Diary from 1795 to 1848, 12 vols. (Philadelphia: J.B. Lippincott & Co., 1874), vol. 1, p.
265.
112
Gerald Cullinan, The United States Postal Service (New York: Praeger Publishers, 1968),
p. 68; Andrew H. Wasmund, “Use and Abuse of the Congressional Franking Privilege,”
Loyola University of Los Angeles Law Review, vol. 6 (Jan. 1972), p. 56.
113
John, Spreading the News, p. 240.
114
Cullinan, The United States Postal Service, p. 64.
CRS-17
Contemporary regulations on the franking privilege severely restrict the types
of overt franking abuse common in the 19th century. Both the House and Senate
require that Members receive an advisory opinion on all mass mailings.
Contemporary critics of “abuse” of the franking privilege are often criticizing the
incumbency advantage of the frank rather than abuse through the loan or illegal use
of the frank.114115
Incumbency Advantage. Although contemporary franking critics continue
to voice concerns about the costs and abuses of the franking privilege, the most
common contemporary criticism of franking regards its use in congressional
elections, and the perceived advantage it gives incumbent Members running for
reelection. Critics argue that the vast majority of franked mail is unsolicited and, in
effect, publicly funded campaign literature.115116 During FY2006, 89.4% of mail costs
in the House and approximately 27.0% of mail costs in the Senate were mass
mailings.116117 Critics also argue that incumbent House Members may spend as much
on franked mail in a year as a challenger spends on his or her entire campaign.117
109
(...continued)
Privilege, report to accompany S. 177, 30th Cong., 1st sess., H.Rept. 608, Serial Set 526
(1848), pp. 6-7.
110
Charles Francis Adams, ed., Memoirs of John Quincy Adams, Comprising Portions of His
Diary from 1795 to 1848, 12 vols. (Philadelphia: J.B. Lippincott & Co., 1874), vol. 1, p.
265.
111
Gerald Cullinan, The United States Postal Service (New York: Praeger Publishers, 1968),
p. 68; Andrew H. Wasmund, “Use and Abuse of the Congressional Franking Privilege,”
Loyola University of Los Angeles Law Review, vol. 6 (Jan. 1972), p. 56.
112
John, Spreading the News, p. 240.
113
Cullinan, The United States Postal Service, p. 64.
114118
Critics also point out that franked mail costs are higher in election years than nonelection years, indicating that Members may be using the frank in attempts to
influence an election.119
Historically, although reformers of the franking privilege in the 19th century
were chiefly concerned with abuses that created unnecessary costs, the relationship
between the frank and re-election was not unnoticed.120 Speeches in Washington, DC
were often delivered not for consumption by other Members, but for the purpose of
publication and dissemination back in a Member’s home district.121 Several observers
noted that the objective was to send a signal to constituents that a Member was
working hard on their behalf.122
115
See, e.g., Wasmund, “Use and Abuse of the Congressional Franking Privilege,” which
focuses entirely on use of the frank to influence congressional elections.
115116
Wasmund, “Use and Abuse of the Congressional Franking Privilege,” p. 68; Elizabeth
Brotherton, “Franking Critics Want Full Disclosure of Costs,” Roll Call, Sept. 25, 2007, p.
3.
116117
See CRS Report RL34188, Congressional Official Mail Costs, by Matthew Glassman.
117118
Letter from Pete Sepp, president, National Taxpayer’s Union, to Representative Brad
(continued...)
CRS-17
Critics also point out that franked mail costs are higher in election years than nonelection years, indicating that Members may be using the frank in attempts to
influence an election.118
Historically, although reformers of the franking privilege in the 19th century
were chiefly concerned with abuses that created unnecessary costs, the relationship
between the frank and re-election was not unnoticed.119 Speeches in Washington, DC
were often delivered not for consumption by other Members, but for the purpose of
publication and dissemination back in a Member’s home district.120 Several observers
noted that the objective was to send a signal to constituents that a Member was
working hard on their behalf.121Sherman, July 13, 2004, available at [http://www.ntu.org/main/letters_detail.php?letter_id=
198], viewed Nov. 26, 2007.
119
Common Cause, “Franks A Lot,” press release, June 16, 1989, Common Cause Records,
1968-1991, Series 15, Box 293, Princeton University, Seely G. Mudd Manuscript Library.
120
Representative Francis Smith of Maine noted in 1844 that every Member of Congress
“feels that his reelection is more or less dependent on an active exercise of [the franking
privilege].” Francis Smith, “The Post-Office Department: Considered with Reference to Its
Conditions, Policy, Prospects, and Remedies,” Hunt’s Merchants’ Magazine, vol. 2, June
1844, pp. 530-531.
121
John, Spreading the News, pg. 58
122
Charles Augustus Murray, Travels in North America During the Years 1834, 1835, and
(continued...)
CRS-18
Technological Advance. Even when conceding that the franking privilege
serves important purposes, some critics argue that these purposes have been outdated
with modern technology. They point out that telephone, radio, television, and the
Internet have expanded the mediums by which Members can communicate with their
constituencies. E-mail now allows Members and constituents to communicate in
written form without the marginal costs associated with letter writing.
Defense of the Franking Privilege
Defenders of congressional franking argue that the privilege continues to
facilitate the same important democratic purposes — communication between
citizens and representatives and the spreading of political news — that it served
during the 18th and 19th centuries. In addition, proponents of franking argue that the
rise of modern mass media has given the President certain media advantage over
Congress, which can be partially counteracted by the franking privilege.
Linking Citizens and Representatives. Proponents of the franking
privilege argue that the frank allows Members to fulfill their representative duties by
providing for greater communication between the Member and an individual
constituent. One defender of the frank has argued that “free transmission of letters
117
(...continued)
Sherman, July 13, 2004, available at [http://www.ntu.org/main/letters_detail.php?letter_id=
198], viewed Nov. 26, 2007.
118
Common Cause, “Franks A Lot,” press release, June 16, 1989, Common Cause Records,
1968-1991, Series 15, Box 293, Princeton University, Seely G. Mudd Manuscript Library.
119
Representative Francis Smith of Maine noted in 1844 that every Member of Congress
“feels that his reelection is more or less dependent on an active exercise of [the franking
privilege].” Francis Smith, “The Post-Office Department: Considered with Reference to Its
Conditions, Policy, Prospects, and Remedies,” Hunt’s Merchants’ Magazine, vol. 2, June
1844, pp. 530-531.
120
121
John, Spreading the News, pg. 58
Charles Augustus Murray, Travels in North America During the Years 1834, 1835, and
1836, 2 vols. (London: Richard Bentley, 1839), vol. 2, p. 315; Thomas Hamilton, Men and
Manners in America, 2 vols. (Edinburgh: William Blackwood, 1833), vol. 2, p. 78.
CRS-18
on governmental business is directly connected to the well-being of the people
because of the nature of the legislative function.”122123
Proponents of the franking privilege argue that representative accountability is
enhanced by use of the frank. ByThey contend that by regularly maintaining direct
communication with
their constituents, Members provide citizens with information
by which they can
consider current public policy issues, as well as policy positions
on which voters can
judge them in future elections.123 If124 In addition, proponents argue
that if legislative matters could not be easily transmitted
to constituents free of
charge, most Members could not afford to pay for direct
communications with their
constituents.124125
Historically, the franking privilege was seen as a right of the constituents, not
of the Member.125126 When the franking statutes were first revised in 1792, a proponent
argued that “the privilege of franking was granted to the Members ... as a benefit to
122
(...continued)
1836, 2 vols. (London: Richard Bentley, 1839), vol. 2, p. 315; Thomas Hamilton, Men and
Manners in America, 2 vols. (Edinburgh: William Blackwood, 1833), vol. 2, p. 78.
123
Wasmund, “Use and Abuse of the Congressional Franking Privilege,” p. 56. See also
Wesley Everett Rich, History of the United States Post Office to the Year 1829 (Cambridge:
Harvard University Press, 1924), pp. 91-99.
124
Roll Call, “CRS: Franked Mail,” p. 18.
125
Scott Bice, “Project: Post Office,” Southern California Law Review, vol. 41, Spring 1968,
pp. 643, 658.
126
Daniel, “United States Postal Service and Postal Policy,” p. 446.
CRS-19
their constituents.”127
their constituents.”126 More generally, President Andrew Jackson suggested that the
Post Office Department itself was an important element of a democratic republic:
This Department is chiefly important as a means of diffusing knowledge. It is to
the body politic what the veins and arteries are to the natural - carrying,
conveying, rapidly and regularly to the remotest parts of the system correct
information of the operations of the Government, and bringing back to it the
wishes and the feelings of the people.127128
Facilitating the Spread of Political News. Beyond direct communications
with constituents about matters of public concern, proponents of franking argue that
free use of the mails allows Members to inform their constituents about upcoming
town-hall meetings, important developments in Congress, and other civic concerns.
Without a method of directly reaching his or her constituents, proponents maintain
that Members would be
forced to rely on intermediaries in the media or significant
personal costs in order to
publicize information the Member wished the constituents
to receive.128129
Historically, the franking privilege has long been perceived as serving this role.
In 1782, James Madison described the postal system as the “principal channel” that
122
Wasmund, “Use and Abuse of the Congressional Franking Privilege,” p. 56. See also
Wesley Everett Rich, History of the United States Post Office to the Year 1829 (Cambridge:
Harvard University Press, 1924), pp. 91-99.
123
Roll Call, “CRS: Franked Mail,” p. 18.
124
Scott Bice, “Project: Post Office,” Southern California Law Review, vol. 41, Spring 1968,
pp. 643, 658.
125
Daniel, “United States Postal Service and Postal Policy,” p. 446.
126
House debate, Annals of Congress, vol. 3, Dec. 16, 1792, pp. 252-53.
127
provided citizens with information about public affairs.130 The franking privilege
allowed Congress to function as a central location for the dissemination of political
news, and a large proportion of political news in the United States was delivered to
citizens in the form of franked documents, reports, reprinted speeches, and
proceedings of Congress.131
Institutional Defense of Congress. Scholars of Congress and the
presidency have argued that the rise of mass media, particularly television media,
have given the President a comparative advantage over Congress.132 While the
President can employ the resources of the executive branch to promote his unitary
message, individual Members of Congress lack the institutional resources to compete
with the President and Congress as a whole lacks a unity of message.133 Proponents
of franking argue that this puts Congress at an institutional disadvantage relative to
127
House debate, Annals of Congress, vol. 3, Dec. 16, 1792, pp. 252-53.
128
U.S. Congress, Senate, Message from the President of the United States, to the Two
Houses of Congress, at the Commencement of the First Session of the Twenty-first
Congress, 21st Cong., 1st sess., S. Doc. 1 (Washington: Duff Green, 1830), p. 18.
128129
Alfred A. Porro and Stuart A. Ascher, “The Case for the Congressional Franking
Privilege,” University of Toledo Law Review, vol. 5 (Winter 1974), pp. 280-281.
CRS-19
provided citizens with information about public affairs.129 The franking privilege
allowed Congress to function as a central location for the dissemination of political
news, and a large proportion of political news in the United States was delivered to
citizens in the form of franked documents, reports, reprinted speeches, and
proceedings of Congress.130
Institutional Defense of Congress. Scholars of Congress and the
presidency have argued that the rise of mass media, particularly television media,
have given the President a comparative advantage over Congress.131 While the
President can employ the resources of the executive branch to promote his unitary
message, individual Members of Congress lack the institutional resources to compete
with the President and Congress as a whole lacks a unity of message.132 Proponents
of franking argue that this puts Congress at an institutional disadvantage relative to
130
James Madison, “Notes on Debates,” Dec. 6 1782, in William T. Hutchinson et al., eds.,
Papers of James Madison (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1962), vol. 5, p. 372.
131
John, Spreading the News, p. 57.
132
Samuel Kernell and Gary C. Jacobson, “Congress and the Presidency as News in the
Nineteenth Century,” The Journal of Politics, vol. 49, no. 4, Nov. 1987, pp. 1016-1035. See
also John Kingdon, Agendas, Alternatives, and Public Policies (Boston: Little, Brown,
1995), pp. 45-47.
133
Kernell and Jacobson, “Congress and the Presidency,” p. 1017.
CRS-20
the President. One way to maintain a balance between the President and the
Congress, they argue, is to allow Members use of the franking privilege.
Dimensions of the Franking Privilege
In general, the franking privileges granted to Members at any given point in time
can be defined by five dimensions: who is entitled to frank mail, what is entitled to
be franked, how much material can be sent, where franked material can be sent, and
when franked material can be sent. Changes to the franking privilege typically have
not altered all of these dimensions at once, resulting in a wide variety of legislative
arrangements of the franking privilege. Similarly, proposed options for future
legislative changes may involve altering some, but not all, of these dimensions.
Who Has the Franking Privilege? Historically, the franking privilege has
been expanded and contracted by Congress to cover as few as several hundred
persons and as many as 10,000 or more. Currently, the franking privilege is limited
to the Vice-President, Members of Congress, certain congressional officers, former
Presidents, spouses of former Presidents, and widows of former Presidents. The frank
is available for a limited period to former Members and certain relatives of former
Members who die in office.
When Can the Frank Be Used? Currently, there are no general restrictions
regarding when the franking privilege may be used. Historically, Congress limited
use of the privilege to when Congress was in session or specific dates surrounding
the period when Congress was in session.
129
James Madison, “Notes on Debates,” Dec. 6 1782, in William T. Hutchinson et al., eds.,
Papers of James Madison (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1962), vol. 5, p. 372.
130
John, Spreading the News, p. 57.
131
Samuel Kernell and Gary C. Jacobson, “Congress and the Presidency as News in the
Nineteenth Century,” The Journal of Politics, vol. 49, no. 4, Nov. 1987, pp. 1016-1035. See
also John Kingdon, Agendas, Alternatives, and Public Policies (Boston: Little, Brown,
1995), pp. 45-47.
132
Kernell and Jacobson, “Congress and the Presidency,” p. 1017.
CRS-20
Senators are currently restricted from mass mailing during the 60 day period
prior to federal elections, and during the 60 period prior to primary elections in which
they are a candidate for any public office. The restriction for Representatives is 90
days prior to federal or primary elections in which they are a candidate for any public
office.133134 In the past, Congress has not restricted the franking privilege prior to
elections or has restricted it for shorter periods of time, such as 28 days.
What Materials Can Members Send Under the Frank? Current law,
chamber rules, and committee regulations place substantial restrictions on the content
of franked mail. The frank may not be used to solicit money or votes, and the
materials being mailed cannot relate to political campaigns, political parties,
biographical accounts, or holiday greetings. Current law also places specific
regulations on the content of individual pieces of mail. Members are restricted in the
number and placement of pictures of themselves, repeated use of their name, and the
134
The House and Senate define “candidate” differently. For Representatives, a candidate
is a “Member whose name appears anywhere on any official ballot to be used in such
election.” Senate rules do not specifically define “candidate.” In regards to primary
elections, Senate rules exempt candidates running unopposed from the mass mailing
restrictions. See Commission on Congressional Mailing Standards, Regulation of the Use
of the Congressional Frank By Members of the House of Representatives, p. 25; Senate Rule
XL. See also U.S. Senate Handbook, Appendix I-K, and Senate Ethics Manual, p. 171.
CRS-21
use of biographical material, most commonly found in constituent newsletters.
Historically, there was less regulation on the content of franked mail.
How Much Franked Mail Can Members Send? Historically, Congress
has regulated the amount of franked mail Members may send in a variety of ways.
During all of the 19th century and most of the 20th century, the total amount of
franked mail individual Members could send was not limited. After the authorization
of “postal patron” mailings, Members were limited to a specific number of mass
mailings.
Currently, Members are limited in their total amount of franked mail by cost.
The House and Senate Appropriations Committees, and subsequently the respective
chambers, determine the amount to be appropriated for each of the two bodies. Each
Member receives an allotment from these appropriations. In the Senate, the
allowance is administered by the Committee on Rules and Administration; in the
House, by the Committee on House Administration.
Representatives and Senators are authorized a specific dollar allotment for
franked mail, according to a formula based on the number of addresses in their
districts/states. In the Senate, the mail allowance is one of three allowances that
comprise each Senator’s “personnel and official expense accounts.” The other two
accounts provide funds for office staff and office expenses. Subject to law and Senate
regulations, the combined funds may be used without limitation in any one allocation
category.134
133
The House and Senate define “candidate” differently. For Representatives, a candidate
is a “Member whose name appears anywhere on any official ballot to be used in such
election.” Senate rules do not specifically define “candidate.” In regards to primary
elections, Senate rules exempt candidates running unopposed from the mass mailing
restrictions. See Commission on Congressional Mailing Standards, Regulation of the Use
of the Congressional Frank By Members of the House of Representatives, p. 25; Senate Rule
XL. See also U.S. Senate Handbook, Appendix I-K, and Senate Ethics Manual, p. 171.
134
Since October 1994, Senators have been limited to mass mailings that do not exceed
$50,000 per session of Congress. Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, FY1995, P.L. 103(continued...)
CRS-21135
Since January 3, 1999, in the House the combined funds for each
Representative’s franked mail, office staff, and office expenses (“Members
Representational Allowance”) may be used without limitation in any one allocation
category, subject to law and House regulation.
Where Can Such Materials Be Sent? Since October 1992, Representatives
have been prohibited from sending mass mailings outside their districts.135136 This
action followed a U.S. court of appeals ruling that found the practice
unconstitutional.136137
Options for Future Franking Change
Contemporary critics of the franking privilege have offered a number of
suggestions to abolish or change the privilege. Several of these ideas have been
135
Since October 1994, Senators have been limited to mass mailings that do not exceed
$50,000 per session of Congress. Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, FY1995, P.L. 103283, 108 Stat. 1423, 1427-1428, Sec. 5.
136
Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, FY1993, P.L. 102-292, 106 Stat. 1703, 1722,
Sec. 309.
137
Coalition to End the Permanent Government v. Marvin T. Runyon, et al., 979 F.2d 219
(D.C.Cir. 1992).
CRS-22
incorporated in bills in the 110th Congress or recent Congresses. Among the ideas are
the following proposals.
Abolish the Franking Privilege. Although the franking privilege has only
been abolished once, bills for its abolition have been introduced regularly in
Congress since the 1830s.137138 Most proponents of abolishing the franking privilege,
however, do not support a complete ban on free mail, and disagreement exists on
what system would replace the frank. Some proponents advocate replacing the frank
with a postage stamp allowance for Members as part of their representational
allowance. This option, however, does not directly address contemporary concerns
about the frank. Because all franking is now individually charged against Member
expense accounts, switching to a stamp allowance would have only a symbolic effect
as an abolition of the frank.
A second option would be for Members to use the penalty mail system under the
same restriction as other federal employees.138139 This would restrict Members from
sending any mail matter other than official correspondence in response to constituent
requests. This option would likely reduce congressional mail costs significantly. It
wouldcould also impair the ability of Members to communicate with their constituents.
Prohibit Mass Mailings. A ban on all unsolicited mass mailings could
potentially save millions of dollars in congressional mail costs and reduce concerns
about the effect of franked mass mailings on congressional elections. A related option
134
(...continued)
283, 108 Stat. 1423, 1427-1428, Sec. 5.
135
Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, FY1993, P.L. 102-292, 106 Stat. 1703, 1722,
Sec. 309.
136
Coalition to End the Permanent Government v. Marvin T. Runyon, et al., 979 F.2d 219
(D.C.Cir. 1992).
137
Recent bills to abolish the frank include H.R. 2308, 104th Congress; H.R. 331, 103rd
Congress; H.R. 1541, 103rd Congress; and H.R. 771, 102nd Congress.
138
39 U.S.C. § 3204.
CRS-22
would be to reduce the number of mailings that constitute a mass mailing to a smaller
number from 500.139140
H.R. 2687, introduced by Representative Ray LaHood during the 110th
Congress, would effectively prohibit Representatives from mass mailing newsletters,
questionnaires, or congratulatory notices. The prohibition would not cover certain
other types of mass mailings made by Members, including federal documents (such
as the Congressional Record) or voter registration information. The proposed
legislation would apply only to Representatives; it would not affect mass mailings
made by Senators.
Prohibit Unsolicited Mailings. A ban on all unsolicited mass mailings could
potentially save millions of dollars in congressional mail costs and reduce concerns
about the effect of franked mass mailings on congressional elections. Unlike a ban
on mass mailing, however, a ban on unsolicited mailings couldmight be governed by rules
similar to the House’s current e-mail policy, allowing unsolicited mass
communications to constituents on a subscriber list. Opponents argue that a
prohibition on unsolicited mail would restrict the ability of Members to communicate
with their constituents.
138
Recent bills to abolish the frank include H.R. 2308, 104th Congress; H.R. 331, 103rd
Congress; H.R. 1541, 103rd Congress; and H.R. 771, 102nd Congress.
139
140
39 U.S.C. § 3204.
A mass mailing is defined in 39 U.S.C. § 3210(a)(6)(E) as 500 or more substantially
similar pieces of unsolicited mail sent in the same session of Congress.
CRS-23
Extend the Pre-election Ban on Mass Mailings. Bills to extend the
current pre-election ban on mass mailings have been introduced in Congress in recent
years, ranging from an extension of the prohibited period to 120 days prior to the
general and primary elections to a year-long ban that would prohibit mass mailings
during the second session of each Congress.140141
Give Franking Privileges to Electoral Challengers. Some critics of the
franking privilege have raised concerns about its effect on elections and have
advocated giving franking privileges to challengers in congressional elections.141142
Advocates argue that giving the frank to challengers would reduce the incumbency
advantage of Members of Congress by allowing non-incumbent candidates a similar
ability to contact constituents. Opponents have argued that use of the frank is
currently prohibited for political purposes and that challengers in congressional
elections would inherently be using the frank for campaign purposes.
Reduce the Allowance Given to Members for Franked Mail. Critics
of the frank advocate reducing the overall mail allowance for both Senators and
Representatives. Currently, each Senator’s franking allowance is determined by a
formula that gives a maximum allowance equal to the cost of one first- class mailing
to every address in their state.142143 Senate offices that exceed their allowance may
139
A mass mailing is defined in 39 U.S.C. § 3210(a)(6)(E) as 500 or more substantially
similar pieces of unsolicited mail sent in the same session of Congress.
140
See, e.g., H.R. 1614, 110th Cong., 1st sess.
141
H.R. 9692, 95th Cong., 2nd sess.
142
supplement the allowance with official office account funds. Senators are, however,
limited to $50,000 for mass mailings in any fiscal year.144 In the House, each
Representative’s mail allowance is combined with allowances for office staff and
official office expenses to form the Member’s Representational Allowance (MRA).145
Members may spend any portion of their MRA on franked mail, subject to applicable
law and House regulations.146 Critics also suggest restricting Representatives to a
total mass mailing limit, similar to the current restriction on Senate mass mail.
Increase Cost Disclosure Requirements. Currently, individual Member
franking costs are disclosed by both the House and Senate.147 In addition, all mass
141
See, e.g., H.R. 1614, 110th Cong., 1st sess.
142
H.R. 9692, 95th Cong., 2nd sess.
143
“Regulations governing official mail,” adopted Oct. 30, 1997, amended Sept. 30, 1998,
Congressional Record vol. 144, part 16 (Oct. 2, 1998), pp. 23105-23108. If the total Senate
(continued...)
CRS-23
supplement the allowance with official office account funds. Senators are, however,
limited to $50,000 for mass mailings in any fiscal year.143 In the House, each
Representative’s mail allowance is combined with allowances for office staff and
official office expenses to form the Member’s Representational Allowance (MRA).144
Members may spend any portion of their MRA on franked mail, subject to applicable
law and House regulations.145 Critics also suggest restricting Representatives to a
total mass mailing limit, similar to the current restriction on Senate mass mail.
Increase Cost Disclosure Requirements. Currently, individual Member
franking costs are disclosed by both the House and Senate.146 In addition, all massappropriation for official mail is less than the amount required for the maximum allowance,
each Senator’s allowance is proportionally reduced.
144
Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, FY1995; P.L. 103-283, 108 Stat. 1427, sec. 5.
145
Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, FY1991, P.L. 101-520, 104 Stat. 2254, 2279,
sec. 311. Funds for franked mail are allocated according to a formula based on the number
of addresses in each Member’s district.
146
Committee Order No. 42, U.S. Congress, Committee on House Oversight, Report on the
Activities of the Committee on House Oversight During the 105th Congress, 105th Cong., 2nd
sess., H.Rept. 105-850 (Washington: GPO, 1999), p. 16; Legislative Branch Appropriations
Act, FY2000, P.L. 106-57, 113 Stat. 416, sec. 103.
147
Individual House Member mailing costs and mass mailing costs are available in the
(continued...)
CRS-24
mailings contain the statement, “This mailing was prepared, published, and mailed
at taxpayer expense.”147148 Advocates of increased disclosure support individual
disclosure of all franking-related costs, not just mail costs.
Some proponents propose putting the individual cost of each mass mailing on
each piece of the mailing. H.R. 2788, introduced in the 110th Congress, would require
that each individual piece of franked mail contained in a mass mailing made by a
Member of the House contain a statement indicating the aggregate cost of producing
and mailing the mass mailing. Each piece of franked mail would contain the
statement, “The aggregate cost of this mailing to the taxpayer is____,” with the blank
space containing the total cost of producing and franking the mass mailing. The
legislation would not affect mass mailings made by Senators.
Concluding Observations
Although the franking privilege has existed almost continuously since the
founding of the nation, the legal restrictions on its use have routinely been altered by
Congress. Two important trends emerge from this analysis. First, restrictions on the
use of the frank — who is entitled to frank mail, what is entitled to be franked, how
much material can be sent, where the franked material can be sent, and when franked
material can be sent — have been both tightened and loosened by Congress
142
(...continued)
appropriation for official mail is less than the amount required for the maximum allowance,
each Senator’s allowance is proportionally reduced.
143
Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, FY1995; P.L. 103-283, 108 Stat. 1427, sec. 5.
144
Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, FY1991, P.L. 101-520, 104 Stat. 2254, 2279,
sec. 311. Funds for franked mail are allocated according to a formula based on the number
of addresses in each Member’s district.
145
Committee Order No. 42, U.S. Congress, Committee on House Oversight, Report on the
Activities of the Committee on House Oversight During the 105th Congress, 105th Cong., 2nd
sess., H.Rept. 105-850 (Washington: GPO, 1999), p. 16; Legislative Branch Appropriations
Act, FY2000, P.L. 106-57, 113 Stat. 416, sec. 103.
146
Individual House Member mailing costs and mass mailing costs are available in the
quarterly Statement of Disbursements of the House. Senate costs are available in the biannual Report of the Secretary of the Senate.
147
Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, FY1997, P.L. 104-197, 110 Stat. 2394, 24142415, sec. 311.
CRS-24
throughout history. This reflects a normative ambiguity about the privilege, with
Congress seeking to balance a perceived democratic need for the franking privilege against
against charges of abuse, wastefulness, and incumbency protection.
Second, Members of Congress continue to use the frank to communicate with
constituents, despite the rise of alternative forms of mass communication. Although
illegal use of the frank has been largely curtailed, contemporary critics of the
privilege continue to voice concerns about wastefulness and incumbency protection.
Recent proposed changes to the franking privilege reflect these concerns, seeking to
reduce the overall volume of franked mail and the impact of mass mailings on
elections, while maintaining the ability of Members to effectively communicate with
constituents.
147
(...continued)
quarterly Statement of Disbursements of the House. Senate costs are available in the biannual Report of the Secretary of the Senate.
148
Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, FY1997, P.L. 104-197, 110 Stat. 2394, 24142415, sec. 311.