Franking Privilege: Historical Development
and Options for Change
Matthew Eric Glassman
Analyst on the Congress
April 3, 2013
Congressional Research Service
7-5700
www.crs.gov
RL34274
CRS Report for Congress
Pr
epared for Members and Committees of Congress
TheCapitol.Net – Teaching how Washington and Congress work.TM 202-678-1600 www.thecapitol.net
Congressional
Briefing Conference:
Capitol Hill Workshop
Politics, Policy, and Process
The definitive overview of
how Congress works.
This intensive course is offered as a
3-day public Briefing and as a tailored
on-site 3, 4 or 5-day program.
Public Briefings are offered throughout the year in Washington, DC.
Space is limited.
Dates, Agenda, Previous Faculty, and Secure Online Registration:
TCNCHW.com
On-site Congressional Briefings and
Capitol Hill Workshops for agencies:
CLCHW.com
703-739-3790 TheCapitol.Net
All of our courses and workshops include extensive
interaction with our faculty, making our courses
and workshops both educational as well as mini-
consulting sessions with substantive experts.
Our Upcoming Schedule of Courses can be seen
Non-partisan training and publications that show how Washington works.™
online on our web site or at TCNCourses.com.
PO Box 25706, Alexandria, VA 22313-5706
All of our courses and any combination of their
703-739-3790 • www.thecapitol.net
topics can be customized for on-site training for
TheCapitol.Net is on the
your organization—we are on GSA Advantage,
GSA Schedule, 874-4,
Contract GS02F0192X.
for custom on-site training.
GSA Contract GS02F0192X
thecapitol.net
Courses approved for CEUs from George Mason University
703-739-3790
Franking Privilege: Historical Development and 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
to various executive branch officers and others. Although the rise of alternative methods of
communication in the late 19th and early 20th centuries have 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 Recent Legislation, by Matthew Eric
Glassman; CRS Report RL34188, Congressional Official Mail Costs, by Matthew Eric Glassman;
and CRS Report R40569, Election Year Restrictions on Mass Mailings by Members of Congress:
How H.R. 2056 Would Change Current Law, by Matthew Eric Glassman.
Congressional Research Service
TheCapitol.Net – Teaching how Washington and Congress work.TM 202-678-1600 www.thecapitol.net
Franking Privilege: Historical Development and Options for Change
Contents
Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 1
History of the Congressional Franking Privilege ...................................................................... 1
Origins of the Franking Privilege ........................................................................................ 2
Early Franking Law, 1789 - 1873 ........................................................................................ 2
Significant Restrictions, 1873 - 1895 .................................................................................. 3
Franking Restored, 1895 - 1973 .......................................................................................... 4
Franking Reform, 1973 - 1977 ............................................................................................ 5
Contemporary Reforms, 1986–Present ............................................................................... 6
Mass Communications ........................................................................................................ 7
Contemporary Activities of the Franking Commission ....................................................... 8
Other Recipients of the Franking Privilege ............................................................................... 8
Vice President ...................................................................................................................... 9
Congressional Officers ........................................................................................................ 9
Former Members of Congress ............................................................................................. 9
Members-elect ................................................................................................................... 11
Relatives of Members of Congress ................................................................................... 11
Former Presidents and Widows of Presidents ................................................................... 11
Executive Branch Officials ............................................................................................... 12
Postmasters ........................................................................................................................ 12
Soldiers .............................................................................................................................. 12
Criticism of the Franking Privilege ......................................................................................... 12
Cost of Franking ................................................................................................................ 12
Illegal Abuse of Franking Privileges ................................................................................. 14
Incumbency Advantage ..................................................................................................... 14
Technological Advance ..................................................................................................... 15
Defense of the Franking Privilege ........................................................................................... 15
Linking Citizens and Representatives ............................................................................... 15
Facilitating the Spread of Political News .......................................................................... 16
Institutional Defense of Congress ..................................................................................... 17
Dimensions of the Franking Privilege ..................................................................................... 17
Who Has the Franking Privilege? ..................................................................................... 17
When Can the Frank Be Used? ......................................................................................... 17
What Materials Can Members Send Under the Frank? ..................................................... 18
How Much Franked Mail Can Members Send? ................................................................ 18
Where Can Such Materials Be Sent? ................................................................................ 19
Options for Future Franking Change ....................................................................................... 19
Abolish the Franking Privilege ......................................................................................... 19
Prohibit Mass Mailings ..................................................................................................... 19
Prohibit Unsolicited Mailings ........................................................................................... 20
Extend the Pre-election Ban on Mass Mailings ................................................................ 20
Give Franking Privileges to Electoral Challengers ........................................................... 20
Reduce the Allowance Given to Members for Franked Mail ............................................ 20
Increase Cost Disclosure Requirements ............................................................................ 21
Concluding Observations ........................................................................................................ 21
Congressional Research Service
TheCapitol.Net – Teaching how Washington and Congress work.TM 202-678-1600 www.thecapitol.net
Franking Privilege: Historical Development and Options for Change
Contacts
Author Contact Information........................................................................................................... 22
Congressional Research Service
TheCapitol.Net – Teaching how Washington and Congress work.TM 202-678-1600 www.thecapitol.net
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
to various executive branch officers and others. Although the rise of alternative methods of
communication in the late 19th and early 20th centuries have 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.
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.
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.”
Congressional Research Service
1
TheCapitol.Net – Teaching how Washington and Congress work.TM 202-678-1600 www.thecapitol.net
Franking Privilege: Historical Development and Options for Change
Origins of the Franking Privilege
The franking privilege has its roots in 17th 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
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 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
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 (November 8, 1775).
5 Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774-1789, vol. 23, pp. 670-679 (October 18, 1782).
6 Act of Congress, September 22, 1789, 1 Stat. 70. See also Act of Congress, August 4, 1790, 1 Stat. 178; Act of
Congress, March 3, 1791, 1 Stat. 218.
7 Act of Congress, February 20, 1792, 1 Stat. 232, 237.
8 Act of Congress, May 1, 1810, 2 Stat. 592, 600; Act of Congress, April 9, 1816, 3 Stat. 264, 265; Act of Congress,
March 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,
1607-1931,” ( 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, March 3, 1885, 10 Stat. 642.
Congressional Research Service
2
TheCapitol.Net – Teaching how Washington and Congress work.TM 202-678-1600 www.thecapitol.net
Franking Privilege: Historical Development and Options for Change
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 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
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, March 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 December following the
end of a session of Congress.
16 Act of Congress, March 3, 1847, 9 Stat. 188, 201. The appropriation was increased in 1851 but then abolished in
1872. See Act of March 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, 1789-1861,” pp. 452-454.
17 Act of Congress, January 31, 1873, 17 Stat. 421; Act of Congress, March 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 (March 3, 1877).
19 Act of Congress, June 23, 1874, 18 Stat. 231, 237.
20 Act of Congress, March 3, 1875, 18 Stat. 340, 343.
21 Act of Congress, March 3, 1891, 26 Stat. 1079, 1081.
22 Act of Congress, January 12, 1895, 28 Stat. 601, 622.
Congressional Research Service
3
TheCapitol.Net – Teaching how Washington and Congress work.TM 202-678-1600 www.thecapitol.net
Franking Privilege: Historical Development and Options for Change
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 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
23 Act of Congress, January 12, 1895, 28 Stat. 601, 622, §§85, 86.
24 Act of Congress, April 28, 1904, 33 Stat. 429, 441.
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.
Congressional Research Service
4
TheCapitol.Net – Teaching how Washington and Congress work.TM 202-678-1600 www.thecapitol.net
Franking Privilege: Historical Development and Options for Change
found improper.32 Although the Post 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 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
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.
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, December 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, August 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 R40569, Election Year Restrictions on Mass Mailings by
Members of Congress: How H.R. 2056 Would Change Current Law, by Matthew Eric Glassman.
41 Since Members could insert anything they wanted into it, the Congressional Record had 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 (January 1972), pp. 65-67.
42 P.L. 93-191, §§(5)(a), (6)(a).
Congressional Research Service
5
TheCapitol.Net – Teaching how Washington and Congress work.TM 202-678-1600 www.thecapitol.net
Certificate Programs
Our comprehensive certificate programs support the education and career goals of public and
private sector professionals. We offer two Certificate Programs: the Certificate in Congressional
Operations and the Certificate in Communication and Advocacy.
Certificate in Congressional Operations
Our Certificate in Congressional Operations explores the legislative process and congressional
communication. This program supports the education and career goals of employees and staff
who want to more effectively participate in the legislative arena.
Many Congressional and Legislative Fellows complement and enhance their fellowship with
our Certificate in Congressional Operations.
Our courses help students understand the legislative process, prepare congressional testimony,
draft federal legislation, research legislative histories, monitor legislation, communicate with
Congress, and work with federal regulatory agencies.
The Certificate in Congressional Operations and its hands-on training is ideal for staff and
employees of
>> Federal Agencies
>> Associations
>> Media Organizations
>> Law Firms
>> NGOs
For more information, see our web site, and directly at TCNCCO.com.
Certificate in Communication and Advocacy
Our Certificate in Communication and Advocacy supports the education and career goals of
public affairs and legislative affairs professionals by giving them the background they need
to effectively communicate and advocate in Washington, DC.
The Certificate in Communication and Advocacy and its hands-on training is ideal for staff
and employees of
>> Federal Agencies >> Law Firms >> NGOs
>> Public Relations Firms >> Interest Groups >> Media Organizations
>> Legislative Affairs Firms
Courses emphasize key skills in media relations, crisis communication, executive briefings,
speechwriting, writing congressional correspondence, critical thinking and writing, Internet
use in public affairs, working with Congress, and effective communication and advocacy in
Washington, DC.
For more information, see our web site, and directly at TCNCCA.com.
All of our courses and workshops include extensive
interaction with our faculty, making our courses and
workshops both educational as well as mini-consulting
sessions with substantive experts.
Our Upcoming Schedule of Courses can be seen online
Non-partisan training and publications that show how Washington works.™
PO Box 25706, Alexandria, VA 22313-5706
on our web site or at TCNCourses.com.
703-739-3790 • www.thecapitol.net
All of our courses and any combination of their topics can
be customized for on-site training for your organization—
TheCapitol.Net is on the
we are on GSA Advantage, Contract GS02F0192X.
GSA Schedule, 874-4,
for custom on-site training.
GSA Contract GS02F0192X
thecapitol.net 703-739-3790
Franking Privilege: Historical Development and Options for Change
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 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
43 P.L. 93-191, §(5)(b).
44 This authority includes the issuing of advisory opinions on individual mass mail items.
45 P.L. 93-191, §(5)(d)-(f). The Senate Select Committee on Standards and Conduct was given similar authority in
§(6)(b)-(e).
46 U.S. Congress, House, Communication from the Chairman, Commission on Administrative Review, Report on
Financial Ethics, 95th Cong., 1st sess., February 1977, H. Doc 95-73 (Washington: GPO, 1977), pp. 19-20.
47 H.Res. 287, 95th Cong., 1st sess, agreed to in the House March 2, 1977.
48 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.
49 For a historical overview of franking costs, see CRS Report RL34188, Congressional Official Mail Costs, by
Matthew Eric Glassman.
50 S.Res. 500, 99th Cong., 2nd sess., agreed to in the Senate October 8, 1986.
51 Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, FY1991, P.L. 101-520, 104 Stat. 2254, 2279, §311.
52 Ibid., §311(b).
Congressional Research Service
6
TheCapitol.Net – Teaching how Washington and Congress work.TM 202-678-1600 www.thecapitol.net
Franking Privilege: Historical Development and Options for Change
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 required that the Statement of Disbursements of
the House contain Member mass mailing information.57
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.58 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.59 Under the new regulations, 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. Similar
restrictions were adopted by the House Administration Committee in subsequent Congresses.60
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
53 Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, FY1993, P.L. 102-292, 106 Stat. 1703, 1722, §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, §§5, 108.
56 Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, FY1996, P.L. 104-53, 109 Stat. 514, 519.
57 Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, FY1997, P.L. 104-197, 110 Stat. 2394. 2414-2415, §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&docid=f:21196.wais, visited November 19, 2007.
59 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.
60 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&docid=f:36562.wais, visited November 19, 2007.
61 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.
Congressional Research Service
7
TheCapitol.Net – Teaching how Washington and Congress work.TM 202-678-1600 www.thecapitol.net
Franking Privilege: Historical Development and Options for Change
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 During the 110th Congress, the
Committee on House Administration amended committee regulations to require that Members
disclose the volume and cost of mass communications on a quarterly basis.64
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.65 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.66
The Franking Commission also handles, on average, about four or five formal complaints each
year about particular pieces of franked mail.67 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.68
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.
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/handbooks/
members-congressional-handbook.
63 House of Representatives, Member’s Handbook, available at http://cha.house.gov/handbooks/members-
congressional-handbook.
64 Resolution of the Committee on House Administration, September 25, 2008.
65 Interviews with Charles Howell and Ellen McCarthy, Committee on House Administration, April 3, 2007.
66 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.
67 Franking Commission rules provide specific procedures for the filing and disposition of complaints. See ibid., pp.
33-45.
68 Interviews with Charles Howell and Ellen McCarthy, Committee on House Administration, April 3, 2007.
Congressional Research Service
8
TheCapitol.Net – Teaching how Washington and Congress work.TM 202-678-1600 www.thecapitol.net
Franking Privilege: Historical Development and Options for Change
Vice President
The Vice President is currently eligible for the franking privilege under similar terms as Members
of Congress.69 The Vice President was first granted the franking privilege in 1792.70 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.71 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.72 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.73 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.74 In 1863, the
privilege for former Members was repealed; in 1872 it was restored.75 Former Members lost the
privilege when Congress abolished all franking in 1873.76 In 1875, former Members were granted
reduced rate postage for nine months after the expiration of their terms.77 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.78 In 1895, Congress repealed the reduced rate privilege and restored
69 39 U.S.C. §3210(b)(1).
70 Act of Congress, February 20, 1792, 1 Stat. 232, 237.
71 Act of Congress, January 12, 1895, 28 Stat. 601, 622.
72 39 U.S.C. §3210(b)(1).
73 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).
74 Act of Congress, March 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, §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.
75 Act of Congress, March 3, 1863, 12 Stat. 701, 708; Act of Congress, June 8, 1872, 17 Stat. 283, 306.
76 Act of Congress, January 31, 1873, 17 Stat. 421.
77 Act of Congress, March 3, 1875, 18 Stat. 340, 343.
78 Act of Congress, March 3, 1877, 19 Stat. 319, 336.
Congressional Research Service
9
TheCapitol.Net – Teaching how Washington and Congress work.TM 202-678-1600 www.thecapitol.net
Franking Privilege: Historical Development and Options for Change
the franking privilege. Former Members were again granted the franking privilege until
December 1. After the Twentieth Amendment79 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 1.80
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.81 In 1973, Congress moved the expiration date to April 30.82 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.83
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.84
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.85 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.”86 In 1993, Congress limited the period of time for use of the allowance to five
years.87
79 Ratified January 23, 1933.
80 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.
81 P.L. 91-374; 84 Stat. 719, 754.
82 P.L. 93-191; 85 Stat. 737, 741.
83 P.L. 94-177; 89 Stat. 1032.
84 2 U.S.C. §31b-4.
85 H.Res. 1238, agreed to by the House December 22, 1970. For more information on the general allowance of former
Speakers, see CRS Report RS20099, Former Speakers of the House: Office Allowances, Franking Privileges, and Staff
Assistance, by Matthew Eric Glassman.
86 P.L. 93-532; 88 Stat. 1723.
87 P.L. 103-69; 107 Stat. 692, 699.
Congressional Research Service
10
TheCapitol.Net – Teaching how Washington and Congress work.TM 202-678-1600 www.thecapitol.net
Franking Privilege: Historical Development and Options for Change
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.88
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.89 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.90
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.91
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.92 The first such grant was to Martha Washington in 1800.93 In 1973,
Congress enacted general legislation to provide the franking privilege to all future surviving
spouses of Presidents.94
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 1973.95 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.”96 No limitation is imposed on volume of use or weight of franked
mailings.
88 39 U.S.C. §3210(b).
89 P.L. 90-368; 82 Stat. 278.
90 P.L. 97-69; 95 Stat. 1041, 1043.
91 P.L. 85-745; 72 Stat. 838.
92 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.
93 Act of Congress, April 3, 1800, 2 Stat. 19.
94 P.L. 93-191; 87 Stat. 737, 742, §311.
95 Ibid.
96 Prior to 1973, the privilege was granted without restriction on the political content of the mail.
Congressional Research Service
11
TheCapitol.Net – Teaching how Washington and Congress work.TM 202-678-1600 www.thecapitol.net
Franking Privilege: Historical Development and Options for Change
Executive Branch Officials
Since 1873, officials in the executive branch have used penalty mail for official government
correspondence.97 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.98 When Congress chose to end the franking privilege for
postmasters in 1845, over one-third quit.99 The privilege was restored in 1847.100 When the
general franking privilege was abolished in 1873, postmasters were restricted to the use of
penalty mail for official government communications.101
Soldiers
The first franking statute, passed by the Continental Congress in 1776, authorized free mail for
Revolutionary soldiers.102 Similar legislation has occasionally been provided to American soldiers
in other conflicts.103
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 almost 80% between FY1988
and FY2012, critics continue to view the franking privilege as an unnecessary public expense.
During FY2012, according to the U.S. Postal Service, Congress spent $24.8 million on official
97 Act of Congress, January 31, 1873, 17 Stat. 421.
98 Ross Allan McReynolds, “History of the United States Post Office, 1607-1931,” p. 189.
99 Ibid., p. 189.
100 Act of Congress, March 3, 1847, 9 Stat. 188, 201.
101 Act of Congress, January 31, 1873, 17 Stat. 421.
102 Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774-1789, vol. 3, p. 342 (November 8, 1775).
103 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.”
Congressional Research Service
12
TheCapitol.Net – Teaching how Washington and Congress work.TM 202-678-1600 www.thecapitol.net
Franking Privilege: Historical Development and Options for Change
mail, representing approximately six-tenths of one percent of the $4.3 billion budget for the entire
legislative branch for FY2012.104 During FY2011, Congress spent $12.8 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 they also capture the effect of a large spike in mail costs from
December of the previous calendar year.105
Reform efforts during the past 25 years have reduced overall franking expenditures in both
election and non-election years. Even-numbered-year franking expenditures have been reduced
by almost 80%, from $113.4 million in FY1988 to $24.8 million in FY2012, while odd-
numbered-year franking expenditures have been reduced by over 85%, from $89.5 million in
FY1989 to $12.8 million in FY2011. House mail costs have decreased from a high of $77.9
million in FY1988 to $23.3 million in FY2012. The Senate has dramatically reduced its costs,
from $43.6 million in FY1984 to $1.5 million in FY2012.
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.106
These arrangements strained the Post Office Department. Congressional franking, combined with
franking privileges granted to local postmasters and executive branch officials, meant that 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.107 Memorials from many state legislatures urged
Congress to restrict franking and reduce postage rates.108 Between 1840 and 1845, the postmaster
general repeatedly asked Congress to abolish or restrict the franking privilege, or to have the
government pay for free mail through general tax revenue instead of postal revenue.109
104 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.
105 See CRS Report RL34188, Congressional Official Mail Costs, by Matthew Eric Glassman.
106 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.
107 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.
108 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).
109 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.
Congressional Research Service
13
TheCapitol.Net – Teaching how Washington and Congress work.TM 202-678-1600 www.thecapitol.net
Learn how Capitol
Legislative Series
Legislative
Drafter’s Deskbook
Hill really works
A Practical Guide
By Tobias A. Dorsey
All of our programs and any combination of their topics
GOVERNMENT SERIES
can be tailored for on-site training for your organization.
The Federal
Budget
Process
For more than 30 years, TheCapitol.Net and its predecessor, Congressional Quarterly Executive
A Description of the Federal and
Congressional Budget Processes,
Including Timelines
Conferences, have been training professionals from government, military, business, and NGOs on
the dynamics and operations of the legislative and executive branches and how to work with them.
Our training and publications include congressional operations, legislative and budget process,
communication and advocacy, media and public relations, research, testifying before Congress,
legislative drafting, critical thinking and writing, and more.
A Practical Guide to Preparing and Delivering
Testimony Before Congress and Congressional
• Diverse Client Base
Hearings for Agencies, Associations, Corporations,
—We have tailored hundreds of custom on-site training programs
Military, NGOs, and State and Local Officials
By William N. LaForge
for Congress, numerous agencies in all federal departments, the military, law firms,
lobbying firms, unions, think tanks and NGOs, foreign delegations, associations and
corporations, delivering exceptional insight into how Washington works.TM
Testifying
• Experienced Program Design and Delivery—We have designed and delivered
Before
hundreds of custom programs covering congressional/legislative operations, budget
Congress
process, media training, writing skills, legislative drafting, advocacy, research,
testifying before Congress, grassroots, and more.
• Professional Materials—We provide training materials and publications that show
how Washington works. Our publications are designed both as course materials
and as invaluable reference tools.
• Large Team of Experienced Faculty—More than 150 faculty members provide
independent subject matter expertise. Each program is designed using the best
Congressional
Directory
faculty member for each session.
Includes Capitol Hill and District maps
• Non-Partisan—TheCapitol.Net is non-partisan.
• GSA Schedule—TheCapitol.Net is on the GSA Schedule,
We help you understand Washington and Congress.™
www.TheCapitol.Net
874-4, for custom on-site training: GSA Contract GS02F0192X.
Winning Strategies, Recommendations,
We help your staff, members, and executives better understand Washington and Congress.
Resources, Ethics and Ongoing Compliance
TM
for Lobbyists and Washington Advocates:
The Best of Everything Lobbying
and Washington Advocacy
Please see our Capability Statement on our web site at TCNCS.com.
Lobbying
Custom training programs are designed to meet your educational and training goals, each
and
led by independent subject-matter experts best qualified to help you reach your educational
Advocacy
objectives and align with your audience.
Deanna R. Gelak
As part of your custom program, we can also provide classroom space, breaks and meals,
receptions, tours, and online registration and individual attendee billing services.
For more information about custom on-site training for your organization,
A Practical Guide to Parlaying an Understanding of Congressional
please see our web site: TCNCustom.com or call us: 703-739-3790, ext 115.
Folkways and Dynamics into Successful Advocacy on Capitol Hill
How to Spend
Less and Get More
from Congress:
Candid Advice
for Executives
By Joseph Gibson
Persuading
PO Box 25706, Alexandria, VA 22313-5706
Congress
www.TheCapitol.Net 703-739-3790
Franking Privilege: Historical Development and Options for Change
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.110 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.”111
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.112 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.”113 The franking privilege of the postmasters was also valuable as a party-
based patronage benefit, especially in the smaller offices.114 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.115
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.116
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,
110 For an overview of 19th century franking abuses, see Daniel, “United States Postal Service and Postal Policy, 1789-
1860,” pp. 449-458.
111 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 Privilege, report to accompany S. 177, 30th Cong., 1st sess., H.Rept. 608, Serial Set
526 (1848), pp. 6-7.
112 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.
113 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 (January 1972), p. 56.
114 John, Spreading the News, p. 240.
115 Cullinan, The United States Postal Service, p. 64.
116 See, e.g., Wasmund, “Use and Abuse of the Congressional Franking Privilege,” which focuses entirely on use of the
frank to influence congressional elections.
Congressional Research Service
14
TheCapitol.Net – Teaching how Washington and Congress work.TM 202-678-1600 www.thecapitol.net
Franking Privilege: Historical Development and Options for Change
publicly funded campaign literature.117 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.118
Critics also point out that franked mail costs are higher in election years than non-election 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
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 on
117 Wasmund, “Use and Abuse of the Congressional Franking Privilege,” p. 68; Elizabeth Brotherton, “Franking Critics
Want Full Disclosure of Costs,” Roll Call, September 25, 2007, p. 3.
118 Letter from Pete Sepp, president, National Taxpayer’s Union, to Representative Brad Sherman, July 13, 2004,
available at http://www.ntu.org/main/letters_detail.php?letter_id=198, viewed November 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 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.
Congressional Research Service
15
TheCapitol.Net – Teaching how Washington and Congress work.TM 202-678-1600 www.thecapitol.net
Franking Privilege: Historical Development and Options for Change
governmental business is directly connected to the well-being of the people because of the nature
of the legislative function.”123
Proponents of the franking privilege argue that representative accountability is enhanced by use
of the frank. They 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.124 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.125
Historically, the franking privilege was seen as a right of the constituents, not of the Member.126
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 their constituents.”127 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.128
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.129
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 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
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.
127 House debate, Annals of Congress, vol. 3, December 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.
129 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.
130 James Madison, “Notes on Debates,” December 6 1782, in William T. Hutchinson et al., eds., Papers of James
Madison (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1962), vol. 5, p. 372.
Congressional Research Service
16
TheCapitol.Net – Teaching how Washington and Congress work.TM 202-678-1600 www.thecapitol.net
Franking Privilege: Historical Development and Options for Change
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 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.
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
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, November 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.
Congressional Research Service
17
TheCapitol.Net – Teaching how Washington and Congress work.TM 202-678-1600 www.thecapitol.net
Franking Privilege: Historical Development and Options for Change
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.134 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 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.135
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.
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.
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. 103-283, 108 Stat. 1423, 1427-1428, §5.
Congressional Research Service
18
TheCapitol.Net – Teaching how Washington and Congress work.TM 202-678-1600 www.thecapitol.net
Franking Privilege: Historical Development and Options for Change
Where Can Such Materials Be Sent?
Since October 1992, Representatives have been prohibited from sending mass mailings outside
their districts.136 This action followed a U.S. court of appeals ruling that found the practice
unconstitutional.137
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 incorporated in bills 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.138 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.139 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 could 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 would be to reduce the number of mailings that constitute a mass
mailing to a smaller number from 500.140
H.R. 2687, introduced by Representative Ray LaHood during the 110th Congress, would have
effectively prohibited Representatives from mass mailing newsletters, questionnaires, or
congratulatory notices. The prohibition would not have covered certain other types of mass
136 Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, FY1993, P.L. 102-292, 106 Stat. 1703, 1722, §309.
137 Coalition to End the Permanent Government v. Marvin T. Runyon, et al., 979 F.2d 219 (D.C.Cir. 1992).
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 39 U.S.C. §3204.
140 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.
Congressional Research Service
19
TheCapitol.Net – Teaching how Washington and Congress work.TM 202-678-1600 www.thecapitol.net
Franking Privilege: Historical Development and Options for Change
mailings made by Members, including federal documents (such as the Congressional Record) or
voter registration information. The proposed legislation would have applied only to
Representatives; it would not have affected mass mailings made by Senators. Similarly, H.R.
5151, introduced in the 111th Congress, would have restricted franked materials to documents
transmitted under the official letterhead of Members.
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 might 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.
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.141
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.142 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.143 Senate offices that exceed their allowance may 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
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 October 30, 1997, amended September 30, 1998, Congressional
Record vol. 144, part 16 (October 2, 1998), pp. 23105-23108. If the total Senate appropriation 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, §5.
Congressional Research Service
20
TheCapitol.Net – Teaching how Washington and Congress work.TM 202-678-1600 www.thecapitol.net
Franking Privilege: Historical Development and Options for Change
(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 mailings contain the statement, “This mailing was prepared, published, and
mailed at taxpayer expense.”148 Advocates of increased disclosure support individual disclosure
of all franking-related costs, not just mail costs. H.R. 5151 in the 111th Congress, for example,
would have required that current House disclosures include a break-down of expenses for each
type of mass communication sent by Members.
Other 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 have required 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 have contained 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 have affected 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 throughout history. This reflects a normative ambiguity about the privilege, with
Congress seeking to balance a perceived democratic need for the franking privilege 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.
145 Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, FY1991, P.L. 101-520, 104 Stat. 2254, 2279, §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, §103.
147 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 bi-annual Report of the Secretary of the Senate.
148 Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, FY1997, P.L. 104-197, 110 Stat. 2394, 2414-2415, §311.
Congressional Research Service
21
TheCapitol.Net – Teaching how Washington and Congress work.TM 202-678-1600 www.thecapitol.net
About TheCapitol.Net
We help you understand Washington and Congress.™
For more than 30 years, TheCapitol.Net and its predecessor, Congressional Quarterly
Executive Conferences, have been training professionals from government, military,
business, and NGOs on the dynamics and operations of the legislative and
executive branches and how to work with them.
Our training and publications include congressional operations, legislative and
budget process, communication and advocacy, media and public relations, research,
testifying before Congress, legislative drafting, critical thinking and writing, and more.
TheCapitol.Net encompasses a dynamic team of more than 150 faculty members
and authors, all of whom are independent subject matter experts and
veterans in their fields. Faculty and authors include senior government executives,
former members of Congress, Hill and agency staff, editors and journalists,
lobbyists, lawyers, nonprofit executives, and scholars.
We have worked with hundreds of clients across the country to develop
and produce a wide variety of custom, on-site training programs.
All courses, seminars, and workshops can be tailored to align with your
organization’s educational objectives and presented on-site at your location.
TheCapitol.Net is on the GSA Schedule, 874-4, for custom on-site training:
GSA Contract GS02F0192X.
TheCapitol.Net has more than 2,000 clients representing congressional offices,
federal and state agencies, military branches, corporations, associations,
news media, and NGOs nationwide.
TheCapitol.Net is a non-partisan firm.
Our blog: Hobnob Blog—hit or miss ... give or take ... this or that ...
TheCapitol.Net is on the
GSA Schedule, 874-4,
for custom on-site training.
GSA Contract GS02F0192X
Non-partisan training and publications that show how Washington works.™
A Practical Guide to Preparing and Delivering
Winning Strategies, Recommendations,
GOVERNMENT SERIES
Testimony Before Congress and Congressional
Resources, Ethics and Ongoing Compliance
Hearings for Agencies, Associations, Corporations,
Legislative Series
for Lobbyists and Washington Advocates:
Military, NGOs, and State and Local Officials
The Best of Everything Lobbying
By William N. LaForge
and Washington Advocacy
The Federal
PO Box 25706, Alexandria, VA 22313-5706
Legislative
Lobbying
Budget
Drafter’s Deskbook
Process
A Practical Guide
703-739-3790 • www.thecapitol.net
and
Congressional
A Description of the Federal and
Congressional Budget Processes,
Directory
Testifying
Including Timelines
By Tobias A. Dorsey
2013
Before
Advocacy
113th Congress
1st Session
Deanna R. Gelak
Includes Capitol Hill and District maps
Congress
We help you understand Washington and Congress.™
www.TheCapitol.Net
Franking Privilege: Historical Development and Options for Change
Author Contact Information
Matthew Eric Glassman
Analyst on the Congress
mglassman@crs.loc.gov, 7-3467
Congressional Research Service
22
TheCapitol.Net – Teaching how Washington and Congress work.TM 202-678-1600 www.thecapitol.net