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