Constituent Communication Suffers At The Hands Of Politics

Frank Salvato

In this day and age when people are suffering from a lack of political and governmental knowledge, knowledge of how the system works, who is in control of actual issues and what is actually going on, the idea of a legislator being able to readily afford his or her constituents with up-to-date information on what is being done on their behalf sounds like a good idea, right? Well, to listen to the group Common Cause and to John Marshall Law School professor David Sorkin, knowledge of our legislators actions, is unsolicited, would be considered spam email, just like those annoying ads from insurance to Viagra.

With sickening partisan undertones, groups and individuals such as those named above are injecting politics into how, where when and if we get the knowledge needed to make informed decisions with regard to our political process. While anyone can get onto the Internet and find extremist views on websites that aren’t required to validate their contentions, MoveOn.org comes to mind immediately, organizations and educators are banding together in an effort to muzzle information that comes directly from the source, information that is untainted by the minions of opinion. This is truly the information that constituents should be paying attention to and not what promoters of half-truths and innuendo bring to the table.

But to listen to Celia Viggo Wexler, research director at Common Cause, a group that has sued to limit “franking”, or the ability to communicate with constituents at taxpayer expense, it would be hard to know that communication between an elected governmental representative and his or her constituents could be considered a good thing. "The core value is that you don't want to leverage technology to increase incumbent advantage," said Wexler. "What is troubling is that essentially the House is saying, `O.K., you can communicate with the constituency up to an election, and we're not really going to check what you are saying with them.' The point is without that kind of oversight, it's ripe for abuse."

The idea that an outside group, a group from outside the boundaries of constituency, should be able to monitor or even edit what is conveyed between an elected official and his or her constituents is appalling. It reeks of censorship and quite honestly, comes perilously close to infringing on the First Amendment right to free speech.

Sorkin, of Chicago’s John Marshall Law School contends, "They are regulating commercial spam, and at the same time they are using the franking privilege to send unsolicited bulk communications which aren't commercial. When we are talking about constituents who haven't opted in, it's spam."

Sorkin’s contention that information, whether solicited or not, from someone who is casting a vote in your voice, whether you agree with it or not, should somehow be considered spam is reprehensible and enables our citizenry to avoid the civic responsibility that the Framers of our Constitution expected each and every voting citizen to embrace. In essence, Sorkin and Wexler would have the politics of the situation dictate whether or not any information was passed on to an elected officials constituency at all.

In an age when misguided and ill-informed people are trying to flex their political muscle in the campaign financing arena and foreign billionaires are trying to usurp the political process in this country it is absolutely necessary that our elected officials be afforded the freedom to inform, enlighten, define and clarify for their constituency. It is vital that those who would represent a constituencies voice through the casting of legislative votes on their behalf have an open, two-way and unhindered communication with the constituency, not only when it behooves them but at all times. To regulate this type of communication is to regulate the realization of the government’s actions, to regulate the flow of information about how our elected representatives are using our voices and their rationale for taking the actions that they do. To regulate the flow of information from our elected officials to their constituency is to regulate the knowledge with which we the people can either champion or take issue with the actions being contemplated. In effect, to regulate the free communication between a government and its people is to attempt to keep the voting populace ignorant of the facts at hand with regard to their own government.

While many of the conspiracy theorists would say the power of the incumbency could be easily abused in the communication between an elected official and his or her constituents I would have to argue that such a problem would have to remain between the elected official abusing the power and the people that have elected that representative. Surely if someone touts untruths in the name of his or her constituents that elected official’s tenure would be short lived. Of course then you have the likes of US Representative Jim McDermott of Washington State, a man who has so consistently abused the power of the office to spread rumor, innuendo and inaccurate information the people of Seattle seem to find it the norm. In that case it is a true reflection of exactly why the encumberment of free information between an elected official and his or her constituents should not be a reality for how are the people of Seattle to know of McDermott’s abuse should he be muzzled?

In the end, it is about the citizen’s right to know. Receiving unsolicited emails from companies trying to sell their product is one thing but to try and place the same regulations on our political process is indeed a dangerous course to take. If anything, the citizenry of the United States should be thirsty for more information on the processes of the government and their officials. They should be starved for un-editorialized facts originating from the source of the issues at hand. If someone should find it annoying to hear what their elected official, the person charged with casting legislative votes in their name, has to say then I put it to you that person is delinquent in embracing the civic responsibility needed to be well-informed enough to select those that are making the decisions of government for our great country. If I have painted a picture of the dolts at MoveOn.org and Americans Coming Together then I have succeeded in my efforts.

###

Frank Salvato is a political media consultant, a freelance writer from the Midwest and the Managing Editor for www.TheRant.us . He is a contributing writer to The Washington Dispatch, OpinionEditorials.com and AmericanDaily.com. He has appeared as a guest panelist on The O’Reilly Factor and his pieces are regularly featured in Townhall.com and occasionally featured in The Washington Times as well as other national publications.
contact@therant.us