Did Rep. Michael Burgess break the rules? No, the rules just suck!

Posted on | 17 June 2007 | 1 Comment

UPDATE – Originally, both houses of Congress applied the rules of postal franking to the distribution of emailed newsletters. That prevented the emailing of newsletters within 60 days of an election in which a senator was running and 90 days prior to an election where a house seat was contested. To its credit, the Senate still follows those rules.
However, in September, 2003, House Rules Committee Chairman Bob Ney (a.k.a. U.S. Inmate #28882-016) sent out a “Dear Colleague” letter announcing that those rules would be suspended. While Ney remains in prison after pleading guilty to federal bribery charges, the rule set into place under the Republican Culture of Corruption has stood.
While Rep. Burgess’s actions were within the rules, I feel they were not seemly or above reproach. There were no pressing issues before the House at the time. What he sent out was merely a scorecard and a list of talking points filled with self congratulations and lauding what he considered to be a successful session of Congress.
This should serve as an example of another reform needed in the House of Representatives. We shall see.

The November Burgess Bulletin

WASHINGTON, DC, Nov 1, 2006 -
A Note from the Congressman…

As the 109th Congress draws closer to an end, I wanted to provide you a snapshot of my daily activities as your U.S. Representative. While most people know that my job entails introducing, reviewing and voting on legislation, that is only a fraction of my responsibilities.

Below, I have provided a brief package of information that gives you a glimpse of the work I and my staff have done on your behalf. My commitment to the people of the 26th Congressional District of Texas is as strong as ever. My job is to be your resource and your representative in Washington, and I intend to continue working aggressively for the best for North Texas.

Sincerely,

Michael C. Burgess

Please notice the date of this “newsletter”. What you see above is a screen shot, but you may click here to confirm that is taken from the congressman’s own official house account website.
I have asked Rep. Burgess’ office to explain why this does not violate the rules of the U.S. House of Representatives that prohibits newsletters within 90 days of an election. One would hope that rules regarding U.S. Postal Service mailings also would apply to e-mail newsletters.

[109th Congress House Rules Manual -- House Document No. 108-241]

[From the U.S. Government Printing Office Online Database]

Rule XXIV
limitations on use of official funds . . .
Limitations on use of the frank . . .
8. In the case of a Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner, a mass
mailing is not frankable under section 3210 of title 39, United States
Code, when it is postmarked less than 90 days before the date of a
primary or general election (whether regular, special, or runoff) in
which he is a candidate for public office. If the mail matter is of a
type that is not customarily postmarked, the date on which it would have
been postmarked, if it were of a type customarily postmarked, applies.

Rep. Burgess was opposed in the general election scheduled for less than a week after this e-mail newsletter was transmitted.
If I remember correctly, Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison sent out a notice to her newsletter recipients, using her campaign account, to notify them that rules prohibited the newsletter in the closing days of the campaign. She invited those interested to sign up for campaign updates. Are senate rules different? Do I remember incorrectly?
If it is a blatant misuse of government funds and house privileges, no one seems to care. I also have asked House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s office about this, and received no response. E-mails to the Texas Democratic Party and the Tarrant County Democratic Party also have gone unanswered. Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington also don’t seem to be excited about it.
Now, I know everyone is busy in Washington, Austin and (I guess) Fort Worth. Conveniently, only a member of Congress may file an ethics grievance against another member of Congress.
When I served as a congressional press aide many, many years ago, it was in the shadow of a major franking scandal. Shutting down newsletter mailings (it was prior to e-mail) was a major requirement and was watched closely. That was some time ago, and the Republicans may have tossed those reforms (though a reading of the rules would seem to argue they did not).
So, apparently, at least in my opinion and from my reading of the rules, we, the taxpayers, gave Rep. Michael Burgess a bit of free campaigning in the closing days of the election. You will notice the “newsletter” is a rundown touting all of the successes, as he sees it, of that current session of Congress.
If I am wrong, please let me know. If I am right, would someone please do something about this?

Comments