Aug 6, 2006
(Updated Aug 12, 2006)

Dennis Moore's Abuse of Franking Privilege:
"This mailing was prepared, published, and mailed at taxpayer expense"
even though Moore has almost $1,000,000 in campaign cash in the bank

On Friday, Aug 4, I received a 4-page, color mailing from Congressman Dennis Moore about Energy Policy, including an  invitation to the 3^rd District Energy Summit, Aug 15, 2006, at the KU Edwards Campus.  Even though Moore won his uncontested Democratic primary election only a few days ago on Aug 1, what was Moore doing mailing such a political piece just a few days later?  Why was "this mailing ... prepared, published, and mailed at taxpayer expense" instead of using his campaign funds?

Click on image below to see enlargement

Yesterday on Saturday, Aug 5, my wife received a 4-page, color mailing from Dennis Moore targeted about children’s issues:

• Parental Support:  Ensuring children get the parental support they deserve

• Burn Prevention Act:  Children’s gasoline burn prevention act

• Broadcast decency enforcement act

Why was "this mailing ... prepared, published, and mailed at taxpayer expense" instead of using campaign funds?  Why can Congressman Dennis Moore send two political mailings in two days to the same household, and stick the taxpayers with the bill?  Why can an incumbent waste taxpayer dollars for campaign materials?

Click on image below to see enlargement

According to the campaign contribution report Moore filed in July with the Federal Election Commission,  Moore had almost a million dollars in cash on hand (see the exact figure below, $950,986.73) at the end of June 2006.  Without a primary opponent, with little spending on campaigning, and with additional fund raising, Moore most likely had over $1,000,000 in the bank at the time he stuck taxpayers with the bill for these two blatant political mailings:

A U.S. Congress web page explains the Franking Commission and the congressional privilege of free mail to constituents, including the following:

The significant changes regarding the congressional frank were enacted in the Legislative Branch Appropriations Act for FY 1997. First, the pre-election prohibition on mass mailing was expanded from 60 to 90 days prior to primary and general elections. Additionally, mass mailings are required to bear disclaimer statements indicating the mailing was paid for at taxpayer's expense. Finally, Members must disclose on a quarterly basis the number of mass mailings sent during that period as well as their costs.

Since franking reports are due two weeks after a calendar quarter, we can find out in mid-October how much Moore stuck taxpayers with to fund his re-election campaign through these two mailings.

See this page for complete regulations on the use of the Congressional frank by members of the House of Representatives.  

Apparently, Dennis Moore is fairly good with math.  Aug 1 is the 213^th day of the 2006, and Nov 7 is the 311^th day of the year – the primary and general elections in Kansas are 98 days apart this year.  Moore, knowing it is “legal” to mail only 90 days before an election, took this opportunity to spend taxpayer money on his political mailings this week before the Aug 9 federal deadline.  Moore's taxpayer expenditures on his political mailings were legal, but that doesn't make it right to waste tax dollars.  BUT what about the 20-day advance voting period in Kansas?  Didn't Moore violate the 90-day law if he mailed to any advance voter?

Moore cannot claim he is fiscally responsible with taxpayer money when he takes advantage of taxpayers to fund his re-election. 

In 2004 there were only 92 days between the Aug 2, 2004 primary and the Nov 2, 2004 general election in Kansas.  Moore apparently thought this two-day window was a bit too short, so Moore abused his franking privilege in May 2004 (and May 2002) instead. 

In 2002 a different form of Moore's franking abuse was noted in a Kansas City Star "county notebook" article, Nov 1, 2002:

Franking
Frances Baska of Shawnee got a letter from Moore that made her boil.

"Knowing of your support for a woman's right to choose ... ," the letter started.
But Baska opposes abortion and describes herself as pro-life.

Oops.

The letter, which was mailed at taxpayer expense under Moore's congressional letterhead, went on to explain his efforts in the U.S. House on behalf of this issue.

Baska was upset that this would be sent a little more than a month away from the election and that Moore apparently obtained her name and address from a Kansas City benefit this summer for cancer research.

Martin said Baska's name was entered into a database of people who correspond with the congressman about an issue. Each entry is then coded for that issue and updates are mailed occasionally under Moore's franking privilege.

He said that in Baska's case, Moore's office entered the wrong code and she was mistakenly sent the wrong letter.

Balderdash, said Baska.

She denied ever corresponding with Moore's office and reiterated that the only way he could have gotten her address was through her contribution to the cancer benefit.

Two weeks before the letter arrived, Baska said, she received another letter from Moore praising her for participating in the cancer event.

"I even got a letter from Pat Roberts thanking me for participating," she said, referring to the Republican U.S. senator from Kansas.

Martin said that in the case of the abortion letter, fewer than 500 were mailed.

Federal law prohibits mass mailings by congressional offices of more than 500 pieces 90 days before an election.

So how many targeted batches of  "less than 500 pieces" have been sent out by Moore as campaign pieces in the days before elections in 2000, 2002, 2004?  How many will he send out this year?

The Wichita Eagle reported abuse of franking by Moore in 2000 ("Salaries, Travel Top Lawmakers' Spending -- Members Of Congress Get Nearly $1 Million A Year To Run Their Offices. How They Spend It Depends On Who They Are", Wichita Eagle, April 2, 2000):

If you're Dennis Moore, D-Lenexa, you top your Kansas House colleagues in the amount of mail you send constituents to inform them about Social Security and other issues facing Congress.
. . .

Franked mail

Spending critics such as the National Taxpayers Union track each lawmakers' use of the franking privilege - which allows members of Congress to send mail with a signature instead of a stamp. The value of franking is a part of members' allowances.

Critics believe taxpayer-financed newsletters about a lawmaker's work in Washington are a way to gain exposure when running for re-election without having to pay for it with their own money.

"Franking is an insidious expense," said Pete Sepp, spokesman for the National Taxpayers Union.

"Challengers have a devil of a time matching that kind of fiscal clout."

Two men up for re-election in November used their franking privileges in strikingly different ways last year:

Tiahrt spent $9,322 on franking. He said he believed unsolicited mail was a waste of money.

Moore, whose race is more competitive, spent almost five times as much as Tiahrt. And he spent half of it in the last three months alone.

Moore spokesman Marc Wilson said the lawmaker is simply informing and educating people on issues, not employing any election-style strategies to increase his name recognition.

"Congressman Moore places a high value on letting constituents know what is happening in Washington on issues important to them," Wilson said.

Taxpayers should send Congressman Moore a message on Nov 7 about his regular abuse of taxpayer dollars for his re-elections.  The time to send franked mail should not be just before elections.

Update (Aug 12, 2006)

Congressman Jim Ryun from the Kansas 2nd Congressional District also deserves criticism for similar abuse of Congressional franking privilege:  

Opponent questions Ryun’s energy mailing, Lawrence Journal-World, Aug 12, 2006

According to this Journal-World article, Ryun's 11-by-6-inch glossy card cost taxpayers approximately $38,000 to send to 130,000 households in the 2nd Congressional District.  In 2004 the LJWorld published a pre-general election letter to the editor about similar abuse by Ryun in 2004 in a mailing to 166,705 households (this complaint didn't occur after the incident, but rather was timed to damage Ryun just before the general election).

Will Nancy Boyda now criticize fellow Democrat Dennis Moore for his abuse of political-year franking?

Franking abuse is franking abuse, so both Moore and Ryun deserve criticism for this abuse.   However, why can the press only find the problem and criticize a Republican?  Democrat Moore gets a pass from the press, but Republican Ryun does not?   And why can't the Kansas City Star find either of these stories?  No readers in the 2nd and 3rd Congressional Districts?

According to an Aug. 21, 2002 Wichita Eagle article Congressman Todd Tiahrt also abused his franking privilege in 2002:

Tiahrt defends the timing of mass mailing

Congressman Todd Tiahrt on Tuesday produced documents that he said prove he was in compliance with requirements for government-paid congressional mailings when he sent a flier on prescription drug reform to almost 75,000 residents.

Attorney Carlos Nolla - the Democratic candidate challenging Tiahrt in Kansas' 4th Congressional District - filed a complaint with the Commission on Congressional Mailing Standards. He said the mailing violated rules governing the "franking privilege," which allows representatives to write to constitu ents at government expense. The mailing cost about $26,800.

Regulations prohibit members of Congress from mass mailing their constitu ents within 90 days of an election, and Nolla's complaint questioned the timing of the mailing.

Among the documents displayed by Tiahrt was a United States Postal Service document that showed the mailing went out on Aug. 7 - a day after the primary election and 91 days before the Nov. 5 general election.

K a n s a s M e a d o w l a r k @ e f g 2 . c o m