The end of electronic contact with Congress?

A few years ago, most members of Congress stopped accepting emails from the public. After all, every passionate advocate would decide that if the message was worth writing, it was worth sending to all 535 members.

But members of Congress only want to hear from their own constituents. (With postal mail, it's common practice to forward most mail to the appropriate member, rather than respond to out-of-district mail.)

So, they've got web forms that require you to provide your first name, your last name, your email address, and most importantly, your zip code. Some even require you to identify your general topic area from a menu in order to properly categorize the contact.

Of course, activist groups want to motivate their supporters to contact legislators - but still track the participation levels of their members. So, many have developed systems (or outsourced to services like CapWiz) that allow them to host a contact form on their own site, track the participation, and then hand off the data to the congressional website.

Now, from BuzzWebster comes news that even those web forms may be ending - due to overuse and abuse from the activist groups.

But recently, activists have begun receiving messages from several Senators’ offices (at least five that we know of) informing them that their comments will be ignored because they came through a third party web site. It’s not that they can’t receive the messages, it’s just that they refuse to acknowledge them once they’ve received them, citing unprompted letters and unsolicited spam as their rationale.

While BuzzWebster writer Eve Fox poses a number of questions for advocates, I think it's worth asking this question: Given that it's their job to hear from the public, what can members of Congress do to ensure that they receive messages from their constituents - but reject non-constituent mail, identical messages from hundreds of people, and automated message-bots?

The answer, as it often is, is to develop better systems. Just a few off-the-cuff ideas:

Insist on a zip code from a constituent. No zip code - junk the message. Zip code outside the district - junk the message. (You'd think they're already doing this, but apparently not always.)

Build a system that requires a confirmation click-thru. Too many folks put bogus email addresses in web forms - especially when they're trying to generate lots of contact. Every email should get an automated response asking for a click-to-confirm. No click - junk the message.

Build a system that junks duplicate messages. There's no reason that members of Congress should accept dozens of identical messages generated by "astroturf" organizations (fake grassroots, y'know?). Once the incoming mail system detects a duplicate, it should send an automated message that declares, "Sorry, your message is identical to another message we received. If you have something to say to your member of Congress, please write it in your own words." Better yet, build the system so that it'll trap messages that are more than 90% identical.

I'm sure there's more ideas. The key is this: Empower true grassroots organizing efforts, but cut short the astroturf junk.

Kari Chisholm | May 4, 2005 | Comments (6) | TrackBack (10)
Permalink: The end of electronic contact with Congress?
Category: email strategy, grassroots organizing, just politics

E-mail to a Friend

Your Name:

Your Personal Note:

Your Email:

Friends' Emails*:

* Separate addresses with commas,
semicolons, tabs, or line breaks.



Comments

I would argue that even for duplicates, congressional offices at least have the duty to count the number of messages.

Posted by: Chris Smith | May 4, 2005 1:14:45 PM

Maybe they should count 'em if they're from bona fide constituents... but astroturf is just too easy to generate.

Give a decent programmer about 20 minutes and he/she can generate several thousand legit-looking emails to a member of Congress.

Posted by: Kari Chisholm | May 5, 2005 1:41:19 AM

Another thought, Chris. I'm not actually sure that members of Congress have the duty to count the quantity of messages.

After all, they're not there to simply reflect some ill-defined notion of "the people's will". They're there to lead.

Constituent correspondence should do more than simply provide inefficient and profoundly inexact 'polling' of the constituents' mood. It should rather seek to educate the lawmaker, provide ideas, seek assistance, and the like.

If a percentage of the constituent mail doesn't do anything to improve the lawmaking process or serve the constituent, I'm not sure there's a duty to track it.

(And I don't think they really do, anyway. I've heard lots of examples of Senators' offices saying "we haven't heard from our constituents on that" when an activist group is highly aware that they generated hundreds of messages.)

Posted by: Kari Chisholm | May 6, 2005 1:25:50 AM

While I don't advocate our representatives being 'poll based' in their decisions, I know of lots of cases where a large number of 'electronic petition' type issues woke up elected officials to the feelings of their constituents. I don't think it is accurate or useful to write it all off as spam.

Perhaps we need some form of authentication or certification to show that they are really from constituents. I think zip code checking is fine. Since many of the on-line petitions are handled by a handful of services, perhaps the services could certify that they have adequate tools to prevent fake bulk messages?

Posted by: Chris Smith | May 6, 2005 4:56:49 PM

The problem with ZIP-code based authentication is that it cuts off the six million Americans who live outside the United States. I live in Australia, and no longer receive mail at my former address in Illinois... but my absentee ballot still goes to that county, and I'd like to be able to contact my representatives.

Posted by: Scott Forbes | Jun 1, 2005 3:44:53 PM

Interesting thought, Scott - but I'm thinking that you would want to use the address that you get your ballot at when communicating with members of Congress. Of course, you say you don't get mail there anymore - how do you get your absentee ballot?

Posted by: Kari Chisholm | Jun 1, 2005 4:40:28 PM

Post a comment