Area Congressmen’s Newsletters Cost $619,802 : Government: Seven lawmakers sent 4.3 million pieces of mail to constituents in 1989. Rep. Jerry Lewis spent the most--$214,549 for five mailings.

Rep. Jerry Lewis (R-Redlands) used them to stress his opposition to military base closings and support for a constitutional amendment outlawing flag burning. Rep. Henry A. Waxman (D-Los Angeles) used them to talk about health fairs and long-term medical care.

Across the country, lawmakers are using congressional newsletters to tell their constituents about pressing issues, pending legislation and personal concerns--all at taxpayer expense and with minimal public reporting.

San Fernando Valley area congressmen say these mass mailings are a valuable way to communicate with constituents about federal benefits and their representatives’ priorities. Congressional watchdog groups, on the other hand, contend that they are the equivalent of publicly funded campaign pieces.

The Valley area’s seven House members sent 17 districtwide newsletters--or about 4.3 million pieces of mail--to their constituents at a cost of $619,802 in 1989, according to a recent study by the National Taxpayers Union, a Washington-based group dedicated to reducing government spending.

Overall, the local members spent an average of 32 cents on each household in their districts for postage and printing costs, matching the national average. The figures were obtained by dividing a lawmaker’s total newsletter spending by the number of households in his district.

Leading the list among area legislators was Lewis, whose sprawling 35th District includes part of Palmdale. He sent five newsletters at an estimated cost of $214,549. He was followed by Rep. Elton Gallegly (R-Simi Valley), who mailed five at a cost of $185,179, the study found. Each spent 71 cents per household in his respective district.

Gallegly used his newsletters to emphasize his support for an expanded federal death penalty, a constitutional amendment against flag burning and tough anti-drug measures.

Lawmakers were permitted to send a maximum of six newsletters last year; Congress cut the figure to three this year. The House voted Sunday to limit a member’s spending on official mail to $178,000 a year and require individual lawmakers to disclose mailing costs on a quarterly basis.

The newsletters--which often contain multiple photos of lawmakers and portray them as champions of their constituents and pet causes--have long been lambasted by congressional critics as a waste of tax dollars.

“Under the guise of so-called official mailings, the American taxpayer is being asked to fund what often amounts to political campaigning,” said James Davidson, chairman of the 200,000-member Taxpayers Union.

The nonpartisan group said that its figures represent “just the tip of the iceberg of congressional franking costs for 1989” because it is difficult to obtain information about many of the mailing expenses for individual members. The group estimated that House members spent $30 million to send out 215 million newsletter pieces last year.

The Taxpayers Union gleaned its figures from the files of the congressional franking commission, which must approve each newsletter to determine that it does not violate House rules, including a prohibition on overtly partisan material. The Senate keeps records of individual members’ spending on mail; the House does not.

Most elusive are the public costs for letters or mailings that are addressed to individual constituents with particular interests, such as senior citizens or veterans. These sophisticated, and costly, targeted mailings were not included in the Taxpayers Union survey.

Most lawmakers who send many newsletters, which are mailed to postal patrons, also send numerous individually addressed pieces, said David Keating, the Taxpayers Union’s executive vice president.

This was not the case, however, with Rep. Howard L. Berman (D-Panorama City), who did not send any newsletters last year but mailed tens of thousands of individually addressed pieces to various groups in his 26th District.

Berman sent 14 different targeted mailings in 1989, an aide said. Those living near Burbank airport were informed about an airplane noise study; residents in the vicinity of Hansen Dam were briefed about revitalization plans; and Jewish constituents were told about the growing number of Soviet refugees unable to come to the United States because of caps on immigration.

“Inevitably, a lot of information in the newsletter is not going to be of interest to a lot of those people and it just becomes enormously self-serving,” said Gene Smith, Berman’s administrative assistant, in explaining why Berman sends targeted mailings rather than newsletters.

The Taxpayers Union survey also did not include complete figures for postcards sent to constituents to alert them to town meetings with their elected representative. Rep. Anthony C. Beilenson (D-Los Angeles), who mailed only one newsletter, on the federal budget deficit (at a cost of $36,249), also distributed tens of thousands of town meeting notices.

Keating of the Taxpayers Union said that some lawmakers may wind up spending as much as $800,000 in 1989 and 1990 for direct printing and postage costs for all their mailings. In addition, congressional staffers spend much time planning, writing and laying out the newsletters.

The newsletter cost figures for other Valley area lawmakers, each of whom sent two districtwide mailings, were: $74,184 for Waxman; $71,841 for Rep. Carlos J. Moorhead (R-Glendale); and $37,800 for Rep. William M. Thomas (R-Bakersfield), whose 20th District includes much of the Antelope Valley.

A favorite newsletter technique is to survey constituents about issues. In 1989, Beilenson asked about the federal budget deficit, Moorhead asked about air pollution problems and Gallegly and Lewis inquired about major issues in general.

Gallegly and Lewis also asked about the value of congressional newsletters in their surveys. Spokesmen for each lawmaker cited the favorable response as support for using tax dollars for the mailings.

“Our constituents do tell us they enjoy receiving the newsletters and we get very, very little mail from our constituents saying they don’t,” said John Frith, Gallegly’s spokesman.

Professional pollsters, however, say that the response rates for these surveys are so low that the tallies should not be considered a valid measure of public opinion.

Spokesmen for the two lawmakers also noted that Lewis and Gallegly voted for the measure that cut in half the maximum number of newsletters permitted this year and support the latest reform proposal that is pending before Congress. Lewis, in fact, sponsored last year’s bill to cut the maximum number of newsletters in half.

“Responding to constituent mail and sending occasional newsletters are a legitimate means of communicating to my constituents,” Lewis said. “Anything beyond that . . . is excessive.”

Waxman also defended the mailings to constituents.

“It helps me tell them what I’m doing,” he said. “It gives them a sense of what my priorities are.”

And what about the political benefits?

“There are political benefits in doing a good job,” Waxman replied.

CONGRESSIONAL MAILINGS 1989 spending on newsletters by Valley-area congressional representatives

Number of Cost pieces Jerry Lewis $214,549 1,510,905 Elton Gallegly (R-Simi Valley) $185,179 71 Henry J. Waxman (D-Los Angeles) $74,184 Carlos J. Moorehead (R-Glendale) $71,841 505,920 National Average $69,494 498,794 William M. Thomas $37,800 266,198 Anthony C. Beilenson (D-Los Angeles) $36,249 219,000 Howard L. Berman (D-Panorama City) 0 0

Cost per household Jerry Lewis 71 cents Elton Gallegly (R-Simi Valley) Henry J. Waxman 540,702 Carlos J. Moorehead (R-Glendale) National Average 32 William M. Thomas 14 Anthony C. Beilenson (D-Los Angeles) 17 Howard L. Berman (D-Panorama City) 0

Source: National Taxpayers Union