Free Mailings Help Gallegly Reach New 23rd District : Politics: Sending the newsletters outside his current district is legal. But the three-term congressman says he will not repeat the practice.

In recent weeks, Rep. Elton Gallegly has used a particularly cost-effective method to introduce himself to the voters of California’s new 23rd Congressional District, where he plans to seek election this fall.

At taxpayer expense, the Simi Valley Republican mailed two newsletters to 95,000 households in western Ventura County that lie within the new district. His name was probably unfamiliar to many of these recipients because these households are outside his current district, which covers eastern portions of Ventura County and parts of Los Angeles County.

What Gallegly--and Rep. Robert J. Lagomarsino (R-Ventura) and at least five other California congressman--did is perfectly legal. Members of Congress are specifically permitted to use the frank--their free mailing privilege--to send newsletters not only to current constituents, but also to voters in newly redrawn congressional districts they do not now represent.

Even so, critics argue that the practice gives congressional incumbents an egregiously unfair advantage against lesser-known challengers who do not hold office. That is especially true in the new districts, where the incumbents otherwise might have to meet opponents on an equal footing. Gallegly’s publicly funded mailing to the 95,000 households, for example, would have cost a challenger about $24,000 in campaign funds for postage and printing.

“I have stayed within the guidelines of the law, and I will continue to stay within the guidelines,” said Gallegly, who has decided that he will not send any more taxpayer-financed mass mailings to prospective constituents.

He pointed out that one of the newsletters also went to 160,000 Ventura County households within his current district and the other went to all 280,000 households in the district he now represents.

Amid a growing public backlash against a wide range of congressional perks, some lawmakers say the time has arrived to end the arcane, but expensive, mailing privileges.

“It’s wrong,” said Rep. William M. Thomas (R-Bakersfield), who has introduced a bill to ban such mailings. “I can think of no justification whatsoever for using taxpayers’ dollars to send unsolicited mass-mail information to people who are not now in a member’s district.”

“We think it’s a perfect illustration of how the frank is being used for campaign purposes,” added Michael McCauley, research director of Congress Watch, the legislative arm of Public Citizen, the consumers’ lobby founded by Ralph Nader.

In a recent survey taken by Roll Call, a semiweekly newspaper that covers Capitol Hill, six California congressmen--out of 22 who responded--said they had engaged in the practice. In addition to Gallegly, Republicans who told Roll Call that they had sent the mailings are Reps. Dana Rohrabacher of Long Beach, Wally Herger of Yuba City and Jerry Lewis of Redlands. Lewis is the third-ranking House GOP leader.

Democrats who said they franked outside their districts are Reps. George E. Brown Jr. of Colton and Vic Fazio of West Sacramento. Fazio chairs the appropriations subcommittee that oversees congressional mailing expenditures.

Subsequently, John Doherty, an aide to Lagomarsino, acknowledged to The Times that his office had mailed a newsletter to voters in Camarillo outside Lagomarsino’s current district.

At the time of the mailing, a state Supreme Court-appointed panel had recommended a map with a new 23rd District including all of Ventura County except Thousand Oaks. And Lagomarsino was facing a potentially bitter battle against Gallegly, who plans to run in that district.

“We didn’t know where our district was going to be, and the House rules allowed us to mail in adjacent areas,” Doherty said. “We have subsequently done another newsletter, but we did not mail outside the district.”

Doherty said Lagomarsino changed his policy because critics “made a fuss about it.” He said Lagomarsino will not mail outside his district again.

Since the mailing, Lagomarsino has decided to run in a new Santa Barbara-based district, thus avoiding a primary contest with Gallegly.

One congressional staff member said he believes that the practice is far more pervasive than the Roll Call survey indicates. “From what I understand, it’s widespread,” said the aide, who asked not to be named.

No agency monitors where franked letters are sent, so information about it has to come from individual congressional offices.

Most defenders of the practice simply pointed out that it is legal. But Rep. Howard L. Berman (D-Panorama City), who has not yet mailed to any non-constituents in a new east San Fernando Valley district where he plans to run, said he could make another argument for it.

“There are services a congressional office could provide and would have a high incentive to provide in a new area,” said Berman, who refused to foreclose the option for himself. “On the other hand, it could be viewed, particularly by opponents, as an unfair incumbent advantage.”

Some of the lawmakers quickest to take advantage of the franking perk are among those who anticipate the toughest reelection fights this year. Brown and Fazio are considered endangered incumbents; Rohrabacher could have a serious primary challenge.

The congressional franking privilege itself predates the creation of the Republic. The first Continental Congress in 1775 enacted a law that permitted members to send free mail to inform constituents of their activities. Franking went virtually unregulated for 200 years, until Congress in 1973 began restricting the amount of mail members could send and to whom they could send it.

The first series of reforms allowed members of Congress to send mass mailings to residents of new districts in which they might run after district boundaries had been approved.

In 1990, Congress tightened the definition of mass mailings, allowing members to send such correspondence only to specific residents who were named on each newsletter. However, the new law permitted lawmakers to continue to send free mail to potential new constituents in redrawn districts. Specifically, the law authorized members to mail to counties contiguous to the county or counties that they now represent.

Under current law, members of Congress are given an annual franking budget equal to the number of household addresses in their district, multiplied by three and multiplied again by the cost of a first-class stamp. In effect, it permits the equivalent of three first-class mailings to all residential addresses in a lawmaker’s district.

Gallegly sent two newsletters--a Ventura County report and a piece heralding his efforts to curb illegal immigration--to Ventura County residents outside his 21st District in December and January. He has since become one of the 54 co-sponsors of Thomas’ bill to ban the extended mailing privilege.

“There should be a level playing field for everyone and the playing field should be more restrictive,” Gallegly said. “I would like to tighten the law. That’s why I support that bill.”

Furthermore, Gallegly said he decided not to send any more mass mailings to county residents who he does not represent when he signed on to the Thomas bill. “If I did differently, it would be somewhat hypocritical as it relates to that legislation,” the three-term lawmaker said. “I hope others would follow that lead.”

Such mass mailings sometimes prompt unintended reactions.

“I wondered why taxpayers’ money is being spent when I wasn’t one of his constituents,” said John Wagner of Ventura, who teaches English as a second language. “I don’t like it when it is from my own congressman. I resent it even more from Gallegly because I think it is just campaign literature.”