Lawmakers Divided Over Free Mailings Outside Districts : Congress: The taxpayer-funded practice is legal, but some people believe that it gives incumbents an unfair advantage over potential challengers.

Reps. Anthony C. Beilenson (D-Los Angeles), Carlos J. Moorhead (R-Glendale) and William M. Thomas (R-Bakersfield) say it should be prohibited.

Reps. Howard L. Berman (D-Panorama City) and Henry A. Waxman (D-Los Angeles) have not done it, but don’t want to foreclose the option of doing so in the future.

Rep. Jerry Lewis (R-Redlands) has already done it. And Rep. Elton Gallegly (R-Simi Valley) has done it twice but vows not to do it again and agrees that it should be banned.

It is the practice of sending taxpayer-funded mailings to residents whom a lawmaker does not presently represent but whose votes he expects to seek in a newly redrawn district this year. The practice is perfectly legal, but suddenly controversial as well.

The law allows House members to send mail--including newsletters touting accomplishments and politically popular positions--to all residents of any county they represent as well as contiguous counties. Critics contend that this is a publicly funded advantage for lawmakers who can thus introduce themselves to residents of districts that emerge from the once-a-decade reapportionment process.

“Clearly,” Beilenson said, “it’s totally political.”

San Fernando Valley-area lawmakers contacted about their past mailings and future plans reflected the divisions developing in Congress over this little-noticed provision in the law governing franked, or free, mail.

“I don’t have any plans” to take advantage of the privilege, said Berman, whose present district overlaps three-quarters of the new East Valley district in which he plans to run.

“But I don’t want to be on the record forswearing it.”

Waxman’s position was similar. “I don’t know what we’ll do,” aide Phil Schiliro said.

Thomas, meanwhile, is spearheading a bid to ban a practice that he says is defensible only on the grounds that Congress has allowed itself to do it.

“The only defense I’ve ever heard is that it’s legal,” said Thomas, whose district includes part of the Antelope Valley. “So the way to stop it is to remove the legality.”

Thomas, who introduced the bill last month, said he believes that the measure may pass--but only after many members of Congress have taken advantage of the mailing privilege. Therefore, he is raising the profile of the issue to embarrass his colleagues into stopping the practice.

“To bring about my desired effect does not necessarily require the passage of legislation,” he added. “To the degree that the press is vigilant in pointing out the use of this statutorily permitted perquisite, we hope to curb the use of it. To the degree I get a broad cross-section of sponsors for the bill, that’s useful too.”

He appears to be having some success.

Moorhead, one of more than 50 co-sponsors, said: “I think it’s controversial. I would rather be on the side of over-discretion than under. . . . It’s one that gets people concerned about incumbents taking advantage of their incumbency.”

Lewis, the third-ranking House Republican leader whose district includes part of Palmdale, told Roll Call, a Capitol Hill newspaper, that he had mailed outside his present district. He did not return phone calls last week seeking comment.

Gallegly sent two newsletters to residents of his 21st District in the past two months.

The first, heralding his efforts to curb illegal immigration, went in December to the 160,000 households in parts of eastern Ventura County and 120,000 in Los Angeles County that he represents in his present district. Last month, he sent a Ventura County report to the households he represents in that county.

In addition, Gallegly mailed both newsletters to 95,000 households in western Ventura County that are not in his present district at a cost of $20,000 in postage and $4,000 in printing, spokesman John Frith said.

At the time, a state Supreme Court-appointed panel had recommended a map with a new 23rd District including much of Ventura County. Gallegly, who plans to run in that district, had faced a potentially bitter battle against Rep. Robert J. Lagomarsino (R-Ventura).

Lagomarsino also sent a newsletter to Camarillo residents in Gallegly’s present district, aide John Doherty said. But Lagomarsino later decided to run in a new Santa Barbara-based district.

Gallegly has since signed on as a co-sponsor of Thomas’ measure to ban this practice.

“I have stayed within the guidelines of the law, and I will continue to stay within the guidelines,” he said.

“I would like to tighten the law. That’s why I support that bill.”

Gallegly said he does not intend to send any more mass mailings to prospective future constituents.

“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.”

* RELATED STORY: A3

Where They Stand

The practice of sending taxpayer-funded mailings to residents whom a lawmaker does not represent, but whose votes he expects to seek in a newly redrawn district this year, has become controversial, although it is legal. Here is where some area lawmakers stand on the issue:

* Rep. Elton Gallegly (R-Simi Valley), top photo, has used the privilege twice to mail material outside his district, but has since signed on as a co-sponsor of a measure to ban the practice. “I would like to tighten the law. That’s why I support that bill,” Gallegly said.

* Rep. Jerry Lewis (R-Redlands), bottom photo, said he has mailed outside his present district. He did not return calls seeking comment.

* Rep. Howard L. Berman (D-Panorama City) said: “I don’t have any plans” to use the privilege, “but I don’t want to be on the record forswearing it.”

* Rep. Henry A. Waxman (D-Los Angeles) took a similar stand. “I don’t know what we’ll do,” aide Phil Schiliro said.

* Rep. Anthony C. Beilenson (D-Los Angeles) says the practice should be prohibited. “It’s totally political,” he said.

* Rep. William M. Thomas (R-Bakersfield) is leading the bid to ban it. “The only defense I’ve ever heard is that it’s legal,” he said.

* Rep. Carlos J. Moorhead (R-Glendale), a co-sponsor to ban the privilege, said: “I think it’s controversial. I would rather be on the side of over-discretion than under.”