Lawmakers’ Mail Floods New Districts : Politics: Use of frank privilege to reach non-constituents is legal. But critics charge that it gives congressional incumbents an unfair election advantage.

A few weeks ago, Rep. Dana Rohrabacher decided to use a cost-effective method to introduce himself to voters in California’s new 45th Congressional District, where he plans to seek election this fall.

At taxpayers’ expense, the Long Beach Republican mailed 150,000 newsletters to residents of the new district, which stretches from Seal Beach to Newport Beach. His name was probably unfamiliar to most who received the letter: Every household he targeted lies outside his current district, which runs from the Palos Verdes Peninsula to Huntington Beach.

What Rohrabacher--and at least six other California congressmen--did is legal. Members of Congress are permitted to use the frank--their free mailing privilege--to send newsletters not only to constituents, but also to voters in newly redrawn congressional districts that they do not 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 equal footing. Rohrabacher’s publicly funded mailing would have cost a challenger about $18,000.

Amid a growing backlash against a wide range of congressional perks, some lawmakers say that the time has arrived to end this arcane, expensive privilege.

“It’s wrong,” said Rep. Bill 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,” said 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 members who responded--said they had engaged in the practice. Another subsequently acknowledged to The Times that he also had sent such mass mailings.

In addition to Rohrabacher, those who told Roll Call that they had sent the mailings are Republican Reps. Wally Herger of Yuba City, Elton Gallegly of Simi Valley 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, an aide to Rep. Robert J. Lagomarsino (R-Ventura) said that his office had mailed a newsletter to voters outside Lagomarsino’s district.

One congressional staffer 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 congressional offices.

Most defenders of the practice simply pointed out that it is legal. But Rep. Howard L. Berman (D-Panorma City), who has not yet done mailings to 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,” he added, “it could be viewed, particularly by opponents, as an unfair incumbent advantage.”

Some lawmakers quickest to take advantage of the franking perk are those who anticipate the toughest reelection fights this year. Brown and Fazio are considered endangered incumbents; Rohrabacher could have a serious primary challenge, and Gallegly and Lagomarsino at one point faced a showdown that has been averted.

The congressional franking privilege 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 that 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 correspondence only to residents who were named on each newsletter. However, the new law permitted lawmakers to continue to send free mail to potential constituents in redrawn districts. Specifically, the law authorized members to mail to counties contiguous to the county or counties that they represent.

The law gives members of Congress 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.

“Incumbents have a number of advantages, and this is one of them,” said Rohrabacher, who added that his office is sending a second newsletter to voters in the new 45th District.

Nevertheless, the two-term congressman said he will vote for the Thomas bill if it gets to the House floor--a prospect that congressional aides deem unlikely. In the meantime, Rohrabacher said he has no plans to stop the mailings until they are outlawed.

“This is not a loophole. This is something that has been put into the law intentionally by the liberal Democrats who control both houses of Congress,” said Rohrabacher, an outspoken conservative. “I have opposed it, but that doesn’t mean that I should unilaterally refrain from doing something that is being done . . . by many, many others throughout the country.”

A Rohrabacher aide said the congressman had earlier sent the same newsletter to the constituents in his district.

Gallegly, who sent two newsletters to about 95,000 Ventura County residents outside his district--at a cost of $24,000 for mailing and printing--said he will not send any more. But he agreed with Rohrabacher’s sentiments.

“There should be a level playing field for everyone and the playing field should be more restrictive,” said Gallegly.