Beilenson Ranks High in Tax-Funded Mail : Politics: Woodland Hills Democrat spent $166,439 on newsletters to constituents in ’93. GOP’s Gallegly spent $100,649.

In contrast to some of his colleagues, Rep. Anthony C. Beilenson prides himself on refusing to exploit taxpayer-financed newsletters for political gain.

Yet last year the Woodland Hills Democrat spent $166,439 on his publicly funded mail--and ranked 11th highest in the House on his cost per household. This was a marked increase for Beilenson during his first year representing a new, politically competitive district.

Beilenson employs Craig Miller, his longtime campaign manager, part time on his congressional payroll to oversee production and distribution of his franked, or publicly funded, mail. This has raised questions about whether the mail is being used to bolster the lawmaker’s political prospects.

Beilenson, whose 24th District includes most of Thousand Oaks, wasn’t the only Ventura County lawmaker who ranked relatively high in mail costs in 1993. Rep. Elton Gallegly (R-Simi Valley), who represents the rest of the county, spent $100,649 and his cost per address was the 94th highest figure among the 435 lawmakers in the House.

“We have consistently stayed well below what has been budgeted by the House,” said Gallegly, who is also representing a newly drawn district. “I do feel, as a representative, you have the responsibility to communicate with the people you serve, keeping them up on issues that affect them from a health standpoint, education standpoint, tax standpoint.”

Gallegly took some heat in 1992, an election year, for twice sending publicly funded mail to residents of his new district--who would cast votes for or against him in November of that year--before he began representing them. The practice was legal but controversial. Gallegly subsequently vowed not to do it again and supported a proposed ban.

Newsletters, generally featuring photographs of lawmakers and extolling their accomplishments or at least expressing their concerns, are a target of some critics of congressional spending and those who see incumbents granting themselves electoral advantages.

“House members mailed millions and millions of newsletters, cards and letters during 1993, most of it self-promoting propaganda sent to citizens who never asked for it,” said David Keating, president of the National Taxpayers Union Foundation, a nonpartisan, anti-government spending group based in Washington that publishes an annual study of mailing costs.

Beilenson said this characterization does not apply to his mailings.

“I take seriously that part of my job which I think involves educating and informing constituents about what’s going on in Washington,” Beilenson said. “The use of the frank is really the only way I have that I can carry out my responsibilities of staying in touch with constituents and being accountable to them.”

Each House member is given an annual limit for mail costs based on the number of households in his district. This figure is then multiplied by 67 cents per address. The totals reflect only postage costs, and do not include salaries for aides who write the mailings, purchase and manage constituent mailing lists and oversee computer operations, printing and handling.

Beilenson was only $1,261 short of his ceiling of $167,700. Gallegly was $39,323 under his maximum of $139,972. Unspent funds revert to the Treasury.

In addition, lawmakers can transfer up to $25,000 from their office accounts--which is used to pay salaries and other operational costs--for publicly funded mail.

The Senate has stricter spending limits. In most states, the Senate formula caps costs at about 15 cents per address for mass-mailing postage. The National Taxpayers Union Foundation found that 297 House members exceeded the per-household Senate maximum.

Beilenson, who spent nearly 67 cents per address, surpassed the Senate ceiling by an estimated $115,927. Gallegly, who spent 48 cents per household, topped it by about $58,507.

The average cost for all House members was nearly 32 cents.

Gallegly, whose 23rd District takes in all of Ventura County except most of Thousand Oaks and includes Carpinteria in Santa Barbara County, said he has refrained from sending a newsletter this year because it is an election year. He is not expected to face a strong challenge. In any case, he said the potential political benefits of the mailings hold little appeal for him.

“If a person has very little or no name identification and he wants to become better known in a district, that’s certainly a plus,” the four-term lawmaker said. “That does not appear to be a problem in my district.”

There are restrictions on how far lawmakers can go with their newsletters.

All the mailings must be approved by a congressional franking commission. Each must comply with rules that limit the number and size of photographs of the lawmaker, the number of times his or her name may appear and the use of party labels and partisan references. All mailings must be postmarked at least 60 days prior to a primary or general election.

Beilenson sent three districtwide mailings in 1993. He also sent hundreds of thousands of postcards alerting residents to a series of 16 to 18 regional town meetings where he presented his views on current issues and answered questions from the audience.

Last year was Beilenson’s first representing the Republican-leaning 24th District that extends from Sherman Oaks to Malibu in Los Angeles County and takes in most of Thousand Oaks in Ventura County. He had previously represented a Democratic district divided between the Westside and the San Fernando Valley.

Beilenson said he spent more last year, at least in part, because he is representing half the district’s residents for the first time. He had spent $147,253 on postage in 1992, or 47 cents per address, which ranked him 103rd in the House. His 1991 total was $88,791.

Beilenson said he held more town meetings than usual to introduce himself to new constituents and inform them of his availability. He said any political benefit was merely a byproduct of performing the job he was sent to Congress to do.

“You stay as close to people you were elected to represent and try to be as accountable to them as you can possibly be,” he said. “If there are some political advantages to that, I think that’s all right.”

Beilenson recalled that he has supported mailing reforms and avoided common practices that he regards as franking abuses. He sends his newsletters to all households in the district and does not mail different pieces tailored to specific groups, such as seniors or physicians--a practice that is common in election campaigns.

Unlike Gallegly, he did not mail to those who were outside his current district but inside his new one when he sought reelection in 1992. He includes only a single masthead photo of himself in each mailing and does not generally trumpet his own activities or achievements. Rather, he says his mailings are meant to be educational, substantive and even provocative.

Beilenson’s mailings included a questionnaire on reducing the federal deficit and another reporting the results. The second mailing included a long message from Beilenson making the case for the controversial Clinton budget plan, which the lawmaker backed and Republicans opposed.

“Congress took an important step toward restoring the fiscal soundness of government by approving the budget bill containing most of President Clinton’s economic program,” Beilenson wrote. He said he included this even though it might offend some Republican recipients.

A third newsletter focused on reforming the nation’s health-care system. Again, Beilenson emphasized the benefits of the Clinton plan, without endorsing the President’s proposal. He said last week that he sought to give Clinton credit for focusing on the need for change although he would like to see a more gradualist approach.

Beilenson’s campaign manager, Miller, who is based in Los Angeles, has been a part-time aide on Beilenson’s staff for 11 years. He has also run each of the lawmaker’s reelection campaigns since 1982. He is a partner in a firm that organizes AIDS fund-raising events nationwide.

Keating of the National Taxpayers Union Foundation called Miller’s dual roles as campaign manager and congressional aide “incredible.”

“It certainly looks very suspicious to have a campaign manager playing a major role in managing your franked mailings,” Keating said. “There’s got to be a temptation to use tax-funded postages to help his boss’s reelection effort--even if you don’t control the message, by making sure that every last dollar you could spend is spent.”

Beilenson vehemently rejected such a suggestion.

“He doesn’t ‘manage’ them,” he said. “That’s totally wrong. If Craig weren’t there, there would be exactly as many mailings, they would have the exact same content as they do and someone else would have to be paid to get them out.”

Miller affirmed that his contribution to the mailings is strictly technical: handling the logistics of town hall meetings and working with graphic artists, printers, mail houses and the Postal Service to make sure the pieces have the right look and are delivered in a timely manner. He said he also serves as an adviser on AIDS issues.

He compared his twin roles to that of top Washington aides to many House members who take a leave of absence at election time to run the lawmaker’s campaign. Even if he played a more substantial role in Beilenson’s congressional operation, Miller emphasized, “there would be absolutely nothing wrong” with that.

In Gallegly’s case, his former press secretary, John Frith, helped prepare his newsletters. Frith took an unpaid, monthlong leave of absence before the 1992 general election to work on Gallegly’s campaign.

Gallegly’s spending on mail was up as well. He invested $59,667 in 1992, or 21 cents per address, which ranked 271 in the House. However, in 1991 he had spent $171,007. He emphasized that his total went down in the election year.

Gallegly said that his increase for 1993 was due, at least in part, to a significantly higher volume of mail from constituents in his new district. He said his first priority is to respond to incoming mail within five days.

But the postage cost for replying to unsolicited mail is usually a small percentage of lawmakers’ totals. In Gallegly’s case, it was an an estimated $11,002, or 11%, of his spending on non-mass mailing postage, the National Taxpayers Union Foundation found. This accounted for an estimated $13,188, or 8%, of Beilenson’s spending.

Gallegly sent out two districtwide newsletters in 1993 and two more narrowly targeted mailings. His newsletters are more conventional than Beilenson’s. Each has three photographs of Gallegly, doing such things as meeting with Border Patrol officers to discuss illegal immigration or with Ventura County students on the Capitol steps.

They also include pieces with such headlines as: “Gallegly works to aid economy” and “Gallegly launches district outreach program.” One item touted his 97% voting record.

In addition, he sent a letter to 32,373 senior citizens in April, 1993, assuring them that “I have renewed my commitment to protect your Social Security benefits.

“I continue to oppose the plans of the Administration and the congressional majority to raise taxes on seniors earning as little as $25,000 a year,” Gallegly wrote.

He sent another letter to 12,320 veterans about his effort to bar Iraqis who were captured during the Persian Gulf War from being resettled in the United States. “This program is a testament to a hapless and foolhardy State Department,” Gallegly wrote.

Gallegly also sent out a questionnaire. In contrast to Beilenson, he asked pointed questions such as the following regarding President Clinton’s economic program:

“Do you support the President’s economic plan, which features large tax increases, major defense cuts and a net increase in domestic spending?” A total of 76% of respondents said no; 15% said yes.

Critics of the questionnaires, including professional pollsters, say that the self-selecting, unrepresentative and small percentage of respondents is not a scientifically valid sample. Moreover, lawmakers sometimes use loaded terms to ask questions that appear designed to produce answers that concur with their positions.

Beilenson and Gallegly said they find that respondents overwhelmingly agree with their stands. Beilenson, who asks constituents to make tax and spending choices reflecting how they would cut the budget deficit, says he finds this reinforcement reassuring.

“It may well be that the great majority of us do a good job of representing the feelings of people back there,” he said. “At least those who took the time to answer the questions.”

Gallegly said the questionnaire serves another purpose: It tells him that his constituents want at least as many publicly funded newsletters.

He asked: “Do newsletters such as this assist you in understanding current issues before Congress?”

A total of 85% of the respondents answered yes; 9% said no.

‘93 MAIL COSTS FOR LAWMAKERS

Cost Per Total Amount Over Lawmaker Rank Address Cost Maximum Senate Limit Beilenson 11 $0.669 $166,439 $167,700 $115,927 Gallegly 94 $0.485 $100,649 $139,972 $ 58,507

Source: National Taxpayers Union Foundation study and interviews