Beilenson Criticized for Franked Mailings : Politics: Taxpayers union notes newsletters were sent out just before pre-election deadline. Congressman denies they were a campaign ploy.

Some call it taxpayer-financed campaign propaganda. Others contend that the newsletters, brochures, postcards and other printed matter sent out by congressional offices are important educational tools for the voters back home.

Rep. Anthony C. Beilenson is in the middle of that clash.

The veteran Democrat, who represents Thousand Oaks, is one of 15 members of the House of Representatives criticized by a taxpayers watchdog group for publicly funded mass mailings just days before the 1994 pre-election deadline. Beilenson alone sent out more than a quarter-million pieces.

In a report to be released today, the National Taxpayers Union Foundation says nothing Beilenson did was against the law, since the newsletters were not sent out within 60 days of an election.

But the nonpartisan group maintains that the large number of mailings sent out in the days before the Sept. 10 cutoff indicates the extent to which franking has become an extension of incumbents’ reelection campaigns.

“This is just more evidence of the use of the frank for reelection purposes,” said John E. Berthoud, vice president for research at the National Taxpayers Union. “The mail rises when you come to a primary or general election season. No member will say they use franking for reelection purposes, but all you have to do is look at the numbers.”

Insisting that he does not exploit taxpayer-financed newsletters for political gain, Beilenson said through a spokeswoman that his franked mail focuses on substantive issues and is aimed at educating his constituents about the goings-on in Washington.

“His mailers are not politically motivated,” said Kay Davis, Beilenson’s chief of staff. “They are discussions of what he is doing in Congress. He doesn’t abuse the system. Running a congressional office is not without expense, and this is one of them.”

*

Davis said the newsletters sent just before the Sept. 10 deadline were “a routine mailing” and their timing was not connected to the November election.

There are movements under way in the House this year to drastically reform the franking privilege, which was first used more than 200 years ago by the Continental Congress. The House spent $63 million on such mailings between Jan. 1, 1993, and Sept. 30, 1994, the last period for which statistics are available.

The House Oversight Committee this week made a one-third cut in this year’s House mail allowances, which are based on the number of residents in the district. That should average about $108,000 per lawmaker.

Rep. Mike Castle (R-Del.) will introduce a bill next week to ban mass mailings altogether during election years, as is done in the Senate. The Franked Mail Savings Act would also limit lawmakers to one mass mailing per year per district address and require samples of mass mail to be available for public review.

“We have a historic opportunity to curb one of Congress’ most abused privileges--franked mail,” said Castle, who has spent less than anyone else in the House on such mailings.

*

In Beilenson’s case, 295,957 mailers were sent out Sept. 6 and Sept. 9, just before the legal deadline for franked mail. The cost to taxpayers was $40,236.

The taxpayers group said many of the lawmakers who sent out the last-minute barrage of mailers faced tough reelection fights in November. Beilenson, for instance, staved off a strong challenge from Rich Sybert, the former planning director for Gov. Pete Wilson.

“It is clear that those members who chose to engage in this pre-election mass mailing activity were the most electorally threatened,” the taxpayers union report said. “It therefore seems fair to view the strategic use of mass mailings as an activity undertaken for reelection purposes--at taxpayers’ expense, of course.”

But Davis insisted that her boss used the frank well within the rules.

“He feels very strongly that because he covers a big, sprawling district covering two counties, the frank is the only way to stay in touch with his constituents,” Davis said. “He really goes to great lengths not to abuse the system. Frankly, we don’t get criticism from constituents on our newsletters.”

All mailings must be approved by the House Commission on Congressional Mailing Standards, which limits 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 or partisan references.

*

Overall, Beilenson spent $331,648 on his publicly funded mail from Jan. 1, 1993, to Sept. 30, 1994--ranking fourth in the 435-member House in the cost per address.

Sybert, who intends to challenge Beilenson again in 1996, criticized Beilenson’s heavy use of franking and said he would be inclined to support reform of the franking system.

“This looks very much like campaign mail,” Sybert said of Beilenson’s mailers. “I’ll bet you dollars for doughnuts that his mail is heaviest during election years and in the months before the pre-election cutoff.”

Sybert also criticized Beilenson for having his longtime campaign manager, Craig Miller, prepare his mailings. Beilenson has said that Miller was only involved in the design of the newsletters and does not write the text.

Ventura County’s other congressman, Rep. Elton Gallegly (R-Simi Valley), was not singled out by the taxpayers group. He spent $133,983 during the 103rd Congress, ranking 194th.

“It is important to communicate with your district, but we are sensitive to all mailings during the election cycle,” Gallegly said.

But Gallegly did take some heat in 1992--an election year--for twice sending publicly funded mail to residents of his newly reapportioned district before he began representing them. The practice was legal but controversial, and Gallegly subsequently vowed not to do it again.

He now has a self-imposed ban on unsolicited mass mailings in the year before an election and supports franking reform for his colleagues.

“I think there have been many, many abuses, but at the same time I think we have to communicate with our district,” Gallegly said. “The bottom line is we shouldn’t be using the frank as a campaign piece.”