Beilenson Criticized Over Publicly Funded Mailers

Rep. Anthony C. Beilenson (D-Woodland Hills) is one of 15 members of the House of Representatives criticized by a taxpayers watchdog group for sending out more than a quarter of a million publicly funded mailers in the days immediately before the 1994 pre-election deadline.

The National Taxpayers Union Foundation, in a report to be released today, said nothing Beilenson did was against the law, since the newsletters were sent out before the cutoff that Congress imposed on mailings within 60 days of an election.

But the nonpartisan group maintained that the large number of mailings sent out just 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.”

Beilenson has ranked among the top senders of franked mail in the 435-member House and has been criticized in the past by the taxpayers group.

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.”

There are movements under way in the House this year to drastically reform the franking rules.

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

“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 9, just before the legal deadline for franked mail. The total 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, a former aide to 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 Beilenson 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 during the 103rd Congress--ranking fourth in the 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.”

As further evidence that the mailings are campaign-related, Sybert cited Beilenson’s use of his longtime campaign manager, Craig Miller, to prepare the newsletters. Denying any conflict, Beilenson has said Miller is only involved in the physical preparation of the newsletters and does not write the text.

Other San Fernando Valley-area lawmakers have also spent heavily on mass mailings, although none was singled out by the taxpayers group.

*

Over the two years of the 103rd Congress, Rep. Howard L. Berman (D-Panorama City) spent $200,156, ranking 47th in the House in the cost per address in his district.

Next was Rep. Howard P. (Buck) McKeon (R-Santa Clarita), who spent $202,439 and rated 99th in cost per address. Rep. Carlos J. Moorhead (R-Glendale) ranked 105th, with spending of $219,671, and Rep. Henry A. Waxman (D-Los Angeles) spent $88,876 and was 344th among House members.

The leading spender on franked mail during the 103rd Congress is Rep. E. Clay Shaw Jr. (R-Fla.), with $378,130.

(BEGIN TEXT OF INFOBOX / INFOGRAPHIC)

Local Franking Levels

Name District Amount Rank* Anthony C. Beilenson D-Woodland Hills $331,648 4 Howard L. Berman D-Panorama City $200,156 47 Howard P. (Buck) McKeon R-Santa Clarita $202,439 99 Carlos J. Moorhead R-Glendale $219,671 105 Henry A. Waxman D-Los Angeles $88,876 344

* Rank is based on cost per residence in district

Source: National Taxpayers Union Foundation