Updated. You know the campaign for a seat in Congress is about to begin when the incumbent, in this case Montana’s Republican Congressman, Dennis Rehberg, sends you campaign literature — at taxpayer expense — disguised as an informational mailing for constituents. What I received (PDF) from Rehberg last week was a classic example of that dodge. A large, glossy, four-color, custom-sized card sporting his frank (more on that in a moment), it affirms his steadfast opposition to the unholy trinity of fraud, waste, and abuse, those hoary straw men against whom every politician campaigns, and informs us that he has introduced “critical earmark reform legislation.”
That card, and his 15 November 2007 press release, left the impression that Rehberg had launched a one-man crusade to pluck pork from the barrel. His card cites three especially egregious examples of dubious earmarks: Alaska’s $250 million bridge to nowhere, New York’s million-dollar Woodstock museum, and Iowa’s $50 million indoor rainforest.
The card, I think, is intended to do two things. First, it positions Rehberg as a fiscal conservative; as a paragon of frugality. This is not surprising. While he was in the majority, Rehberg helped run up the national debt, and did so with considerable enthusiasm. His thought that he may need to cast himself as a true son-of-a-penny-pincher does credit to his perception. Second, it reminds voters that Hillary Clinton, whom Republicans reckon (with good reason, I think; update, 3 June 2008: my crystal ball was a bit cloudier than I realized) will be the Democratic nominee for President, was hell bent on squandering a million dollars on a “hippie” museum at Woodstock. That, in turn, is intended to associate Clinton with the disrespectful excesses of the counter-culture from the nineteen-sixties.
Why, I wondered, did Rehberg’s card fail to provide a bill number for this noble legislation? A quick visit to the the Library of Congress’ website answered that question: the authors of the card wanted us to think he was acting alone. In fact he was acting with others, a fact reported by both the Billings Gazette and the Helena Independent Record. The bill, HCR-263 (PDF), was introduced by Georgia Republican Jack Kingston, Rehberg, and other Republicans, including Frank Wolf and Zach Wamp (who may have the most memorable name in Congress). There are almost 80 cosponsors, all Republicans. Unlike Rehberg, Kingston named his cosponsors. So did Wamp, who issued a press release sharing the credit. Wolf’s press release also shared credit, and provided the most information.
Now, one can argue that this is nothing more than a case of sloppy staff work, and that Rehberg wasn’t trying to hide his co-sponsors from Montanans. And there certainly is some truth in that. The staff work was sloppy, and Rehberg didn’t attempt to hide anything from the reporters who wrote the stories referenced above. Still, Rehberg is responsible for everything that is issued in his name; he’s responsible for this card; responsible for Montanans not being told the whole truth.
Members of Congress are supposed to use their franking privilege for mailing non-partisan, factual information on their legislative activities to their constituents. It is not to be used for inflicting campaign literature on the voters in their districts. Indeed, before a franked mailing is approved, a Congressman must sign and submit a form that includes this phrase:
I hereby certify that, to the best of my knowledge, the attached material submitted for review does not contain any logo, masthead design, slogans, photographs or facsimiles thereof contained in the campaign literature of a Member, or any specific campaign promises or pledges of a Member or political party. The franking manual (PDF) covers the subject in detail.
Whether the card violates the letter of the franking regulations is problematic. Rehberg has not filed for reelection, so technically he’s not a candidate. The regulations are tighter than they used to be, but campaign literature still can be sneaked through by the clever. He may be operating within the letter of the regulations. But he’s certainly not operating within the spirit of the regulation. The card is campaign literature, and in my judgement Rehberg abused his franking privilege by sending it to us on the taxpayer’s dollar.
Update,17 January. Montana’s Democrats no longer list Bill Kennedy as a candidate for Congress. Montana’s Democratic Party, which has not posted a press release on its website since 17 August 2007 (and which still lists Bill Kennedy as a candidate for the seat held by Rehberg, even though Kennedy withdrew from the race last fall), has not uttered a peep about this card. Is that because the party is asleep? Is it because Max Baucus and John Tester are doing the same thing and a complaint would amount to the pot calling the kettle black? Or is it because the Democratic Party is having the devil of a time finding someone to run against Rehberg?