pudge's Journal: Representatives

My duly elected state representatives refuse to directly supply me, their constituent, with information about what they are doing in the legislature. They simply will not do it.

Normally, I'd think that's ground for voting against them in the next election. But in this case, they don't do it because state law says it is illegal.

Because WA voters are hypersensitive about all things related to elections, in 1992 they voted into law a proposition that forbids most electronic or postal mail sent to constituents by legislators during the 12-month period before a general election.

Now, they can respond to direct personal requests -- in person, or by e-mail, apparently -- but no unsolicited or mass correspondence. This is, however, what many people rely on to actually get information about what their representative is doing, because the press doesn't do a very good job of covering most things in the state legislature.

I think this doesn't extend to the legislator's web site. Which means they could in theory have an RSS feed, which is not significantly different from e-mail anyway, so the law isn't even effective.

Oh, but they do have an exception for sending correspondence to award winners. (/me rolls his eyes)

CFR?

[bryanthompson]

Is that something that can be blamed on campaign finance reform? Whenever I email my reps, I get a packet in the mail with whatever information I requested... I've done it several times now. I haven't ever gotten an email though. It would be fun to have a back & forth email thing goin' with someone like Tom Osborne or Ben Nelson. Hagel can go eff himself, he doesn't represent Nebraskans.

hrmm I got an email from Dave Reichert

[nocomment]

Awhile back (a year?) I sent an email to him on the flag burning law. He apparently didn't read it as he wrote back in a tone like we were on the same page but talking about completely opposite things. C'est la vie.

RSS != EMail

[ellem]

RSS != EMail because Johnny Sixpack and his Mom have no friggin' idea what RSS is, how it works and how to get at it.

Re:RSS != EMail

[(trb001)]

While I would tend to agree, technically RSS != Email because RSS is passive...the subscriber requests the content. It's not an active push like email is, so it wouldn't be considered a mass mailing.

--trb

Re:RSS != EMail

[pudge]

While I would tend to agree, technically RSS != Email because RSS is passive...the subscriber requests the content. It's not an active push like email is, so it wouldn't be considered a mass mailing.

Yes, from a reading of the law, that seems to be the case. However, lawyers and judges don't understand these issues like we do.

Moo

[Chacham]

Now, they can respond to direct personal requests -- in person, or by e-mail, apparently -- but no unsolicited or mass correspondence. This is, however, what many people rely on to actually get information about what their representative is doing, because the press doesn't do a very good job of covering most things in the state legislature

Pudge, this is like the first time i think you are dead wrong. I'd still vote for you though. :)

This is an *excellent* measure. The fact that mass mailings are forbidden,

Re:Moo

[pudge]

This is an *excellent* measure. The fact that mass mailings are forbidden, means that only someone who cares will find out what is really going on. Relying on what the politician says he is doing is mostly worthless.

I disagree entirely. Our reps should release to the public regularly all of what they are actually doing. I think, indeed, it should be a legal requirement.

Re:Moo

[Chacham]

I think, indeed, it should be a legal requirement.

But only by someone other then the rep.

See the state of the union speech. It's a joke. It was *supposed* to be an informative heads up to the Congress. Now, it's a clap-gatherer with nothing more than empty words.

I feel the same way about mass-mailings.

To get the info

1. Get it yourself.
2. If everyone wants it, pay a representative to get it. (It's called the media.)
3. If you feel the media is not doing the job you like, go back to step 1.

Re:Moo

[(trb001)]

Our reps should release to the public regularly all of what they are actually doing.

I disagree. Unless published via radio, the only acceptable means of doing this would be a huge waste of taxpayer money. Websites wouldn't be sufficient, nor would email since not everyone has a computer (public libraries, I know. IMO it still wouldnt' fly). Now, if they chose to publish on a website or via RSS, that would certainly be nice and cost oodles less.

--trb

Re:Moo

[pudge]

Websites wouldn't be sufficient, nor would email since not everyone has a computer (public libraries, I know. IMO it still wouldnt' fly).

I disagree. Almost everyone can access a web site or receive email, and that costs almost nothing. Further, if you can't, you could get yourself put on a list to receive paper; it would be a very small cost to send it out to only those people who need it.

Re:Moo

[(trb001)]

Almost everyone can access a web site or receive email, and that costs almost nothing.

Let me first say that I totally agree with you. Having gotten that out of the way, if it isn't readily available to the entire population in their current living situation, I don't think it will accepted. Look at the ruckus raised when Georgia wanted to require state issued identification cards in order to vote. Most people have driver's licenses, and even if they couldn't afford one the state was going to give out free

Re:Moo

[pudge]

if it isn't readily available to the entire population in their current living situation, I don't think it will accepted

It often is. This sort of thing is widespread these days, saying we will do it only electronically, unless you specifically request paper.

Look at the ruckus raised when Georgia wanted to require state issued identification cards in order to vote. Most people have driver's licenses, and even if they couldn't afford one the state was going to give out free to people with low income. But no,

Re:Moo

[pudge]

While not nearly as important as the ability to vote, any mandate requiring public notification will have to be able to go through the mail, with an option of receiving it electronically. Because most people *don't* care about this, most people won't opt out of the snail mail version, and it *will* be a tax waste.

Oh, and BTW, no, it doesn't need to do this. Simply say that you have to opt in no matter WHICH you choose. Obviously my Rep. doesn't have my email address. :-) Force me to contact him if I want