Rep. David Davis Sends Out Self-Promoting Brochures On Tax Payer’s Dime

U.S. Rep. David Davis, R-Tenn., is among the House’s top 10 spenders when it comes to mailing thousands of glossy, self-promoting brochures on the taxpayers’ dime this election year, a Bristol Herald Courier investigation reveals.

The freshman congressman racked up $69,000 in postage costs during the first quarter of 2008 by blanketing Northeast Tennessee with 180,000 mailers ranging from his stance on illegal immigration, support for the military and driving tips to save gas.

His use of a little-known congressional privilege that allows spending money from taxpayer-funded Capitol Hill office budgets to cover massive postage bills ranked him as the ninth-highest spender for mass mailers in the 435-member House.

Mass mail is defined by House rules as 500 or more pieces of similar mail sent during a single session of Congress.

Davis is not the only local congressman to weigh down letter carriers. U.S. Rep. Rick Boucher, D-Va., a 13-term congressman in the 9th District, is a regular on the mass-mail top-spender list. He ranked No. 44 with a first quarter bill of $39,680 to cover Southwest Virginia with 209,325 brochures, records show.

Though Boucher sent more mail than Davis, the overall cost was less because of the type of brochures sent. Boucher’s correspondence is best described as a newsletter, and congressional records show the postage cost for his low-weight mailer averaged 13 cents per address. Davis sent constituents a glossy brochure that averaged 21 cents per address.

The privilege, which essentially allows members of Congress to send mail with just their stamped signature, is known as the “congressional frank” and has been around longer than the U.S. House of Representatives.

Postal carriers nationwide hand-delivered $5.8 million worth of “franked” mail during the first quarter of 2008, according to recently released congressional documents. Tallies of second-quarter spending should be ready for public inspection in coming weeks.

Proponents call the privilege a legal blessing that allows congressional members to keep in touch with constituents and notify them of upcoming votes and important events. Without it, they say, representatives could not meet the out-of-pocket expense of keeping constituents informed.

“One of the greatest complaints that people have about elected officials is that they don’t stay in touch,” Rep. Boucher said. “No one has ever complained about my doing too much to keep them informed.”

Davis, in an e-mailed response to Herald Courier inquiries, contends that it was his personal duty to update constituents.

“As a Representative of the First Congressional District, it is my responsibility to go directly to the people to keep them informed about the issues and actions being taken by Congress,” he wrote. “I cannot simply rely on the media to communicate the issues and actions of the Congress to the people who elected me to serve them.”

Repeated attempts by the Herald Courier in recent weeks to interview Davis for this story by telephone have failed. His Washington, D.C., office instead required questions to be sent by fax, with Davis responding through the e-mail of his chief of staff, Brenda J. Otterson.

Detractors of the franking privilege, like Pete Sepp of the watchdog group National Taxpayers Union, argue that such mailers are little more than free advertising for incumbents bent on re-election.

“Since incumbents can easily spend over $100,000 on postage and printing alone, the positive spin they can build with that kind of money forces challengers to dig deeper into their pockets,” Sepp wrote in an e-mail.

Agreeing with the deep-pocket philosophy is Rob Russell, a Democrat challenging Davis for the 1st District seat. He was awed when told of Davis’ $69,000 postage bill.

“Wow,” Russell said in a slow, whispered drawl. He paused several seconds before continuing. “That’s more money than I ever hope to be able to raise for my campaign.”

The thin red, white and blue line

With franked mail, the line between constituent information and campaign literature can be thin.

Gracing the front of one of Davis’ brochures are World War II photos of a battle-ready American soldier and of a British fighter plane.

“Congressman David Davis. Supporting the Defenders of Freedom,” the cover reads.

Stamped on the back are the words: “Public Document” and “Official Business.” In small italics below that is the line: “This mailing was prepared, published and mailed at taxpayer expense.”

The Herald Courier, having to rely on the smattering of brochure samples provided by recipients, could not immediately determine how many different brochures Davis’ congressional office mailed this year. His Washington, D.C., office did not respond to an e-mailed inquiry about the variety of mailers printed.

Also, a request for samples was denied. “We do not have any to spare at this time,” Davis’ communications director, Ryan Tronovitch, wrote.

Boucher’s office sent samples of fliers announcing upcoming town hall meetings sponsored by Boucher, as well as tidbits about an in-the-works veterans cemetery and about next year’s nationwide switch to digital television.

“I don’t think that what I’m sending could be considered political,” Boucher said.

The Herald Courier could not immediately review the mass-mailers Boucher has sent since last year.

Davis’ brochure about military support passes the legal muster as a public document and avoids the stamp as campaign literature mainly because it has no mention of political parties, upcoming elections or political opponents. Also, Davis’ picture appears on the inside only twice and with other people visible by his side—the maximum photo ops allowed per page, according to Congress’ mass-mail rules.

Davis, questioned about the tone of his mailers, simply replied via e-mail: “Every mailing that has been done from the Congressional Office had prior approval from the U.S. House bi-partisan Franking Commission stating that we were in compliance with House Rules and the law.”

Even with a bipartisan green light, it smacks some people as crossing the line. Not just in tone, but in timing.

Russell, the Democratic candidate for the 1st District seat, had seen some of the congressman’s mailers before being contacted for this story.

“It seems to me that the timing would lead me to believe ... that [the brochures] are masquerading as information when it’s really campaign literature,” he said.

House law bans mass-mailings within 90 days of a primary or an election, and Davis sent his brochures before the May 9 cutoff mark for the Aug. 7 primary.

Comparison

In contrast to Davis’ 2008 congressional postage tab, his re-election campaign – the David Davis Victory Fund – has spent a total of $22,355 in donations on postage and fundraising mailers since last year, federal campaign finance records show.

Attempts to ask Davis about the differences have been unsuccessful.

As required by law, staff at his congressional office will respond only to calls and e-mails that deal with Capitol Hill, and it will refer to his Johnson City, Tenn., campaign headquarters all inquiries pertaining to his bid for re-election.

Messages and an e-mail to his campaign headquarters for comment about his party’s postage expenditures have not been returned.

Rep. Boucher’s re-election campaign – Boucher for Congress – has spent a total of $25,259 in donations on postage since last year, records show.

That figure could easily top $100,000 in a heated election, Boucher said, though he does not foresee such spending in his uncontested election this year.

Even with the possibility of a high-cost postage war dependent on donations, mass campaigning would be much easier with a free ride on name recognition, said Dr. Phil Roe, who is challenging Davis for the Republican nomination. Roe’s campaign has spent $726 on mail, records show.

“You’re spending a lot of money to get your name out there,” Roe said. “When you pay for it yourself, you tend to be a little more judicious on who you send it to.”

| (276) 645-2549