B
Baphomet
Guest
We Hate Spam, Congress Says (Except When It’s Sent by Us)
N.Y. Times
December 28, 2003
By JENNIFER 8. LEE
WASHINGTON, Dec. 27 - Even as Congress was unanimously
approving a law aimed at reducing the flow of junk e-mail,
members were sending out hundreds of thousands of
unsolicited messages to constituents.
The spasm of activity is aimed at attracting voluntary
subscribers to the lawmakers' e-mail lists, which would not
be subject to House rules that normally impose a 90-day
blackout before an election for taxpayer-supported
Congressional mass communications.
In September, the House Administration Committee voted, 5
to 3, along party lines to allow e-mail messages to the
subscribers to be sent in the blackout period, but
maintained the ban on free postal mail from House members
to voters. The policy change affected only House rules and
was not part of the junk e-mail legislation.
At least 40 House members have bought or agreed to buy
e-mail address lists from at least four vendors. The lists,
which each have tens of thousands of addresses, are
generally created by a process called e-mail appending,
taking voter registration files from a member's district.
The next step is to cross match them with large databases
of names and e-mail addresses assembled by consumer data
companies like Equifax, which has a database of more than
75 million e-mail addresses. E-mail addresses can usually
be found for 10 percent to 20 percent of the voter file.
Many members of Congress praise the new policy for allowing
cheaper and more effective communications with
constituents. But consumer advocacy groups say the policy
may unfairly give an advantage to incumbents over
challengers because it allows elected officials to use
government resources to communicate with voters right up to
Election Day. In addition, the consumer advocates say,
sending bulk e-mail messages to constituents who have not
agreed to receive it is essentially electronic junk mail,
or spam.
The ability to communicate with constituents at taxpayer
expense, the franking privilege, is one of the most
cherished and controversial perks of office. For 30 years,
advocacy groups have lobbied and sued Congress to try to
close loopholes and stop abuses of the privilege.
Critics say the policy has created a significant new
loophole.
"The core value is that you don't want to leverage
technology to increase incumbent advantage," said Celia
Viggo Wexler, research director at Common Cause, a group
that has sued to limit franking. "What is troubling is that
essentially the House is saying, `O.K., you can communicate
with the constituency up to an election, and we're not
really going to check what you are saying with them.' The
point is without that kind of oversight, it's ripe for
abuse."
Before the change, e-mail was subject to the same treatment
as regular postal mail. Correspondence sent to more than
500 constituents had to obtain approval from the franking
commission and was subject to a 90-day blackout before an
election. But individual responses to citizens were not
subject to the restrictions.
Congressional officials said the old policy was too
cumbersome.
"Anything over 500 e-mails you had to submit that to the
franking commission," said Brian Walsh, the Republican
spokesman for the House Administration Committee. "There
was going to be a delay of a couple of days to get
approved. We didn't feel that was consistent with the
technology that existed."
The new policy says that lawmakers can freely send messages
to voters who have agreed to subscribe to their e-mail
lists. To build such lists, House members are sending huge
amounts of bulk e-mail messages to their districts in the
hope that some voters will subscribe.
The unsolicited messages go out from Congressional offices
as often as twice a month. The unsolicited messages, which
have to stop 90 days before an election or a primary, are
still subject to approval from the franking commission.
"They are regulating commercial spam, and at the same time
they are using the franking privilege to send unsolicited
bulk communications which aren't commercial," David Sorkin,
a professor at the John Marshall Law School in Chicago,
said. "When we are talking about constituents who haven't
opted in, it's spam."
President Bush signed the law on spam on Dec. 16, and it
takes effect on Thursday. It will ban the sending of bulk
commercial e-mail using false information like fake names,
as well as misleading subject lines and automated
harvesting of e-mail messages. It will also require all
commercial e-mail messages to include a valid postal
address and give recipients an opportunity to opt out of
receiving more messages.
The law restricts only commercial e-mail, a sector that
accounts for more than half of all e-mail traffic. The law
does not apply to unsolicited political messages. It also
authorizes the Federal Trade Commission to study the
possibility of a "do not spam" list.
Violators of the law will be liable for a fine up to $250
per violation, up to a cap of $2 million, except in extreme
circumstances, when the fine could be tripled. Violators
could also face up to five years in prison.
Members of the House say their unsolicited e-mail messages
are not junk e-mailings, because the messages are directly
intended for constituents who have the right to opt out,
and the messages have received positive reactions.
"Our experience has been that we get hundreds and hundreds
of people who opt in for every person who opts out," said
Representative Brad Sherman, a California Democrat who has
bought a list. "E-mail has been a great communications
device."
Advocacy Inc., a consultant in Washington, had its first
unsolicited bulk e-mail, sent on behalf of Representative
Pete Stark, Democrat of California, initially blocked by
America Online's spam filters. AOL later agreed not to
block the messages, Advocacy said.
The new policy is fueling an e-mail arms race. Democrats
say that the new policy, which was drawn up by the
Republicans who control the House, took them somewhat by
surprise, but they are catching up.
"The Democrats are worried," said Roger A. Stone, the chief
executive of Advocacy, who has been signing up Democratic
offices at the rate of about five a week. "I'm dealing with
people whose boss said, `Get me some of that Internet.' "
N.Y. Times
December 28, 2003
By JENNIFER 8. LEE
WASHINGTON, Dec. 27 - Even as Congress was unanimously
approving a law aimed at reducing the flow of junk e-mail,
members were sending out hundreds of thousands of
unsolicited messages to constituents.
The spasm of activity is aimed at attracting voluntary
subscribers to the lawmakers' e-mail lists, which would not
be subject to House rules that normally impose a 90-day
blackout before an election for taxpayer-supported
Congressional mass communications.
In September, the House Administration Committee voted, 5
to 3, along party lines to allow e-mail messages to the
subscribers to be sent in the blackout period, but
maintained the ban on free postal mail from House members
to voters. The policy change affected only House rules and
was not part of the junk e-mail legislation.
At least 40 House members have bought or agreed to buy
e-mail address lists from at least four vendors. The lists,
which each have tens of thousands of addresses, are
generally created by a process called e-mail appending,
taking voter registration files from a member's district.
The next step is to cross match them with large databases
of names and e-mail addresses assembled by consumer data
companies like Equifax, which has a database of more than
75 million e-mail addresses. E-mail addresses can usually
be found for 10 percent to 20 percent of the voter file.
Many members of Congress praise the new policy for allowing
cheaper and more effective communications with
constituents. But consumer advocacy groups say the policy
may unfairly give an advantage to incumbents over
challengers because it allows elected officials to use
government resources to communicate with voters right up to
Election Day. In addition, the consumer advocates say,
sending bulk e-mail messages to constituents who have not
agreed to receive it is essentially electronic junk mail,
or spam.
The ability to communicate with constituents at taxpayer
expense, the franking privilege, is one of the most
cherished and controversial perks of office. For 30 years,
advocacy groups have lobbied and sued Congress to try to
close loopholes and stop abuses of the privilege.
Critics say the policy has created a significant new
loophole.
"The core value is that you don't want to leverage
technology to increase incumbent advantage," said Celia
Viggo Wexler, research director at Common Cause, a group
that has sued to limit franking. "What is troubling is that
essentially the House is saying, `O.K., you can communicate
with the constituency up to an election, and we're not
really going to check what you are saying with them.' The
point is without that kind of oversight, it's ripe for
abuse."
Before the change, e-mail was subject to the same treatment
as regular postal mail. Correspondence sent to more than
500 constituents had to obtain approval from the franking
commission and was subject to a 90-day blackout before an
election. But individual responses to citizens were not
subject to the restrictions.
Congressional officials said the old policy was too
cumbersome.
"Anything over 500 e-mails you had to submit that to the
franking commission," said Brian Walsh, the Republican
spokesman for the House Administration Committee. "There
was going to be a delay of a couple of days to get
approved. We didn't feel that was consistent with the
technology that existed."
The new policy says that lawmakers can freely send messages
to voters who have agreed to subscribe to their e-mail
lists. To build such lists, House members are sending huge
amounts of bulk e-mail messages to their districts in the
hope that some voters will subscribe.
The unsolicited messages go out from Congressional offices
as often as twice a month. The unsolicited messages, which
have to stop 90 days before an election or a primary, are
still subject to approval from the franking commission.
"They are regulating commercial spam, and at the same time
they are using the franking privilege to send unsolicited
bulk communications which aren't commercial," David Sorkin,
a professor at the John Marshall Law School in Chicago,
said. "When we are talking about constituents who haven't
opted in, it's spam."
President Bush signed the law on spam on Dec. 16, and it
takes effect on Thursday. It will ban the sending of bulk
commercial e-mail using false information like fake names,
as well as misleading subject lines and automated
harvesting of e-mail messages. It will also require all
commercial e-mail messages to include a valid postal
address and give recipients an opportunity to opt out of
receiving more messages.
The law restricts only commercial e-mail, a sector that
accounts for more than half of all e-mail traffic. The law
does not apply to unsolicited political messages. It also
authorizes the Federal Trade Commission to study the
possibility of a "do not spam" list.
Violators of the law will be liable for a fine up to $250
per violation, up to a cap of $2 million, except in extreme
circumstances, when the fine could be tripled. Violators
could also face up to five years in prison.
Members of the House say their unsolicited e-mail messages
are not junk e-mailings, because the messages are directly
intended for constituents who have the right to opt out,
and the messages have received positive reactions.
"Our experience has been that we get hundreds and hundreds
of people who opt in for every person who opts out," said
Representative Brad Sherman, a California Democrat who has
bought a list. "E-mail has been a great communications
device."
Advocacy Inc., a consultant in Washington, had its first
unsolicited bulk e-mail, sent on behalf of Representative
Pete Stark, Democrat of California, initially blocked by
America Online's spam filters. AOL later agreed not to
block the messages, Advocacy said.
The new policy is fueling an e-mail arms race. Democrats
say that the new policy, which was drawn up by the
Republicans who control the House, took them somewhat by
surprise, but they are catching up.
"The Democrats are worried," said Roger A. Stone, the chief
executive of Advocacy, who has been signing up Democratic
offices at the rate of about five a week. "I'm dealing with
people whose boss said, `Get me some of that Internet.' "
