July 21, 2005 | Read Time: 3 minutes
Electronic messages generated by online advocacy campaigns are overwhelming Congressional offices, and may, in some cases, be falling on deaf ears, according to a new report by a Washington nonprofit group.
Staff members on Capitol Hill have mixed feelings about the increase of correspondence that senators and House members are receiving as a result of e-mail and the Internet.
On the one hand, nearly 80 percent said that they believe technological advances have made it easier for citizens to get involved in the public-policy process, and 55 percent said that e-mail and the Internet have increased public understanding of what goes on in Washington. But almost two-thirds said they believe the Internet has reduced the quality of constituents’ communications to Congress.
Published by the Congressional Management Foundation, in Washington, which seeks to make Congress more productive and effective through better management, the report is based on a survey of more than 350 Congressional employees who handle or oversee constituent correspondence, as well as on focus groups and in-depth interviews.
The total number of postal and e-mail communications to Congress rose threefold from 1995 to 2004, up from a little more than 50 million pieces in 1995 to more than 200 million in 2004, the report said.
While the amount of correspondence from constituents has grown, the number of employees in Congressional offices has remained largely unchanged. During their research, the report’s authors found that employees were frustrated by the difficulties the increased communications presented.
“Too much mail, not enough staff,” said one House legislative director. “[We’re] really losing sight of the important letters that come in — like the three-page letter from Grandma as opposed to those floods of mail where all they’re doing is clicking a button. It’s insane.”
Perhaps of most concern to nonprofit groups that run online advocacy campaigns, half the Congressional aides said they agree or strongly agree with the idea that responses to e-mail letter-writing campaigns “are sent without the constituent’s knowledge or approval.” A quarter said they neither agree nor disagree with the statement, and only a quarter said they disagree or strongly disagree.
The authors of the report said that their preliminary research indicates that very few, if any, organizations generate communications in their members’ names without their permission. Congressional staff members, they wrote, appear to have formed this opinion based on the experience of responding to constituents who then said they had no knowledge of or did not remember contacting the office.
The report noted that a sense of distrust appeared throughout the focus groups and interviews.
“Most staffers believe that pressure groups are less interested in conveying the legitimate views of constituents than they are in generating contributions and demonstrating that they’re ‘doing something,’” said one House chief of staff. “Since they tend to measure their effectiveness in terms of volume rather than actually getting anything constructive done, no one really expects the amount of third-party-generated contacts will ever decrease.”
The report concludes that the Internet has the potential to improve communication between members of Congress and the public, but that both advocates and Congressional offices need to evaluate the way they approach technology in order for that to happen.
“Many citizens and grass-roots organizations have focused more on finding the easiest, rather than the best, way to use the Internet to communicate with Congress,” says the report.
The report is part of a larger project by the Congressional Management Foundation, which also plans to conduct research on the motivations, perceptions, and practices of constituents and grass-roots organizations, and then develop recommendations.
The organization also hopes to create a committee comprised of Congressional aides, citizens, and representatives of advocacy groups to identify ways to improve communication between lawmakers and the public.
To read the report: Go to http://www.cmfweb.org.
