In with the Christmas cards
The registered Democrat in our house received a glossy four-pager in the mail today:
I figured hey, even though he's got no real opposition, the guy is up for re-election, after all. He must have a bunch of campaign money and figures he should blow some of it acting like he has a campaign.
Guess again:
| Posted at 3:59 PM | Permalink |
|
Comments (13)
Ahhhhhh. The power of the Congressional Frank.
Here's a link to cornell law's definition and limitations on "mass mailings"
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode02/usc_sec_02_00000059---h000-.
Here's a practical user's guide from 1998 (in PDF form)...back when the Republicans were making the rules...
http://gop.cha.house.gov/docs/franking.pdf
Posted by Mister Tee | December 15, 2007 4:20 PM
Jack.....will you run?
Posted by Jack Peek | December 15, 2007 4:46 PM
No pics of bowtie on a bike??
Posted by pdxjim | December 15, 2007 5:15 PM
Long Live the Earl of Pearl!!! We need him!
Posted by rthoward | December 15, 2007 5:18 PM
We need a benchmark to measure this spending against.
How many years would it take for the typical single working mom to save enough to pay for this useless expense? How does it compare, for example, to buying the latest Bratz doll?
Is Earl a typical dress-up doll? Dress him up with your favorite buzz word.
Would 20 bucks spent on the Earl doll yield as much joy as that of a Bratz doll?
I would argue that from an objective economist's view, without judgment on the normative goodness or badness of some purchase, it is clear that Earl could have brought greater aggregate joy if he made a bulk purchase of Bratz to give away (so long as they were not labeled Earl's Gift in a Box).
He can even buy BratzLife from a company that has been adept at escaping federal taxes.
Posted by pdxnag | December 15, 2007 6:03 PM
By all means, let's save those federal funds for guns and ammo and corporate welfare. Just not worth it to try to frame major election year policy issues for the voters.
Posted by Allan L. | December 15, 2007 6:43 PM
He is proscribed (by House Rules) from 'framing major election year policy issues' in a mass mailing paid for with taxpayer funds.
So he must have had some other intent when preparing that not-a-campaign-funded flyer.
Posted by Mister Tee | December 15, 2007 7:05 PM
What about the children?
Posted by ace | December 15, 2007 7:10 PM
By all means, let's save those federal funds for guns and ammo and corporate welfare. Just not worth it to try to frame major election year policy issues for the voters.
Posted by Allan L.
ALLAN: Would you like to go to the GUN SHOW with me in the morning? You could bike or take the MAX Train to the EXPO center.
A true Progressive comment like above, you could practise "CO-EXISTENCE", and tolerance, with a bunch of really nice rightwinger-gun nuts!
I think then you could add another bumper sticker to your SUBARU.
" WHEN IN DOUBT..EMPTY YOUR MAG!"
Posted by Jack Peek | December 15, 2007 9:04 PM
"WHEN IN DOUBT..EMPTY YOUR MAG" I like that, very clever. Works on a t-shirt as well. They all spend way too much money and they all waste way too much money I don't care what party they belong too. Party on dude but I wish it wasn't my tax dollars he's doing it with.
Posted by R.J. | December 16, 2007 9:56 AM
why didn't he put 'making max safer' as one of his campaigh promises?
Posted by lyle | December 16, 2007 11:04 AM
David Wu send these out all the time.
It's too sickening.
Posted by Carl | December 16, 2007 1:17 PM
David Wu send these out all the time.
When is the above term up?
Posted by Jack Peek | December 18, 2007 5:51 PM