Advice for those of you writing your Congressional delegation...

[F-Trooper05]

I spent six years working on Capitol Hill. One as a staff aide for a particular Senate committee, two as a legislative correspondent for a Senator, and three as a legislative aide for the same Senator.

For those of you who don't know, a legislative corespondent (LC) is basically a fancy title for a young twenty-something just out of college who receives the letters and emails that you write, and is usually the person who writes you back. Generally, Congressmen have one or two LC's who do all of their letters for every issue, while Senators have a whole team of LC's that handle letters for certain issues that they're assigned (IE: a military LC, a healthcare LC, an education LC, etc.). Here's a few things that I picked up as an LC that might help you should you choose to write your Congressional delegation:

* The "boss" will almost never read your letter directly unless they know you personally. But he/she will likely ask their LC's if they've been getting any mail on certain issues. My boss used to ask if we did almost daily whenever there was a hot issue being discussed on the Hill, and would want to know what percentage of it was for or against the issue. Believe me, if a majority of the letters they are receiving are against gun control legislation, they will hear about it.

* Don't send form letters. Form letters are letters that special interest groups will send in on your behalf. You'll usually get them in an email and all you have to do is type in your name and hit 'send.' They all look identical, and the staff knows that you put absolutely zero thought into the issue, and therefore will assume that you probably don't give that big of a shit. When the boss asks if he's getting any mail on a certain issue, he often asks how much of it is form letters, and how much of it is real letters. Real letters (while rarely read by the member of Congress) are still a lot more powerful in the grand scheme of things.

* Don't use snail mail. Everything that gets sent into Capitol Hill has to go through the Capitol Police and is scanned for bombs and anthrax. It usually takes weeks for it to get to its destination, and more often than not, the issue is long over by the time it gets there.

* Don't be a dick. The kid who reads your letter makes about $25K a year and lives in one of the most expensive cities in the country. He spends all day getting yelled out by assholes, and he's just as likely to toss your letter to the side and forget about it for a few weeks as he is to respond to it. Be professional, but make your concerns heard.

* Keep it short and sweet. Remember, the Senator/Congressman will most likely never see your letter, and the guy who will see it spends all day reading long, drawn out sob stories that basically all say the same thing. He doesn't need your life story. A few sentences will do just fine. Let him know you care enough to write your own letter, but keep it short enough to not bore him to death.

Keep in mind, this is what MY old office did. Other offices do things differently, and some offices couldn't care less about mail one way or the other (Boxer and Feinstein were notorious for not giving two shits about their mail or phone calls). If you do have a few mintues to spare, however, take the time to write in (especially if your member is a Democrat). It can, and often does make a difference.

Anyways, I hope this helps.

[Slavex]

Probably some of the best advice a person could get, and it applies up here in Canada too, although I think our snail mail is more effective and timely as it doesn't go through the same drawn out process yours does.

[SeriousStudent]

Thank you for the information, this is very helpful.

I do have a question. You say to not use snail mail. If wish wish to write them a letter, what other options do we have?

Do you just recommend email or fax? I have been calling my reps.

I'm working on a letter to all my elected reps, from the county on up. But if it will take weeks for them to get it, I'd rather find some way to get it on the front burner.

Thanks again.

[F-Trooper05]

Email works just as good as anything (at least it did in our office). All the offices have software that loads all of the email into a file that each LC accesses on their computer. Anything that gets sent in via mail or fax is scanned and loaded into the same system as the email, so at the end of the day it's all going to the same place.

When you go to email your member through their Senate or House website, it might ask you what your issue is regarding, and give you a scroll down list of options to choose from. That's essentially to sort out what LC your letter is going to get sent to.

[JV_]

F-Trooper05 - Great posts!


Anything that gets sent in via mail or fax is scanned and loaded into the same system as the email, so at the end of the day it's all going to the same place.For those that care, you can read about that here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A11470-2004Feb4.html


Be professional, but make your concerns heard.This is sound advise, and it works in more areas than writing your Congressman!

[Mr_White]

F-Trooper05,

Thanks for the timely advice. I am gearing up to start telling Congress what I think.

I do have a couple of questions since you seem to have some insight on this:

I had planned on emailing or faxing to as many members of the House and Senate as possible. Is there any point in sending messages to Reps and Senators other than my Reps and Senators? Or is that not useful? I could just not mention that I am not in their district...

I had planned on emailing or faxing basically every day until the big legislative push is over. Do they keep track of who is writing them and will they see that it is the same person over and over again? Is it better to just email or fax them once?

Thanks very much.

[SteveK]

Thank you for the advice. It's very important to know how to effectively communicate our position. Remember, we are dealing with an issue that has alot of emotion tied to it right know and we have to be polite, informed and sincere.

[ford.304]

I wrote my Democratic congressman. He gave me the polite equivalent of the finger. Didn't vote for him anyway, and he probably knows it.

[F-Trooper05]

F-Trooper05,

Thanks for the timely advice. I am gearing up to start telling Congress what I think.

I do have a couple of questions since you seem to have some insight on this:

I had planned on emailing or faxing to as many members of the House and Senate as possible. Is there any point in sending messages to Reps and Senators other than my Reps and Senators? Or is that not useful? I could just not mention that I am not in their district...

I had planned on emailing or faxing basically every day until the big legislative push is over. Do they keep track of who is writing them and will they see that it is the same person over and over again? Is it better to just email or fax them once?

Thanks very much.


Good questions.

Our policy was to toss letters that weren't from our constituents. There's just too much mail being sent in to address people from other states. You can give a bogus address if you want, but we usually knew when people did that.

And yes, everything you send your member is on file, and your correspondence history can be pulled up with the click of a mouse.

[Mr_White]

And yes, everything you send your member is on file, and your correspondence history can be pulled up with the click of a mouse.

Sorry, I should clarify; I'm not concerned about my communications being kept, I meant 'would they disregard communications beyond the first one and give the additional messages no weight because they know they are from the same person?'

Thanks!

[F-Trooper05]

Sorry, I should clarify; I'm not concerned about my communications being kept, I meant 'would they disregard communications beyond the first one and give the additional messages no weight because they know they are from the same person?'

Thanks!

If you're writing a bunch of letters over a short period of time about the exact same issue, they'll most likely only address you with one response. When I was an LC I would always look at someone's correspondence history, just because we didn't want to send someone a dozen responses with the exact same letter.

For an issue this big, the response you get back (assuming you get a response) will be a form letter. You'll get it either via email or mail (our policy was to respond with an actual letter, never email). It sometimes takes a while because after the LC writes it, the LA has to approve it, then the chief of staff has to approve it, then the Senator has to approve it. And if there are any changes that have to be made, it has to go back down to the LC and then go through the process all over again. So if you're sending multiple letters, there's a chance that they're all stacking up while the office is drafting a response.

[Mr_White]

Ok, thanks. I'm not concerned about responses to me - with our Reps and Senators where I live in Oregon, I don't expect any. I just want to make as much effective noise as I can.

[Tamara]

Any advice on phone calls?

Our incoming Senator is a Blue Dog Democrat who has been darn good on guns as a Rep, but is going to sworn into the Senate right in the middle of this fight.

[F-Trooper05]

Phone calls work pretty much the same way as emails. The staff assistant who answers the phone will take your contact info, and then pass it along to the LC who will respond to you with a letter. You can ask to talk to the LC or LA who handles gun control issues if you want some real answers. There's no guarantee that they'll talk to you, but I would usually try to take calls whenever I was available.

[wrt81]

F-Trooper05 - thank you for the information in this thread, it is very insightful and helpful. I have a few questions I was hoping you could give your input on:

1. I read somewhere online that if you e-mail or call too often about the same issue that they may flag you and pay less attention to you in the future. I've read a lot of posts on gun forums lately where people say they are e-mailing or calling daily. What is your advice as far as frequency?

2. When calling my Senator or Representative I noticed that with some the call goes to a phone menu and there is an option to leave a message with an opinion and then also a message so speak with someone. Would it be more effective to chose the second option and speak with someone directly to leave your message?

Thanks again for your input.

[seabiscuit]

F-Trooper05, wrote both of my senators and my congressman using your advice last week. I'm from Michigan, so my Senators are Debbie Stabenow and Carl Levin. Both are in support of the AWB; Levin is actually a co-sponsor.

Both senators sent form letters back via email (Levin's below). Is it worth replying to that to try and disprove/argue/debate some of the points made in the letter?


Thank you for contacting me about gun safety issues. I appreciate you sharing your views with me.

I support sensible gun safety laws and strict enforcement of those laws to help prevent crimes, suicides and violence committed with firearms. I support the steps President Obama outlined recently to curb the gun violence that plagues our nation, and I believe Congress can and should work to enact legislation to prevent gun violence without infringing on the rights of law-abiding citizens.

I was an original cosponsor of the Brady Law (P.L.103-159). This law requires prospective handgun purchasers to undergo criminal background checks before purchasing a firearm from a licensed dealer. The background check system is able to make 92 percent of background check determinations on the spot, and since 1994, has prevented more than 1.5 million firearm purchases. Additionally, according to Centers for Disease Control statistics, since the Brady Law went into effect, the number of gun deaths in the United States dropped 22 percent, from 39,595 in 1993 to 30,769 in 2007. The number of gun homicides dropped by more than 29 percent, from 17,024 in 1993 to 12,129 in 2007.

While the Brady Law has been successful in reducing gun violence, I believe more has to be done. For example, only 60 percent of all gun sales in the United States take place at licensed federal dealers, where background checks are mandatory. The remaining 40 percent of gun sales are conducted by unlicensed individual sellers, often at gun shows, and a background check is not required. This means that across our nation, any dangerous individual can go to a gun show and purchase a deadly weapon without any form of background check. To close this ‘gun show loophole,’ I am a cosponsor of the Gun Show Background Check Act. This bill would enact the common sense principle that anyone who wants to purchase a firearm at a gun show should be able to pass a simple background check. Ten national police organizations support closing this loophole.

Additionally, I am a cosponsor of the Denying Firearms and Explosives to Dangerous Terrorists Act, a bill that seeks to reduce gun violence by keeping firearms out of the hands of terrorists and criminals. Although hard to believe, nothing in current law prohibits individuals on terrorist watch lists from purchasing firearms, unless they fall into another disqualifying category. This “terror gap” in federal law must be closed, and this bill would do just that. This legislation would deny the transfer of a firearm when a Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) background check reveals that the prospective purchaser is a known or suspected terrorist and the Attorney General has a reasonable belief that the purchaser may use the firearm in connection with terrorism. Keeping guns out of the hands of terrorists is just common sense.

I also have always supported the rights of sportsmen and hunters. Hunting is a way of life for millions of Americans and plays an integral role in modern wildlife management. But military style assault weapons have no sporting purpose. Because of these weapons, our nation’s citizens are in greater danger and police officers across the country are encountering criminals armed with highly lethal military style weapons.

To support our law enforcement community and to save lives, I am a cosponsor of the Assault Weapons Ban of 2013. This legislation would prevent the future possession, manufacture, sale and importation of assault-type weapons while grandfathering weapons lawfully possessed at the date of the bill’s enactment. It would ban firearms with detachable magazines and military style features, such as grenade launchers, protruding pistol grips, and barrel shrouds. It would support law enforcement officers across our nation, who should not be forced to confront lawbreakers toting military arms. And it would protect the rights of hunters by specifically naming thousands of firearms with legitimate sporting, sentimental or other value that would remain legal to possess.

This bill also would ban high capacity ammunition magazines. Studies have shown that high capacity ammunition magazines are used in 31 to 41 percent of fatal police shootings in cities across our nation. They also have been used by the perpetrators of numerous mass shootings, including at Columbine High School, Virginia Tech, the Tucson shooting of Representative Gabrielle Giffords and 19 others, the attack on a movie theater in Aurora, Colorado, and the horrifying shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut. The Newtown shooting alone left twenty six people dead, twenty of them children.

We must not wait until more places are added to this heartbreaking list. We can and should act swiftly to protect our families and loved ones from mass shootings. These measures have the overwhelming support of law enforcement communities around our nation, who have implored us to make changes to stop the flood of these types of weapons into the hands of those who would use them for harm. I will continue to work for common-sense gun safety measures.

Thank you again for contacting me.

[peterb]

Might be worth pointing out that the CMP actively promotes the use of military-style firearms for civilian target competitions.
http://cmp1.zenfolio.com/p844964595

[JRB]

F-Trooper05, wrote both of my senators and my congressman using your advice last week. I'm from Michigan, so my Senators are Debbie Stabenow and Carl Levin. Both are in support of the AWB; Levin is actually a co-sponsor.

Both senators sent form letters back via email (Levin's below). Is it worth replying to that to try and disprove/argue/debate some of the points made in the letter?

It has been my experience that once an elected representative takes a firm stance on a certain issue, the chance of swaying or reversing that stance is asymptotically close to zero.
Usually it will require them to have first-hand experience that disproves that theory in full.
Because our elected representatives are so well guarded already, the chances of them needing a gun in personal self-defense is also damn close to zero.

So my suggestion would be to avoid wasting your time trying to go tit-for-tat and dissect/destroy Levin's obvious head-up-ass syndrome on this subject. He's almost guaranteed not to read it anyway.

Instead, I've been writing response letters that follow a form like this:


(proper greeting)

If you continue to endorse, support, or vote for any form of 'Assault Weapons' ban, any restriction on magazines or magazine capacity, or any other legislation that further restricts the purchase, ownership, and lawful use of any type of firearm or ammunition, I will do EVERYTHING in my power to campaign against you for re-election.
I will vote for your opponent regardless of their stance on gun control or any other topic, on the simple premise that you, as my elected representative, will have already failed completely to defend my lawful constitutional rights, and thus have proven yourself unworthy to be our elected representative. I will encourage everyone I know to vote for your opponent on the same grounds.

Your position exists to defend the constitutional rights & freedoms of everyone in this (state/country/city). I implore you to avoid giving in to emotionally charged and misguided legislation that will do nothing except arbitrarily restrict a constitutional right, while having virtually no effect on the violent crime it seeks to mitigate - ineffectiveness that was already proven by the rightfully defunct 1994 AWB.

Should you rescind your current stance, and vote AGAINST (not abstain) any and all upcoming gun control measures, you will win my support & my vote in the upcoming election.

(proper closing)

I've found the hard way that it's virtually impossible to make any headway against gun grabbers, as they're already maintaining a cognitive dissonance that seems to divorce them from logical, rational thought. So instead of going tit-for-tat, make sure they know they're losing votes, as that's all they really care about.

[F-Trooper05]

F-Trooper05, wrote both of my senators and my congressman using your advice last week. I'm from Michigan, so my Senators are Debbie Stabenow and Carl Levin. Both are in support of the AWB; Levin is actually a co-sponsor.

Both senators sent form letters back via email (Levin's below). Is it worth replying to that to try and disprove/argue/debate some of the points made in the letter?

Generally I would say it wouldn't do much good (especially from Levin since he's a co-sponsor), but aren't you a USAFA cadet? Did either Levin or Stabenow give you nominations? If so, that would have given you VIP treatment in my office, and you'd have been given more than just a form letter via email. Might be worth writing back asking for a more personal response.

[NickA]

So instead of going tit-for-tat, make sure they know they're losing votes, as that's all they really care about.

QFT.
If they know they're losing enough votes, it may sway them. Maybe. They're like that Groucho Marx quote: "These are my principles. If you don't like them, I have others."