I think it's reasonable to believe what many congressional staffers assert, that they read everything. Certainly they will read items from constituents, but especially committee chairs would be interested in national opinion.

I did send email to committee chairs, within the last year, and before the turnover. These got form-responses, but the answering emails did not imply my communication was ignored, rather that they were read.

Reminds me of the time that my 7 year old brother sent a letter to President Reagan, written on that elementary school paper where you have space for a picture at the top, asking why we had to have a war (I can't recall whether there was some actual conflict going on). He got a White House picture book back. I remember the look on his face; I kind of think it permanently shaped his view of politics.

Seriously, though, in an age where dozens if not hundreds of organizations have followed MoveOn into the automated letter to Congress arena, I'd be very surprised if Congressional staff haven't started setting up more barriers on reading and responding to communications from the public. Even figuring there is some way to filter out mass generated emails, it's got to be much more onerous than it used to be.

Misplaced post

I email Hillary and Chuck often.

I've never gotten more than a form back. But I do it with the hope that while they can ignore 1 email, 100 or 1000 they cannot.

Dissent Protects Democracy.

In terms of being "read"--there's a couple of things that happen, and in many senses that's a myth. It's not so much being read as it is "counted". The congressional offices assemble responses to constituent mail by issue. Thus, if they get 1000 form letters from the members of the Veterans of Foreign Wars re: firing the chief of Walter Reed, they'll (a) screen out all the correspondence that's not from the state (if they can) and then (b) draft a one-size fits all response. (If a letter raises multiple issues, they will put multiple canned responses into it.). When it comes time to vote, they take a mail/phone call email count. Then they make their decision.

The chances of an individual letter therefore being read (and responded to in particularity) are much better for those that do not look like form letters or are not drawn from them, but is nonetheless quite small. Although the members keep tabs on the email counts, they don't necessarily do anything more than read selected samples of what their constituents say (if that).

This is not to say that individual staffers don't develop relationships with correspondents under the Senator's name--esp. when thought and effort obviously went into the letter itself). That reflects well on the member, and most encourage it.

I wrote Ms. Pelosi an email regarding this issue--even though i'm in her district, I expect nothing but a form email full of wonderful sounding self-serving platitudes. Why should I expect anything more? It's not like i'm somebody important...like an AIPAC honcho or a lobbyist bearing bagfuls of money.

I think the "not in my district" bit is pretty much congress wide at this point. Email has just made it too easy for us rabble to write in.

But this does have some meaning, doesn't it? I mean, congressional reps might answer to local voters but they're national politicians. The whole point was that they would balance the needs of their constituents with the needs of the nation. But, if they really have an obligation to the whole nation that evveryone is their consituent. What gives? Who do they represent? What's the real answer?

One aside: I've written to Chuck Schumer numerous times and I've never received a response, despite my NYC residence and that I've voted for him. Clinton has responded to every note I've sent her. Yes, in a form manner. But I don't mind that. Schumer? Nothing.

thosethingswesay.blogspot.com

Sometimes there may be an advantage coming from a little state.  I've written my Congressman (Kennedy), and my Senator (Reed), and my old Senator (Chafee) and received written responses from all three.  I've not had occasion to write Whitehouse yet.  I tend to write "thank-yous" as often as demands... given the nature of the delegation this would be expected--they're usually in need of no persuasion to vote as I would wish them to vote.  

Oddly enough, I've taken to writing them less often, because while I send them e-mail letters to their offices, they respond with typewritten, signed (no doubt by machine) letters on official stationery.  I have enough signatures for my collection, and I'd just as soon not add to government expense and to the local land fills by trashing the correspondence.  I sent Kennedy a letter saying that an e-mail acknowledgment would be would be just fine...he didn't have to send me a letter explaining his position which I knew and with which I already agreed.  You guessed it.  I got typewritten letter thanking me for my opinion on the matter.

If my congressman sent me a letter saying he could only reply to his own constituents, I'd probably send his office a copy of Reading is FUNdamental.  I would be satisfied with the kind of acknowledgment acknowledgment Mr. Berkowitz received in this instance, and I would expect that someone down near the bottom of the office staff would put the tick mark in the appropriate column.  I might hope the system was a little more sophisticated--that the first reader would have an eye out for ideas or turns of phrase which might be useful and bump them up the line...a kind of weeding out function a wee bit like the rating system the café uses.

aMike

Howard. I seem to have been un-barred from TPMCafe for some reason. Let me express my utter and absolute pleasure to see you holding forth with a blog of your own. I always found your contributions valuable, thoughtful and humourous. I hope that you are finding the audience you deserve.

The answer to the question, though, is yes.

Here's the link to the to the House oversight committee email form.

They've also got a newsletter you can sign up for. If you want to be effective in these conversation, you need to know what they're working on and what they're telling the