If you send an email to your friend asking for her opinion on the Iraq War, you probably expect to hear back from her in less than a week … and you certainly don’t expect to receive a postal letter several weeks later with her thoughts on the conflict. So you might be surprised to learn that even in this day and age many Members of Congress still respond to email with postal mail.

A recent study from the Congressional Management Foundation (CMF), “Communicating with Congress: How Capitol Hill is Coping with the Surge in Citizen Advocacy,” found that less than half (38 percent) of the Senate offices and only 17 percent of the House offices surveyed respond to all email with email. Despite the advantages that most companies, individuals, and even local governments have discovered by embracing email, the Congress is still somewhat resistant to jump head-first into the information age.

People who work in the private sector are stunned when they learn that congressional offices sometimes view email communications from constituents more as a burden than an opportunity. Businesses would, and do, pay dearly to determine what it is that their customers want and to obtain their valid email addresses, whereas Members of Congress regularly receive emails from people who in essence are their “customers” with complete contact information and a specific stated interest in an issue. Still, this increasing flow of direct outreach from constituents can frustrate Congressional office staffers.

From Congress’ viewpoint, there are many reasons to resist the march of technology. Our national legislature is largely an institution bound by traditions and customs. It’s not a bad thing that the institution that creates the laws of the land does not shift with every passing fad. But the Internet is no passing fad.

Beltway Bogeyman

Here is the fear voiced by some staff on Capitol Hill: What if a Congressperson’s position on an issue is intentionally altered in an email message after it leaves the office, and then forwarded as if it originated from the Congressperson?

But despite the fears and the anecdotes, I have not seen or heard evidence of this occurring and neither has CMF. Like your average urban myth, it sounds plausible and scary. While it could happen, it hasn’t.

It is highly unlikely that reporters would re-print or quote an email that was forwarded to them without checking with the Congressional office from which it supposedly originated.

Simple Solutions

And there are a couple of measures that Members can take to ensure that their messages sent via email aren’t distorted. Technological fixes include key encryption packages, such as one offered by M.I.T.; these encrypt the message with a key for the sender and a key for the intended recipient so the message can be accessed only by those two parties. Alternately and more simply, some offices include a footer in each message they send that states that the office cannot vouch for the integrity of the message if it did not originate from a specific email address.

A far more likely scenario is constituents’ forwarding the message that they receive unaltered, thereby magnifying the audience for each message – something Members would usually appreciate.

The majority of staff included in the CMF surveys feel that the advent of the Internet and email have had a positive effect on democracy. However, you get the sense that they believe sending a form email, from an advocacy group’s website for instance, takes such little effort that it doesn’t mean much. It’s not for nothing that Congress is known as a deliberative body, and this distrust of newfangled technologies (even widely-accepted innovations such as the Internet and email) is based partly on institutional history that ensures that change doesn’t occur rapidly. Famously, Thomas Edison urged congressional electronic voting in 1869. Apparently this was such a good idea that Congress adopted the technology … a mere century later.

Little to Lose, Lots to Gain

Interestingly, data from The George Washington University Institute for Politics, Democracy and the Internet support that no matter how citizens choose to communicate with their elected officials – via email, phone call or postal letter – those who do make the effort are “influentials” in their communities. Influentials are more likely to vote, work for a campaign, donate to a cause or candidate and generally influence the decisions of their fellow community members.

So, discounting those who “only have to click a button” to send a message is politically risky, at best. By sending email, they’ve indicated their preferred method of contact. Plus, Congressional offices seem to be missing an important point: if it is easy for these influential constituents to contact a politician, it’s just as easy for them to tell others when a politician is non-responsive.

Those Members of Congress who embrace technology simply by answering email with email will reap huge rewards. They stand to reduce costs incurred by snail mail – paper, toner and staff time spent stuffing envelopes. Ultimately, they’ll be more responsive to those citizens who make a difference in their communities. Sounds like democracy to me.

Susie Gorden worked on Capitol Hill for several years, and recently became the Director of Government Outreach and Citizen Communications for Capitol Advantage. Stints in advocacy, research and journalism preceded her time on the Hill. As such, she’s generated and answered lots of political communications.