From Dr. Botello:
        Censorship on the Internet is becoming repugnant to many of my
associates and I.  It is already here, and we don't need additional
censorship coming from our elected officials in Congress and the White House.
        All politicians in our federal government are involved in issues
that affect all Americans every day of our lives, and most of them grab at
every issue that can gain them national and(or) global attention for their
own personal gain, at taxpayers' expense.  To propose regulatory limits on
contacting these tax-subsidized officials is indeed abhorrent.
        We pay good money for access to the Internet, as well as for our
elected officials to represent our national interests.  The added expense of
using the U.S. Postal Service to communicate with these officials defeats
the purpose for why many individuals and organizations are on the Internet
in the first place.
        We either support freedom of speech on the Internet, or we don't.
This is no flame, simply an effort to lend common sense to this matter.
        Our federal officials have plenty of staff when it comes to overseas
junkets.  Reading and responding to E-Mail is far more cost-effective and
easier than opening, reading, responding to and filing Postal Mail, plus our
representatives can know the climate of the nation, of the moment.
----------------------------------------------
From Murphy Sewall:
>>>>I've been in touch with my Congressman <snip>
>>>> I found that>Congressional staffs are aware there's a problem because so
>>>many bozos >send
>>>>blanket mail to everyone in Congress that their mail system has been set to
>>>>simply filter (sometimes with an explanation) mail from any host/domain not
>>>>identifiable as from the Congressperson's home district. >
>>>>/s Murphy A. Sewall <[log in to unmask]>      (860) 486-2489 voice
>>>---------------------------------------------------
 
From Lynn Richardson:
>>>I know this doesn't really relate to this list, but I find this practice
>>>*very* disturbing.
>>>Lynn Richardson, PhD (in political science!)
------------------------------------------------------
From Botello:
>>        To limit our participation in our democratic form of government via
>>the Internet, as Mr. Sewall proposes is not only censorship, but oppressive.
 
From Sewall:
>
>WHOA!  I didn't PROPOSE anything.  I *did* REPORT what is actually
>happening, and it would be far more helpful to give some thought about WHY
>it is happening rather than flaming in random directions.
>
>Think about the problem from the receiving end.  Congressional offices
>handle huge amounts of paper mail--most of it junk and easily identified as
>such.  Congressional staffers have developed procedures for counting the
>number of Xerox'd or otherwise duplicated copies of paper mail without even
>opening most of it.  Even so, handling all that paper mail is costly.
>
>At least with paper mail, those who want to blanket the entire Congress
>have to pay for hundreds of stamps.  Email simply floods the House and
>Senate mail hosts.  As long as any doofus with simple software can send
>duplicate mail to hundreds or millions, the logical consequence is a volume
>of redundant communication beyond reason.  We are approaching a situation
>where the cost of dealing with the flood isn't the issue; it simply ain't
>possible.
>
>One might WISH to think of a member of Congress as representing the whole
>nation, but such a view is fundamentally naive.  The Constitution provides
>for re-election by a very limited constituency, and the practical reality
>is that politicians largely (not entirely) pander to that constituency (to
>do otherwise is to become an idealistic ex-office holder).  Tip O'Neill had
>it right "All politics is local."
>
>I have long (vocally) favored regulatory limits on massive emailing (in the
>form of potential fines for email abuse) precisely because negative
>consequence such as filtering legitimate email have long been foreseeable.
>
>For now, it *might* occur to you that if you REALLY have something
>important to convey to Congresspeople outside your district (such as
>complaining about their mail filters), isn't it worth a 32 cent stamp?
>
>/s Murphy A. Sewall <[log in to unmask]>      (860) 486-2489 voice
>   Professor of Marketing                          (860) 456-7725 fax
>   http://mktg.sba.uconn.edu/MKT/Faculty/Sewall.html
>