Comments on: Legalization advocacy concerns

Question: Legalization advocacy concerns

evilelvis — Fri, 12 May 2006 14:31:53 -0800

Should I be concerned about my emails and letters to my US Senate and House representatives ? I have written to my Maryland federal representatives expressing my opinion on the War on Drugs and support for legalization (marijuana) and decriminilzation (all other "illegal" drugs). I have listed my address as to not be a crackpot when I sent the email. With this issue spiraling out of control - how concerned should I be that I am now going to be on some list somewhere for thinking for myself? I know I am asking this after sending but I was just curious to see what everyone else thought.

By: JekPorkins

JekPorkins — Fri, 12 May 2006 14:45:38 -0800

You shouldn't be concerned at all about it. You should also, in my opinion, always include in letters to your congresspersons an explicit request that they not waste resources writing back to you. But that's just me.

By: WestCoaster

WestCoaster — Fri, 12 May 2006 14:46:24 -0800

Can you imagine what would happen if an elected official were to be found providing names and addresses of constituents (other than those making threats) to the FBI or DHS? Instant political death (as in, forget about running for re-election), assuming a staffer couldn't be sacrificed.

In other words: you shouldn't be concerned at all.

By: birdherder

birdherder — Fri, 12 May 2006 14:52:27 -0800

The legislative branch probably won't snitch on you, but if you sent something to the executive, you might want to watch your back [I hope I'm only joking].

In reality if your letters or emails get more than an aide adding your opinion to a category [War on Drugs -- against] I'd be surprised. In fact you'll probably get canned responses thanking you for your support on an issue even when you don't support it. The dipshit who represents me in the House* sent me a letter thanking me for my support of the renewal of the Patriot Act when in reality I was against it.

You still do have a right to make your opinion known on issues before the Congress.

*Thanks Tom DeLay for redistricting me out of my old Blue district. Now both my congressman and the senators that represent me have their tongues so far up Bush's ass. I pretty much have no voice in Washington.

By: enrevanche

enrevanche — Fri, 12 May 2006 14:56:20 -0800

I've been "out" as as libertarian on decriminalization issues for twenty years (in letters to elected officials at the state and Federal level, among other places.) Hasn't caused me any harm at all, and I've even held a pretty high civilian security clearance (vetted by the Feds) during that time.

Don't sweat it.

By: evilelvis

evilelvis — Fri, 12 May 2006 15:15:03 -0800

Thanks that's what I figured but I have become increasing disillusioned (I am a product of the start of DARE and Just Say No) and I am finally doing something about it...even if it's just writing letters and joining NORML, etc. Appreciate the feedback!

By: clarkstonian

clarkstonian — Fri, 12 May 2006 15:20:32 -0800

It's a sad day when a US citizen has to ask such a question. With this presidency, the answer probably is - if they can get hold of it, they will. But so what? Clinton smoked dope and Bush snorted cocaine, and look where it got them.

If we start being afraid of everything we think, do & say, we're all doomed. I've become more vocal, not less. Stand up for what you believe in.

By: teece

teece — Fri, 12 May 2006 15:29:54 -0800

They were already tapping your phones and reading your email. You were already on the list.

The letter changed nothing.

I wish I was joking.

By: JekPorkins

JekPorkins — Fri, 12 May 2006 15:38:30 -0800

Oh, and if you're advocating the decriminalization of all narcotics and other controlled substances, your congressperson's staff will probably think you're a wacko, which won't help your cause much.

By: mkultra

mkultra — Fri, 12 May 2006 15:38:57 -0800

I wouldn't be at all surprised if your email, on its way through the senate.gov (or house.gov) mail server, were parsed and some tick went off in your file. The technology to do is too easy, IMO, for the government not to be doing it.

That said, I bet there are a lot of people with ticks on their file, so I wouldn't lose any sleep over it.

By: chudmonkey

chudmonkey — Fri, 12 May 2006 16:05:18 -0800

If your preferences re: how your government should behave were causing your name to be added to some list, would you stop expressing your preferences?

You have to control your government and stand up for your beliefs, even (especially) in the face of tyranny.

By: bim

bim — Fri, 12 May 2006 16:35:31 -0800

Relax. Unless there was a big campaign donation attached nobody cares. Some intern read you email and that was the end of it.

By: schwap23

schwap23 — Fri, 12 May 2006 16:36:31 -0800

I actually interned in a congressional office, once upon a time (Sander Levin, then 17th district, outside Detroit), so I can tell you a few things.

1. There is a *staggering* amount of mail everyday. Took two of us about 2 hours to go through all of it.

2. Most of the mail that comes in is junk, just like what you and I get. Only without so many credit card offers.

3. Constituent mail is different. I don't know if this was unique to this office or what, but any actual mail (i.e. not part of a letter writing campaign) that we got from a constituent was treated almost as a holy relic. The congressman didn't always read them, but there was a good chance that he might. If it was just an aide, the constituent letter went on the top of the pile.

3a. Letters that were judged to be part of letter writing campaign, (pretty easy to spot) were still noted carefully, but it was more of keeping a tally. "14 letters in favor of legislation X today"

So far as I know, no long term records were kept, so the only way that an individual would stand out would be through repeated exposure. Say, a letter every month or two. I agree with the previous poster who said it would be political suicide for the congresscritter to turn over info about their constituents to any sort of outside authority. Barring active threats of course! Along the same lines, we kept a folder containing some of the champion nutcase letters, so we could pull it out on slow days and have a laugh. You know, the ones written in 4 point type, out to the margins, about how the CIA, the Gnomes of Zurich and the dog next door were conspiring to keep the price of milk artificially high...

I should, in all fairness also say that this was all taking place in pre-internet days (wide spread internet, anyway), and this was just one office. Standards might be different now, or in different offices. Still, the halls of congress are one of the few places were you can meet people who honestly and wholeheartedly still believe in the power of American Democracy. All that stuff you rolled your eyes about in high school civics class is an absolute reality to them. You are a voter, and they are not going to purposely alienate you. Ignore you, sure, but that's different!

By: rmm

rmm — Fri, 12 May 2006 18:22:47 -0800

I'll second schwap's answer. I have had some experience with government records (i.e. analyzing a premier's letters received by admin staff) and unless it's a threatenning letter all other letters seem to be destroyed - simply because there's not enough space to keep them all, let alone enter people's names into a database ('person x wrote about issue y') other than to produce the envelope and form letter that goes back to you. If you're really worried, maybe a form letter from an organization like moveon.org etc. is a good safe bet - you can always say they wrote the content, and it's no crime to belong to a group like that. anyway. The main point is that you should keep voicing your opinion - it's still a democracy, albeit a fragile one.

By: mkultra

mkultra — Fri, 12 May 2006 18:31:44 -0800

schwap23 and rmm- I agree with you both about snail mail, but the poster is specifically referring to email. All that information hits a central server (the senate.gov or house.gov mail server) and is then routed to them. A lot can happen to that information without individual Congressmen ever knowing about it. All you'd need to do is re-train a spam filter to look for different words and patterns.

By: cfg

cfg — Fri, 12 May 2006 19:39:12 -0800

I actually work for the Senate and every message is at least handled. The volume is staggering, and mass amounts of correspondence come in from many sources - fax, email, paper mail and phone calls.

Most Senate offices have people dedicated to data entry that enter handle incoming paper mail and put it into one of the constituent correspondence management systems (CCMS). Some mail does make it to the Senator, other mail is handled by legislative staff who either write a custom response that is approved by more senior staff, or choose a canned response.

There are 3 certified CCMS products in the Senate:
IQ, http://www.lockheedmartin.com/wms/findPage.do?dsp=fec&ci=15216&sc=400
InterTrac: http://www.computerworks.com/
and Capitol Correspond: http://www.interamerica.com/

Senators do not request certain email messages be blocked because they do not agree with a topic, they process all mail accordingly. Public perception is very important in politics and intentionally ignoring constituents would be political suicide.

By: evilelvis

evilelvis — Fri, 12 May 2006 21:55:19 -0800

I run the ISP I send mail from so I know internally I don't have anything to worry about since I am the tech contact and the only one who well...would do anything about it...but yes, outside influences especially as of late makes me wonder. Plus my ordering of leaves from sagewisdom.org (100% legal even stated on the DEA wesite) and certain Amazon orders, shit I could connect the dots in an evil way (despite my completely harmlessness)

However - I have nothing to hide so advocate and be more free than any politician.

By: crabintheocean

crabintheocean — Sun, 04 Jun 2006 09:55:33 -0800

I wouldn't worry about it at all. I don't think pro-legalization ideas are very threatening to the administration. If you were writing about something related to Iraq, the treatment of muslims, the Patriot act etc, I think you'd be much more likely to go on a list.

BUT I WOULD STILL THINK THAT YOU SHOULD KEEP DOING IT.