by Pam Greenberg
Do your state legislative rules need to be changed to accommodate new methods of communication between legislators and their constituents? Congress found this to be the case.
In January, YouTube.com opened two new web channels that help citizens find and view videos posted by members of Congress. YouTube calls the sites a "backstage pass" to the U.S. Senate and House, where others on YouTube can engage directly with their representatives.
However, there's more to the story than is apparent from the sites themselves. Last year, Mother Jones blog reported that Congress was struggling to reconcile antiquated franking rules with social networking sites like YouTube and Twitter:
Suppose you're a congressman, and you'd like to post a periodic video message on your website updating constituents on your activities. You film it, post it on YouTube, and embed a link on your homepage. It's that easy, right? Wrong. By including YouTube content on your page, you'd find yourself in violation of policies that pre-date the Internet by a couple hundred years.
The Commission on Congressional Mailing Standards, or the "Franking Commission" oversees rules requiring that government funding is not used for partisan or campaign purposes. According to Mother Jones, the Chairman of the Franking Commission, Rep. Michael Capuano:
…set forth a series of suggestions for changes to House rules, recommending that video be permitted, but that it "not be posted on a website or page where it may appear with commercial or political information or any other information not in compliance with the House's content guidelines." Translation: members of Congress would be prohibited from using YouTube unless the website creates a separate channel that meets "whatever requirements are established by the House administration committee."
The separate channels are now available, with a note on each page stating "The content in each Representative's YouTube channel is controlled by each Congressperson's office. The House Hub is maintained by YouTube.com, as a way for you to engage directly with your Representatives on YouTube."
Congress Daily's TechDaily Dose provides more of the back story behind the rules changes for the sites:
The Senate Rules Committee and House Administration Committee each adopted changes to their chambers' Internet usage regulations last year to clarify the circumstances under which members are allowed to place content on external Web sites. The process was a somewhat benign one in the Senate but was hotly debated in the House. In July, Boehner and Rep. Michael Capuano, D-Mass., who chairs the Commission on Mailing Standards, traded blows over proposals that were under consideration. Read CongressDaily's coverage of that
debate and
here.
The new sites have garnered praise for increasing transparency and citizen outreach, but some still are raising questions about the propriety of Congress selecting a single commercial online tool for its members’ videos. A commentator on the Sunlight Foundation’s blog raises even more what-ifs:
For example, what happens to the user data as people click on the Congressional YouTube channels? Does Google get to collect, analyze and use such data for its growing political online advertising business? Beyond privacy, should Congress be endorsing a private for-profit venture as the principal access point voters and constituents need to use? Does the use of YouTube create a potential conflict of interest for members of Congress who will need to regulate Google…?
It may only be a matter of time before state legislatures also resolve the issues and create YouTube channels. Several state legislative caucuses already have channels: The Utah Senate Site (sponsored by the Utah Senate Majority), the California Senate Democrats, Connecticut House Republicans, Connecticut Senate Democrats, New Jersey Assembly Democrats and New Jersey Senate Republicans.
Gene Rose previously posted Thicket accounts about legislative candidates and legislators using YouTube, and suggested how legislators might use YouTube for opening session speeches.
Comments