Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

What Covid has taught Congress about constituent communications

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez town hall with constituents

Despite terrible approval ratings for Congress as a whole, individual lawmakers such as Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez are still seen as a trusted source of information at town hall sessions.

Drew Angerer/Getty Images

Meeker is a fellow working on the Connecting to Congress project at Ohio State University's Institute for Democratic Engagement and Accountability.


I worked for a member of Congress from 2016 to last year and saw a lot of town halls in that time. The constituent questions in those days — the before times — usually fell into predictable patterns. But when I started working on a new form of virtual and deliberative town halls during the coronavirus pandemic, I was startled to hear an entirely different kind of question.

"What should you do if you are ill and it is not Covid-19?" a person in Oklahoma asked in April. "Is it safe to go to any emergency room?" In California in August, it was: "What is the best type of mask we should wear?" In Massachusetts in October, one teacher asked what she should do to protect her students if the windows in her building didn't open.

The questions weren't just about public safety, but also economic survival: In April, a small-business owner in Florida asked, "My bank has not submitted the application to the SBA. What options do I have now that there is no money left?" And from countless constituents, over the entire summer: I'm having trouble reaching my state's unemployment office. What do I do?

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter

For all Congress' abysmal approval ratings, constituents still go to their own House members for information they can trust. Our town halls have been a perfect example of this: Understanding the confusion over rapidly changing guidance, members showed up to provide trusted and nonpartisan information. And, central to our research, it has not been just one-way: Our town halls have been two-way streets, with members both pushing out helpful information and taking in helpful feedback and direction from their constituents.

Our work during the pandemic shows Congress can and should play a vital role in making sure the country gets necessary information in a crisis. As a report from the Congressional Management Foundation noted recently, in this type of emergency our House members and senators may be the only reliable conduit of information from the federal government to state and local officials.

However, these members remain captive to a technology ecosystem that requires them to stretch limited budgets to do even basic outreach and event work.

Let's look at some barriers Congress faces to fulfilling its role. A good town hall requires both good outreach, to reach a broad group of constituents, and good logistics, to ensure the event is worth attending and no one gets turned away by a technical mistake.

A House member's annual budget is about $1.4 million. That money has to cover staff salaries, rent for office space in their districts, operations, outreach, equipment and services including technology.

No one hands new members lists of their constituents' names and addresses. Those must be purchased, usually from the same company that sells software to handle constituent mail, casework and more. And there are only a handful of approved vendors, driving up the cost. And what's for sale are lists only of registered voters — at best, about three-quarters of each member's 700,000 or so constituents.

In addition, the vendors charge several thousand dollars to stage virtual meetings with constituents — so-called tele-town-halls. The district where I used to work had 38 cities and towns. The cost of holding a virtual town hall in each would easily top $150,000 — or (looking at congressional averages) about three full-time caseworkers.

And, aside from a few clunky live poll options, these platforms are not set up for real discussions between members and constituents. The technology dictates minimal two-way interaction, and our data show that does not enhance voters' long-term trust in their House members.

All this means holding a town hall is a choice with big tradeoffs — when it should be an expected matter of national service.

The House's Select Committee on the Modernization of Congress this year made several recommendations for improving constituent communication and modernizing technology. Based on our experience hosting town halls during the pandemic, we would add four ways to improve tele-town-halls:

Money. Set aside money for each member to run accessible town halls, separate from the regular member budget. (Members wishing to do more or more specialized town halls could use their regular budgets.) To encourage more nonpartisan events and bipartisan collaboration, provide extra money for bipartisan town halls with members of both parties.

Mail. Standardize and subsidize the constituent contact information members have access to, including an opt-in system for Postal Service residential information that goes beyond voter files.

Tech. Improve House technology so members have expanded options for tele-town-halls. The proliferation of videoconferencing software during Covid makes us optimistic that more flexible, agile and deliberative systems can be put to work.

Training. Improve education for the House on new models and best practices for town halls.

Members across the country are pushing the envelope for what is possible with a deliberative, congressional town hall. We applaud these efforts, and hope that the House will continue to support its own evolution into the 21st century.

Read More

Project 2025: The Department of Labor

Hill was policy director for the Center for Humane Technology, co-founder of FairVote and political reform director at New America. You can reach him on X @StevenHill1776.

This is part of a series offering a nonpartisan counter to Project 2025, a conservative guideline to reforming government and policymaking during the first 180 days of a second Trump administration. The Fulcrum's cross partisan analysis of Project 2025 relies on unbiased critical thinking, reexamines outdated assumptions, and uses reason, scientific evidence, and data in analyzing and critiquing Project 2025.

The Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025, a right-wing blueprint for Donald Trump’s return to the White House, is an ambitious manifesto to redesign the federal government and its many administrative agencies to support and sustain neo-conservative dominance for the next decade. One of the agencies in its crosshairs is the Department of Labor, as well as its affiliated agencies, including the National Labor Relations Board, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation.

Project 2025 proposes a remake of the Department of Labor in order to roll back decades of labor laws and rights amidst a nostalgic “back to the future” framing based on race, gender, religion and anti-abortion sentiment. But oddly, tucked into the corners of the document are some real nuggets of innovative and progressive thinking that propose certain labor rights which even many liberals have never dared to propose.

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter

Keep ReadingShow less
Preamble to the U.S. Constitution
mscornelius/Getty Images

We can’t amend 'We the People' but 'we' do need a constitutional reboot

LaRue writes at Structure Matters. He is former deputy director of the Eisenhower Institute and of the American Society of International Law.

The following article was accepted for publication prior to the attempted assassination attempt of Donald Trump. Both the author and the editors determined no changes were necessary.

Keep ReadingShow less
Beau Breslin on C-SPAN
C-CSPAN screenshot

Project 2025: A C-SPAN interview

Beau Breslin, a regular contributor to The Fulcrum, was recently interviewed on C-SPAN’s “Washington Journal” about Project 2025.

Breslin is the Joseph C. Palamountain Jr. Chair of Political Science at Skidmore College and author of “A Constitution for the Living: Imagining How Five Generations of Americans Would Rewrite the Nation’s Fundamental Law.” He writes “A Republic, if we can keep it,” a Fulcrum series to assist American citizens on the bumpy road ahead this election year. By highlighting components, principles and stories of the Constitution, Breslin hopes to remind us that the American political experiment remains, in the words of Alexander Hamilton, the “most interesting in the world.”

Keep ReadingShow less
People protesting laws against homelessness

People protest outside the Supreme Court as the justices prepared to hear Grants Pass v. Johnson on April 22.

Matt McClain/The Washington Post via Getty Images

High court upholds law criminalizing homelessness, making things worse

Herring is an assistant professor of sociology at UCLA, co-author of an amicus brief in Johnson v. Grants Pass and a member of the Scholars Strategy Network.

In late June, the Supreme Court decided in the case of Johnson v. Grants Pass that the government can criminalize homelessness. In the court’s 6-3 decision, split along ideological lines, the conservative justices ruled that bans on sleeping in public when there are no shelter beds available do not violate the Constitution’s prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment.

This ruling will only make homelessness worse. It may also propel U.S. localities into a “race to the bottom” in passing increasingly punitive policies aimed at locking up or banishing the unhoused.

Keep ReadingShow less
Project 2025: A federal Parents' Bill of Rights

Republican House members hold a press event to highlight the introduction in 2023.

Bill O'Leary/The Washington Post via Getty Images

Project 2025: A federal Parents' Bill of Rights

Biffle is a podcast host and contributor at BillTrack50.

This is part of a series offering a nonpartisan counter to Project 2025, a conservative guideline to reforming government and policymaking during the first 180 days of a second Trump administration. The Fulcrum's cross partisan analysis of Project 2025 relies on unbiased critical thinking, reexamines outdated assumptions, and uses reason, scientific evidence, and data in analyzing and critiquing Project 2025.

Project 2025, the conservative Heritage Foundation’s blueprint for a second Trump administration, includes an outline for a Parents' Bill of Rights, cementing parental considerations as a “top tier” right.

The proposal calls for passing legislation to ensure families have a "fair hearing in court when the federal government enforces policies that undermine their rights to raise, educate, and care for their children." Further, “the law would require the government to satisfy ‘strict scrutiny’ — the highest standard of judicial review — when the government infringes parental rights.”

Keep ReadingShow less