The Rag Blog: David P. Hamilton : Change You Can, You Know, Believe In...

The Rag Blog: David P. Hamilton : Change You Can, You Know, Believe In...

Graphic from Pyrrhic Defeat.
Consumer choice division:

Change you can believe in

By David P. Hamilton / The Rag Blog / April 4, 2012

I could no longer tolerate the bell chamber of American cable news. Its obsessive fixation on the still months-away American presidential election pitting two candidates approved by the 1% was driving me up the wall. I would regurgitate involuntarily if forced to watch one more of that repulsive manifestation of all the worst features of America, the Republican primary debates.

So, I dumped Time Warner for the Dish to get access to better news sources. The Dish gets us Al Jazeera, Democracy Now, and RT (Russia Today -- media home of numerous American leftists), Link TV, Free Speech TV, and several other international sources of information. What a relief. Now I had a much wider selection of biases. But there remain issues.

This enhanced news selection prominently includes the various shows of Thom Hartmann, most notably, the “Big Picture” that appears on both RT and Free Speech. He also does a couple of hours of live call-in, just him talking and answering calls on camera.

Thom is very busy and generally very sharp. We are fortunate that he is there. Sometimes he does a feature where he debates two rightists at the same time. They are perpetually on the defensive. We first caught his show on San Francisco’s cable television. Then we found a way to get him in Austin.

After watching a few days and getting a bit excited, I called Thom's show and asked the following question:

Thom, you support a constitutional amendment to take corporate money out of politics and revoke corporate personhood. So do I. But to enact a constitutional amendment, it must be passed by two-thirds of the members of the Congress and then in three-fourths of the state legislatures.

If our democracy is already seriously corrupted by corporate money, how can we expect legislators who are already largely sycophants of corporate America, to act against the interests of those who pay so handsomely for their services by voting for this amendment?

Thom’s answer, confirmed by his Washington reporter guest, was that they have heard many legislators say that they really hate having to raise money all the time. If only enough of the electorate pressured them, they would vote for the amendment. They essentially argued that these are good people who just need a little support in order to do the right thing.

Basically, I asked Thom whether or not democracy was already dead in America and Thom answered by saying no, just on life support.

As much as I admire Thom, there is some fuzzy thinking here. He is campaigning hard for an amendment that is premised on the idea that democracy in America is quite seriously compromised already. Yet he appeals to the corrupted institution to rise up and cleanse itself. You can’t have it both ways.

You can hardly expect the utmost beneficiaries of the burgeoning economic inequality that so heavily compromises our democracy to instruct their functionaries in the so-called “public” sector to rectify the situation in our favor.

Most legislators are already virtual employees of the less than 1%, the capitalist class who own the controlling interests in the major corporations. They are in that role because they are highly adapted to the corrupted system. They like money and power, the respectful recognition and bounteous benefits they acquire by being political operatives of the rich and powerful.

Thom’s answer posits that they are actually there to do what's best for the country and the general population and are only inhibited from doing so by the need to raise millions to run their necessarily expensive campaigns, money readily supplied by the dastardly corporations. That's nonsense. If that were true, they would have passed public financing of political campaigns years ago.

The amendment to overturn “Citizens United” may be a wonderful device to focus the public on the issue of how economic inequality corrupts our democracy, but it will pass when pigs fly.

Which brings us to a fundamental question. Is economic reform that measurably effects income distribution in the U.S., and consequently the class structure, still possible given the current level of political corruption by corporate money?

The answer is not very possible, if at all, and the potential is diminishing. The ruling economic elite can only be expected to instruct their political servants to minimize their social responsibilities as much as possible and to increase their access to government money. They have unswerving faith in a religion called the "Free Market” -- and Social Darwinism that allows them to take this course without the least guilt.

What is the difference in corporate deference between Democrats and Republicans? The former have progressive voting constituencies that must be placated to some small degree, but just enough to distinguish them from Republicans.

The most crucial arena is the tax structure. Specifically, will the Democrats end the Bush tax cuts for the rich when they again have the chance? Despite the fact they controlled both houses of Congress and the presidency for two years, they did not do so when it was last up for a vote. Will they risk bing labeled as those who raised taxes or will they again “bargain it away”? I advise you to limit your expectations.

Before the “Citizens United” decision, the barriers limiting corporate control of the political process were already full of holes. With that decision, they fell by the wayside entirely.

As a direct result, we today have the spectacle of a Las Vegas gambling tycoon openly giving $15 million to Newt Gingrich to run his campaign. Given the donor’s reputed wealth of many billions, that’s pocket change. That example is just the egregious tip of the iceberg. It would be hard to argue that most legislators are not already at this point, beneficiaries of significant corporate largesse.

This system, like others, produces politicians that are adaptive to it. Insofar as there are still shining examples of probity in regards to corporate cash, given this burst of judicial activism by the Supremes, they are a dying breed.

Witness the strenuous effort that has been exerted for years to get rid of Congressman Lloyd Doggett of Austin. Eventually, his right-wing detractors will find the right district, the right flunky, and enough big bucks to take him down.

Their personhood is immoral, devious, relentless, and infinitely well financed. Corporations will continue to own the controlling interest in an enterprise known as the U.S. government and they will expand their holdings, because there is nothing to stop them and very little chance that things will change.

Consider also the important role the federal government now plays in relation to the private sector. Forbes magazine recently reported that of the 10 richest counties in the U.S., half of them bordered on Washington, D.C. Average household income in these counties hovers around $100,000 per year.

In recent decades northern Virginia has become an economic dynamo, driven by a private sector that feasts on government contracting. These counties are also home to corporate lobbyists, lawyers and consultants who work in or around the nation's capital, soaking up federal government spending.

There is no other prize more valuable to corporate elites than maintaining their control over the power and wealth of the federal government for their private gain. They are firmly in the driver’s seat now and have the power to change the rules to their further advantage. No election occurring in other than catastrophic conditions will change that and in such conditions, they probably won’t allow elections.

As American anarchist Emma Goodman once said, "If you could change things by voting, it would be illegal."

Whatever may have been the case in the past, serious reform that alters the class structure or the political institutions of American society in favor of the 99% is no longer possible by electoral means.

[Rag Blog contributor David P. Hamilton has been a political activist in Austin since the late 1960s when he worked with SDS and wrote forThe Rag, Austin's underground newspaper. Read more articles by David P. Hamilton on The Rag Blog.]

MIT Economist: Income Inequality In The U.S. Is Crushing The Middle Class’ Political Power

By Pat Garofalo on Mar 23, 2012 at 5:55 pm 

Thanks in large part to the Occupy Wall Street movement, the debilitating effects of income inequality have been hoisted into the national spotlight. But in addition to killing economic growthand economic mobility, income inequality also exacerbates political inequality.

Today, ThinkProgress spoke with MIT economistDaron Acemoglu, whose new book, Why Nations Fail(co-written by James Robinson), looks at the effect politics and policy have on economic growth and prosperity. Acemoglu said that he believes the most “pernicious” effect of income inequality is that it drains political power from lower- and middle-class Americans and allows the richest to then begin “changing the rules in their favor”:

I think there’s a lot of debate about the economic impact of income inequality. There’s literature on how greater inequality might slow economic growth because it creates a less conducive environment for consumer demand or credit. But at the end, my view, and that of our book with James Robinson, is that the more pernicious effect of economic inequality comes indirectly through its impact on political inequality. it’s a general pattern throughout history, and we see around today, that when economic inequality increases, the people who have become economically more powerful will often attempt to use that power in order to gain even more political power. And once they are able to monopolize political power, they will start using that for changing the rules in their favor. And that sort of political inequality is the real danger that’s facing the United States.

Watch it:

Acemoglu added that the Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United and the growth in Super PAC spending are only going to make this problem worse by increasing the importance of money in politics. “We already had a very serious problem,” he said. “Instead of trying to stem that tide, we’ve done the opposite and we’ve now opened the sluice gate and said you can use that money with no restrictions whatsoever.” According to calculations by Council of Economic Advisers chairman Alan Kruegar, the shift in income inequality over the last three decades has been the equivalent of moving $1.1 trillion of income from the 99 percent to the top 1 percent every single year.

Next Move to Amend organizing meeting, Nov. 21

What: Move to Amend  organizing meeting regarding volunteer strategy, action, and other volunteer opportunities. 

 

Where:  Rice Street Library.  1011 Rice St., Saint Paul, MN.

 

When:  Monday, November 21^st 5:30 – 7:30 pm.

 

Additional Information:  Free.  Snacks and drinks will be provided.  Please RSVP / Register in advance. To register, just respond to this email with a commitment to attend.  The meeting room holds 35 people, so we want folks who are dedicated to contributing to Move to Amend on a volunteer / action basis.  Participation with Move to Amend is democratic.  As a group we will decide what actions are taken and how to best reach our goal through individual roles. 

Constitutional Moments: The People's Voice

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

A constitutional amendment is the wrong way to get money out of politics

Five reasons why a constitutional amendment is the wrong way to get money out of politics

  The objective to get money out of politics is the highest priority issue, without which no democratic political agenda can succeed. Money in politics is at the root of all of the country's political and economic problems.
 Some who since Citizens United are discussing this issue have proposed the idea that a constitutional amendment should be pursued to get money out of politics. The idea that this is the best or even a good way to reach that goal is misguided. A constitutional amendment is unnecessary, insufficient, wasteful and otherwise an impractical and even dangerous idea.
 The only practical remedy is comprehensive legislation. Most briefly stated, a proposal for a constitutional amendment aims at the wrong problem. The constitution is not the problem; the problem is five plutocratic justices who, having corrupted the other branches of government by mandating a system of money in politics, has entrenched a plutocratic majority on the Court. They do not care about the Constitution or the rule of law. They have intentionally installed plutocratic rule and will continue to maintain this corrupt system until we the people act effectively to stop them.
 The constitution itself -- unamended -- shows us exactly how to do that. Here are the details comparing the proposal for a constitutional amendment with the infinitely preferable alternative of ordinary legislation.

 1.  A constitutional amendment is unnecessary
The Constitution (Art. I, Sections 4 & 5) already gives Congress the power to regulate and judge elections, provided only that they do not use that power to entrench minority rule contrary to the core democratic axiom of one person, one vote.  Prior to 1976 no Supreme Court had encroached on this power of Congress, because the "political question doctrine" had for nearly two centuries precluded them from doing so.  In 1976 the Supreme Court established a metaphor that "money is speech" as a way to intrude upon and limit Congress' power to guarantee the integrity of elections.
The Exceptions Clause (Article III, Sec.2, Cl, 2, Sentence 2) of the Constitution empowers Congress to take away from the Supreme Court any authority to make decrees overturning state and federal laws designed to safeguard the integrity of elections, or otherwise concerning elections. The Exceptions Clause is the means provided by the Constitution to defend from judicial tyranny the democratic authority of Congress, and of the people who elect Congress. This is a general power to make exceptions to the Court's appellate jurisdiction -- which is the basis for all relevant decisions the Court has made to undermine democratic elections, including five decisions since 2006 by the Roberts 5. The Exceptions Clause would certainly justify removing the Court from the decision of political questions, which were prohibited by the Court's own decisions prior to 1976.

2. A constitutional amendment is insufficient, and would be less effective than comprehensive legislation because:

a) It is by nature far too brief to cover all of the detailed provisions that will be necessary to effectively remove money from politics. Detailed and comprehensive legislation addressing all aspects of money in politics would be needed to enforce any such amendment in any case.
b) By being inherently brief, abstract in literary form, and general, an amendment could be deliberately misinterpreted in its details by the same Supreme Court that has proven capable of twisting other provisions to its own anti-democratic ends. Those interpretations could open up loopholes not intended by those who supported and voted for the amendment. The Court is no stranger to this tactic. In the first Gilded Age the 14th amendment was distorted so as to protect corporations instead of its intended beneficiaries. Any constitutional amendment in the New Gilded Age could easily be treated the same way by the even more politicized and disingenuous Roberts 5.

100. It is unwise to give this Supreme Court new constitutional text to interpret. Such text is subject to the Supreme Court's final word on its meaning (unless Congress can be forced to exercise its Exceptions Clause powers). If an ordinary law is misinterpreted by the Supreme Court, Congress can pass another law expressly reversing the Supreme Court's decision, rather than go through the lengthy process of amending the constitution just to overturn a bad Supreme Court decision. Unlike a law, a constitutional amendment on a subject within its jurisdiction turns over to the Supreme Court the task of finally determining what it means.  An amendment would give the Roberts 5, who have no fidelity to law, legal process, precedent or logic - only to their plutocrat sponsors, and who are the very cause of the problem,  the last say what the amendment means.
     By adopting the mistaken idea that the amendment was necessary to support a law, the Roberts 5 could use a distorted interpretation of the amendment to strike down key parts of the law as unconstitutional. Possibilities for mischief are limited only by the imagination of judges who have shown themselves to have very fertile imaginations in service of plutocracy, as well as the ability to create opaque and convoluted legal rationalizations in support of their anti-democratic political decrees. A constitutional amendment -- rather than taking power away from the Supreme Court, gives them power to determine the meaning of new constitutional text. A simple law leaves that power with Congress, and the people who elect them.

3.  Attempting a constitutional amendment is wasteful of scarce political capital because it would be many times more difficult and time-consuming than would enactment of a comprehensive law.
The constitutional amendment proposal diverts political capital to an impossible task.
A constitutional amendment process is far more difficult and time consuming than getting a single comprehensive law through Congress. In order to battle corporations and oligarchs to get an amendment passed it would be necessary to first get 2/3d's of the members of each house of Congress to vote against Congress' usual paymasters, and then also elect a majority of legislators in 38 states who would resist the growing temptations of political money. Money can be expected to battle any such amendment designed to take away its power at every stage of this process.
To pass comprehensive legislation that would in fact reverse Citizens United and the "money=speech" concept, while plugging all the loopholes by which money gets into politics would require only one law supported by a majority of Congress (provided this majority in the Senate first changed its rules to foreclose a filibuster on legislation involving election integrity.)
Winning a majority vote in Congress is obviously far easier and quicker than winning a 2/3d's vote in Congress for the proposed amendment plus winning the ratification vote in 38 states. If the former is barely conceivable, the latter is totally inconceivable, no more than wishful thinking.
There has not been a constitutional amendment proposed and adopted since 1971, before the modern era of money in politics started in 1976 with the creation of the Court's "money=speech" gimmick. The last amendment (#27) was adopted over 200 years after it was proposed. The ERA, the equal rights for women amendment proposed by Congress in 1972 at the tail end of the last era of reform, was the last progressive movement for a constitutional amendment. Though it would have been of direct benefit to a majority of voters, the ERA ratification campaign which was vigorous and successful up to 1975 slowed to a halt after the era of money in politics began in 1976. The ERA fell three states short of success when the period for ratification expired in 1982.
Money gets any constitutional changes it needs from the New Gilded Age Court of the Roberts 5, and has the power to stop any they do not need. There were no amendments passed in the original Gilded Age. Similarly there have been and will be none proposed and ratified in the New Gilded Age.
A constitutional amendment to expand democracy could not be enacted until after legislation is first passed to get money out of politics, just as the progressive era amendments (##16-19) followed the T. Roosevelt-era campaign finance reforms.
A constitutional amendment related to money in politics would be superfluous after passing strong comprehensive legislation to get the Court out of elections and money out of politics. If after the necessary legislation is enacted some unforeseen reason arose to also consider necessary a constitutional amendment on this issue, that would be the time to consider the matter. Now is not the time. There is no reason now to consider or even talk about a constitutional amendment which is a hypothetical exercise at best, if not pure fantasy.

4. Proposals for a constitutional amendment are Counterproductive.
There is danger in undertaking a strategy that is sold as if it is a solution, but can quickly be seen to be at best a very incomplete solution and at worst no solution at all. Such a campaign diverts energy from working on the practical and effective solution that the country desperately needs; it diverts energy to what on its face appears impossible from an approach that appears barely possible if there were total unity and focus by supporters of democracy. A national movement that would dedicate its collective vote to this single issue of enacting a comprehensive law that can credibly promise to get money out of politics could succeed. History shows that only a 10-20% minority of committed voters could win such a law. There is no reason to make a constitutional amendment such a single issue because it can make no such promise to get money out of politics even it it could succeed.
if a constitutional amendment were to somehow succeed, it could create cynicism when it is proven to be ineffective. Thereby it might use up the one last chance citizens may have for peacefully reclaiming democracy in the US. This could lead to disaster since solutions to issues as serious as global warming, perpetual war, peak energy, the monetary system and economy -- one could summarize without over-dramatizing, the survival of civilization itself -- are all at stake in the issue of money in politics.
History shows that a constitutional amendment cannot succeed in the current political context. If it proves necessary to deploy all available political capital just to get legislation enacted, there would be none left over to pursue wasteful fantasy.

5. Advocacy of a constitutional amendment is dangerous
Irrespective of the availability of time and energy to waste on a misguided idea and still get the necessary law passed, advocacy of the need for a constitutional amendment is dangerous. This is because of its impact on the anticipated future debate over legislation in Congress.
The main, perhaps only effective, defense Congress can make to sidestep efforts to force enactment of legislation to get money out of politics would be: Congress is sorry, they would love to help, but they cannot do that because a constitutional amendment is necessary to deal with the Supreme Court.
We know that is wrong.  But arguing the point in public is not easy. This is an area where Congress itself as an institution can claim expertise. Taking on an attack against the contents of the law is one thing. Congress has no particular expertise on getting money out of politics that others do not have. Congress has notionally been trying for a century and has hopelessly failed. It is clearly time for someone else to try their hand at drafting the prohibition of money in politics. But arguing this issue of constitutional structure and separation of powers is another thing. The separation of powers issue will be much more difficult to argue with Congress than the substance of the law.
Giving a corrupt Congress help by having the people opposed to money in politics actually endorse the very argument most useful to defeat the necessary legislation could pretty much deliver the fatal blow. People tend to stick with the first idea they hear. Advocacy of this bad idea will only make it more difficult to persuade natural allies of the effort to get money out of politics. It will require additional resources to re-educate allies that only a law is actually necessary after they have already been told the contrary by sources they should be able to trust -- but cannot.
A wily Congress guided by their corporate paymasters might even actually adopt the constitutional proposal and then let it languish as the plutocrats buy enough state legislatures to kill it off in 38 states. This process could waste another decade, or century, depending on the time Congress allows for ratification.
People advocating a constitutional amendment are playing right into the hands of the plutocrats and helping them make what would be their strongest argument against comprehensive legislation. This could ensure that we never get the only reform that is actually possible and at the same time sufficient. There is not enough margin for error to dismiss this risk as unimportant.
People continue to talk about a constitutional amendment because it takes about 10 minutes to write one, sounds important, and is easier to fit into a soundbite than the many detailed provisions of a comprehensive law. But we do not have the luxury to pursue strategies that consider winning irrelevant. An easy but counterproductive strategy may be good for PR but it is hurting the effort to get money out of politics, which requires a more thoughtful and complex strategy.
What is needed now is for those who oppose the tyranny imposed by money in politics to unite around the most effective strategy - not the most concise soudbite. After more than a year since Citizens United, and the recent even worse decision in Arizona Free Trade Club, this still remains to be done.  Opponents of money in politics are still talking about a strategy that would be both far more difficult to achieve and less effective in result than comprehensive legislation directed at getting all money out of politics, whether it be corporate, the Koch brothers,' or Rupert Murdoch money, or money from any other private source. Getting money out of politics will take more work than the act of wishful thinking involved in dashing off an impossible to enact constitutional amendment.
You can read about and get involved with    
the strategy for comprehensive legislation at
http://moneyouttapolitics.org/  
MOP by MoneyOuttaPolitics.org

A creative thinker on matters of public policy and art, and a principal researcher.

The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author
and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.

From the comments:

Legislation is infinitely easier and more effective

  As the roberts 5 decimated democratic elections in 5 decisions since 2006, some organizations are promoting and meeting to support the misguided, insufficient, unnecessary, impossible and counterproductive idea of adopting a constitutional amendment. While not explaining how they intend to win 2/3 supermajorities in Congress and the 38 state legislatures necessary to enact such an amendment, they are advertising the very argument the plutocrats would make that a constitutional amendment is necessary to get money out of politics. It is not. Besides, there has been no constitutional amendment proposed and ratified since before the new Gilded Age began in 1976, just as there was no constitutional amendment adopted in the original Gilded Age .

by Larry Kachimba

  (3+)

---

Give up corrupt perks-not Congress. Does anyone really think the corrupt legislators who benefit from the status quo would consider removing their own perks? You must remember why they are there; it is to feather their own nest, not help America. My apologies to the couple of dozen honest legislators and executives out of the remainder of the corrupt 536 that draw a high salary, take vacation and vote legislation to help their sponsors and themselves. by Hosea McAdoo

---

Excellent perspective! One more point... Opening a Constitutional Convention, or otherwise making "normal and usual" the adding of a constitutional amendment, opens the way for every notion, regardless of its self-serving nature, that ones are motivated to elevate to a stature of importance, to get to a vote on acceptance as another new constitutional amendment. Very dangerous precedent. Keep the Constitution, protect it, and go the route the author suggests here. Much better, safer strategy. Quality article! Many thanks! by Nimueh Rephael

---

Reply: This comment adds a very important point not covered in the article. The Article V Convention strategy is potentially orders of magnitude more dangerous than the simple amendment strategy adressed by this article. The comment is also very relevant and timely because there are people advocating and even convening a conference at Harvard next month on this exponentially worse and politically naive idea. Thanks for this most valuable comment. by Larry Kachimba

---

Tilting Against Windmills

You are correct Larry. It would be a colossal waste of time to attempt a constitutional amendment. The necessary overwhelming votes are not there for it and will not be. The five Justices in the pockets of Corporate America are to blame and are the main obstacle. They were waiting for the Citizens United decision and pushed it through. I agree the Constitution allows for campaign spending restrictions and new legislation is needed. We need a new court makeup to make sure it remains in effect. Excellent article and analysis Larry.
by Howard Schneider

Either our representatives are with us, or the terrorists? Trial by public square. #usdor

Either our representatives are for us, or against us.
Only citizens should be allowed to make campaign contributions.
US Day of Rage's mission is to restore free and fair representation to citizens.
Why?  Because, free and fair elections remedy the myriad ills and abuses of a corrupt and illegitimate government, which preys on the resources and spirits of citizens.
The Framers created a method for escaping from captured government—an Article V Constitutional Convention.  This method bypasses a corrupt legislature, executive, and judicial branch. If 34 states pass resolutions calling for convention all sides have the opportunity to argue for changes they believe will restore democracy. Any amendment proposed must then be ratified by 38 states to become law.

• We demand reform of campaign finance laws so that only citizens can make campaign contributions, and that those contributions be capped at fair and equitable amunt that enfranchises all citizens.
  
• We demand that Citizens United versus FEC which deems corporations to be people when it come to political contributions be overturned.

• We demand that corporate personhood be abolished.

Before we launch a coordinated strategy to demand an Article V constitutional convention from our state legislatures...
...help us try our federal representatives in the public square.
Call, fax, email, or tweet every federal representative below and ask them:

"Will you overturn corporate personhood?

Then email us at reportback@usdayofrage.orgThis e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. and tell us 

• Who you spoke to
• What their answer was
• Either our representatives are with us, or the terrorists? Trial by public square. #usdor

  
  
  Either our representatives are for us, or against us.
  Only citizens should be allowed to make campaign contributions.
  US Day of Rage's mission is to restore free and fair representation to citizens.
  Why?  Because, free and fair elections remedy the myriad ills and abuses of a corrupt and illegitimate government, which preys on the resources and spirits of citizens.
  The Framers created a method for escaping from captured government—an Article V Constitutional Convention.  This method bypasses a corrupt legislature, executive, and judicial branch. If 34 states pass resolutions calling for convention all sides have the opportunity to argue for changes they believe will restore democracy. Any amendment proposed must then be ratified by 38 states to become law.
  
• We demand reform of campaign finance laws so that only citizens can make campaign contributions, and that those contributions be capped at fair and equitable amunt that enfranchises all citizens.
  
• We demand that Citizens United versus FEC which deems corporations to be people when it come to political contributions be overturned.

• We demand that corporate personhood be abolished.

Before we launch a coordinated strategy to demand an Article V constitutional convention from our state legislatures...
...help us try our federal representatives in the public square.
Call, fax, email, or tweet every federal representative below and ask them:

"Will you overturn corporate personhood?

Then email us at reportback@usdayofrage.orgThis e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. and tell us 

• Who you spoke to
• What their answer was

We will verify and collate their response and post them on this page.  
Download the flyer:

Tip: Fax urgent letters instead of mailing them - Congressional mail security screening can delay postal letters by weeks.  When writing to a Senator or Representative other than your own, you will not get a reply unless you make it clear why they should reply; for example, if you represent an organization or company which has members or does business in their district.

Select your state to jump to state, or scroll down page: [Alabama] [Alaska] [Arizona] [Arkansas] [California] [Colorado] [Connecticut] [Delaware] [Florida] [Georgia] [Hawaii] [Idaho] [Illinois] [Indiana] [Iowa] [Kansas] [Kentucky] [Louisiana] [Maine] [Maryland] [Massachusetts] [Michigan] [Minnesota] [Mississippi] [Missouri] [Montana] [North Carolina] [North Dakota] [Nebraska] [Nevada] [New Hampshire] [New Jersey] [New Mexico] [New York] [Ohio] [Oklahoma] [Oregon] [Pennsylvania] [Rhode Island] [South Carolina] [South Dakota] [Tennessee] [Texas] [Utah] [Vermont] [Virginia] [Washington] [West Virginia] [Wisconsin] [Wyoming] DELEGATES: [American Samoa] [Guam] [Puerto Rico] [Virgin Islands] [Washington, D.C.] Note: Representatives and Senators have ended the use of real email addresses and only use web forms.

Alabama Gov. Robert Bentley (R) Phone: 334-242-7100 Fax: 334-353-0004 State Legislature Links Sen. Jeff Sessions (R) Fax: 202-224-3149 Sen. Richard C. Shelby (R) Fax: 202-224-3416 Rep. Jo Bonner (R-1) Fax: 202-225-0562 Rep. Martha Roby (R-2) Fax: 202-225-8913 Rep. Michael Rogers (R-3) Fax: 202-226-8485 Rep. Robert Aderholt (R-4) Fax: 202-225-5587 Rep. Mo Brooks (R-5) Fax: 202-225-4392 Rep. Spencer Bachus (R-6) Fax: 202-225-2082 Rep. Terri Sewell (D-7) Fax: 202-226-9567 Alaska Gov. Sean Parnell (R) Phone 907-465-3500 Fax 907-465-3532 State Legislature Links Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R) Fax: 202-224-5301 Sen. Mark Begich (D) Fax: 202-224-2354 Rep. Don Young (R-At Large) Fax: 202-225-0425 Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer (R) Phone (602) 542-4331 Fax 602-542-1381 State Legislature Links Arizona Constitution Sen. Jon Kyl (R) Fax: 202-224-2207 Sen. John McCain (R) Fax: 202-228-2862 Rep. Paul Gosar (R-1) Fax: 202-226-9739 Rep. Trent Franks (R-2) Fax: 202-225-6328 Rep. Benjamin Quayle (R-3) Fax: 202-225-3462 Rep. Ed Pastor (D-4) Fax: 202-225-1655 Rep. David Schweikert (R-5) Fax: 202-225-3263 Rep. Jeff Flake (R-6) Fax: 202-226-4386 Rep. Raul Grijalva (D-7) Fax: 202-225-1541 Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-8) Fax: 202-225-0378 Arkansas Gov. Mike Beebe (D) Phone: 501-682-2345 Fax: 501-682-1382 State Legislature Links Sen. John Boozman (R) Fax: 202-228-1371 Sen. Mark Pryor (D) Fax: 202-228-0908 Rep. Rick Crawford (R-1) Fax: 202-225-5602 Rep. Tim Griffin (R-2) Fax: 202-225-5903 Rep.Steve Womack (R-3) Fax: 202-225-5713 Rep. Mike Ross (D-4) Fax: 202-225-1314 California Gov. Jerry Brown (D) Phone: 916-445-2841 Fax: 916-558-3160 State Legislature Links Sen. Barbara Boxer (D) Fax: 202) 224-0454 Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D) Fax: 202-228-3954 Rep. Mike Thompson (D-1) Fax: 202-225-4335 Rep. Wally Herger (R-2) Fax: 202-226-0852 Rep. Dan Lungren (R-3) Fax: 916-859-9976 Rep. Tom McClintock (R-4) Fax: 202-225-5444 Rep. Doris Matsui (D-5) Fax: 202-225-0566 Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-6) Fax: 202-225-5163 Rep. George Miller (D-7) Fax: 202-225-5609 Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-8) Phone: 202-225-4965 Fax: 202-225-8259 Rep. Barbara Lee (D-9) Fax: 202-225-9817 Rep. John Garamendi (D-10) Fax: 202-225-5914 Rep. Jerry McNerney (D-11) Fax: 202-225-4060 Rep. Jackie Speier (D-12) Fax: 202-226-4183 Rep. Pete Stark (D-13) Fax: 202-226-3805 Rep. Anna Eshoo (D-14) Fax: 202-225-8890 Rep. Mike Honda (D-15) Fax: 202-225-2699 Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-16) Fax: 202-225-3336 Rep. Sam Farr (D-17) Fax: 202-225-6791 Rep. Dennis Cardoza (D-18) Fax: 202-225-0819 Rep. Jeff Denham (R-19) Fax: 202-225-3402 Rep. Jim Costa (D-20) Fax: 202-225-9308 Rep. Devin Nunes (R-21) Fax: 202-225-3404 Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-22) Fax: 202-225-2908 Rep. Lois Capps (D-23) Fax: 202-225-5632 Rep. Elton Gallegly (R-24) Fax: 202-225-1100 Rep. Howard McKeon (R-25) Fax: 202-225-0683 Rep. David Dreier (R-26) Fax: 202-225-7018 Rep. Brad Sherman (D-27) Fax: 202-225-5879 Rep. Howard Berman (D-28) Fax: 202-225-3196 Rep. Adam Schiff (D-29) Fax: 202-225-5828 Rep. Henry Waxman (D-30) Fax: 202-225-4099 Rep. Xavier Becerra (D-31) Fax: 202-225-2202 Rep. Judy Chu (D-32) Fax: 202-225-5467 Rep. Karen Bass (D-33) Fax: 202-225-2422 Rep. Lucille Roybal-Allard (D-34) Fax: 202-226-0350 Rep. Maxine Waters (D-35) Fax: 202-225-7854 Rep. Jane Harman (D-36) Fax: 202-226-7290 Rep. Laura Richardson (D-37) Fax: 202-225-7926 Rep. Grace Napolitano (D-38) Fax: 202-225-0027 Rep. Linda Sanchez (D-39) Fax: 202-226-1012 Rep. Ed Royce (R-40) Fax: 202-226-0335 Rep. Jerry Lewis (R-41) Fax: 202-225-6498 Rep. Gary Miller (R-42) Fax: 202-226-6962 Rep. Joe Baca (D-43) Fax: 202-225-8671 Rep. Ken Calvert (R-44) Fax: 202-225-2004 Rep. Mary Bono Mack (R-45) Fax: 202-225-2961 Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-46) Fax: 202-225-0145 Rep. Loretta Sanchez (D-47) Fax: 202-225-5859 Rep. John Campbell (R-48) Fax: 202-225-9177 Rep. Darrell Issa (R-49) Fax: 202-225-3303 Rep. Brian Bilbray (R-50) Fax: 202-225-2558 Rep. Bob Filner (D-51) Fax: 202-225-9073 Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-52) Fax: 202-225-0235 Rep. Susan Davis (D-53) Fax: 202-225-2948 Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper (D) Phone: 303-866-2471 Fax: 303-866-2003 State Legislature Links Sen. Mark Udall (D) Fax: 202-224-6471 Sen. Michael Bennet (D) Fax: 202-224-1933 Rep. Diana DeGette (D-1) Fax: 202-225-5657 Rep. Jared Polis (D-2) Fax: 202-226-7840 Rep. Scott Tipton (R-3) Fax: 202-226-9669 Rep. Cory Gardner (R-4) Fax: 202-225-5870 Rep. Doug Lamborn (R-5) Fax: 202-225-1942 Rep. Mike Coffman (R-6) Fax: 202-226-4623 Rep. Ed Perlmutter (D-7) Fax: 202-225-5278 Connecticut Gov. Dan Malloy (D) Phone: 860-566-4840 Fax: 860-524-7395 State Legislature Links Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D) Fax: 202-224-6593 Sen. Joseph Lieberman (D) Fax: 202-224-9750 Rep. John Larson (D-1) Fax: 202-225-1031 Rep. Joe Courtney (D-2) Fax: 202-225-4977 Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-3) Fax: 202-225-4890 Rep. Jim Himes (D-4) Fax: 202-225-9629 Rep. Chris Murphy (D-5) Fax: 202-225-4488 Delaware Gov. Jack Markell (D) Phone: 302-744-4101 Fax: 302-739-2775 State Legislature Links Sen. Christopher Coons (D) Fax: 202-228-3075 Sen. Tom Carper (D) Fax: 202-228-2190 Rep. John Carney (R-At Large) Fax: 202-225-2291 Florida Gov. Rick Scott (R) Phone: 850-488-7146 Fax: 850-487-0801 State Legislature Links Sen. Marco Rubio (R) Fax: 202-228-0285 Sen. Bill Nelson (D) Fax: 202-228-2183  . Rep. Jeff Miller (R-1) Fax: 202-225-3414 Rep. Steve Southerland (R-2) Fax: 202-225-5615 Rep. Corrine Brown (D-3) Fax: 202-225-2256 Rep. Ander Crenshaw (R-4) Fax: 202-225-2504 Rep. Richard Nugent (R-5) Fax: 202-226-6559 Rep. Cliff Stearns (R-6) Fax: 202-225-3973 Rep. John Mica (R-7) Fax: 202-226-0821 Rep. Daniel Webster (R-8) Fax: 202-225-0999  .. Rep. Gus Bilirakis (R-9) Fax: 202-225-4085 Rep. Bill Young (R-10) Fax: 202-225-9764 Rep. Kathy Castor (D-11) Fax: 202-225-5652 Rep. Dennis Ross (R-12) Fax: 202-225-0585  .. Rep. Vern Buchanan (R-13) Fax: 202-226-0828 Rep. Connie Mack (R-14) Fax: 202-225-6820 Rep. Bill Posey (R-15) Fax: 202-225-3516 Rep. Tom Rooney (R-16) Fax: 202-225-3132 Rep. Frederica Wilson (D-17) Fax: 202-226-0777 Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-18) Fax: 202-225-5620 Rep. Ted Deutch (D-19) Fax: 202-225-5974 Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-20) Fax: 202-225-8456 Rep. Lincoln Diaz-Balart (R-21) Fax: 202-225-8576 Rep. Allen West (R-22) Fax: 202-225-8398 Rep. Alcee Hastings (D-23) Fax: 202-225-1171 Rep. Sandy Adams (R-24) Fax: 202-226-6299 Rep. David Rivera (R-25) Fax: 202-226-0346 Georgia Gov. Nathan Deal (R) Phone: 404-656-1776 Fax:404-657-7332 State Legislature Links Sen. Saxby Chamblis (R) Fax 202-224-0103 Sen. Johnny Isakson (R) Fax: 202-228-2090 Rep. Jack Kingston (R-1) Fax: 202-226-2269 Rep. Sanford Bishop (D-2) Fax: 202-225-2203 Rep. Lynn Westmoreland (R-3) Fax: 202-225-2515 Rep. Hank Johnson (D-4) Fax: 202-226-0691 Rep. John Lewis (D-5) Fax: 202-225-0351 Rep. Thomas Price (R-6) Fax: 202-225-4656 Rep. Rob Woodall (R-7) Fax: 202-225-4696 Rep. Austin Scott (R-8) Fax: 202-225-3013 Rep. Tom Graves (R-9) Fax: 202-225-5995 Rep. Paul Broun (R-10) Fax: 202-225-8272 Rep. Phil Gingrey (R-11) Fax: 202-225-2944 Rep. John Barrow (D-12) Fax: 202-225-3377 Rep. David Scott (D-13) Fax: 202-225-4628 Hawaii Gov. Neil Abercrombie (D) Phone: 808-586-0034 Fax: 808-586-0006 State Legislature Links Sen. Daniel K. Akaka (D) Fax: 202-224-2126 Sen. Daniel K. Inouye (D) Fax: 202-224-6747 Rep. Colleen Hanabusa (D-1) Fax: 202-225-0688  .. Rep. Mazie Hirono (D-2) Fax: 202-225-4987 Idaho Gov. Butch Otter (R) Phone: 208-334-2100 State Legislature Links Sen. James Risch (R) Fax: 202-228-1067 Sen. Michael Crapo (R) Fax: 202-228-1375 Rep. Raul Labrador (R-1) Fax: 202-225-3029  .. Rep. Michael Simpson (R-2) Fax: 202-225-8216 Illinois Gov. Pat Quinn (D) Phone: 217-782-0244 State Legislature Links Sen. Dick Durbin (D) Fax: 202-228-0400 Sen. Mark Kirk (R) Fax: 202-228-4611  .. Rep. Bobby Rush (D-1) Fax: 202-226-0333 Rep. Jesse Jackson, Jr. (D-2) Fax: 202-225-0899 Rep. Daniel Lipinski (D-3) Fax: 202-225-1012 Rep. Luis Gutirrez (D-4) Fax: 202-225-7810 Rep. Mike Quigley (D-5) Fax: 202-225-5603 Rep. Peter Roskam (R-6) Fax: 202-225-1166 Rep. Danny Davis (D-7) Fax: 202-225-5641 Rep. Joe Walsh (R-8) Fax: 202-225-7830  .. Rep. Janice Schakowsky (D-9) Fax: 202-226-6890 Rep. Robert Dold (R-10) Fax: 202-225-0837  .. Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R-11) Fax: 202-225-3521 Rep. Jerry Costello (D-12) Fax: 202-225-0285 Rep. Judy Biggert (R-13) Fax: 202-225-9420 Rep. Randy Hultgren (R-14) Fax: 202-225-0697  .. Rep. Timothy Johnson (R-15) Fax: 202-226-0791 Rep. Donald Manzullo (R-16) Fax: 202-225-5284 Rep. Robert Schilling (R-17) Fax: 202-225-5396  .. Rep. Aaron Schock (R-18) Fax: 202-225-9249 Rep. John Shimkus (R-19) Fax: 202-225-5880 Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels (R) 317-232-4567 State Legislature Links Sen. Dan Coats (R) Fax: (202) 228-1820  . Sen. Richard G. Lugar (R) Fax: 202-228-0360 Rep. Peter Visclosky (D-1) Fax: 202-225-2493 Rep. Joe Donnelly (D-2) Fax: 202-225-6798 Rep. Marlin Stitzman (R-3) Fax: 202-225-3479 Rep. Todd Rokita (R-4) Fax: 202-225-2267 Rep. Dan Burton (R-5) Fax: 202-225-0016 Rep. Mike Pence (R-6) Fax: 202-225-3382 Rep. André Carson (D-7) Fax: 202-225-5633 Rep. Larry Bucshon (R-8) Fax: 202-225-3284 Rep. Todd Young (R-9) Fax: 202-226-6866 Iowa Gov. Terry Branstad (R) Phone: 515-281-5211 State Legislature Links Sen. Chuck Grassley (R) Fax: 202-224-6020 Sen. Tom Harkin (D) Fax: 202-224-9369 Rep. Bruce Braley (D-1) Fax: 202-225-9129 Rep. David Loebsack (D-2) Fax: 202-226-0757 Rep. Leonard Boswell (D-3) Fax: 202-225-5608 Rep. Tom Latham (R-4) Fax: 202-225-3301 Rep. Steve King (R-5) Fax: 202-225-3193 Kansas Gov. Sam Brownback (R) Phone 785-296-3232 Fax 785-368-8788 State Legislature Links Sen. Jerry Moran (R) Fax: 202-228-6966 Sen. Pat Roberts (R) Fax: 202-224-3514 Rep. Tim Huelskamp (R-1) Fax: 202-225-5124 Rep. Lynn Jenkins (R-2) Fax: 202-225-7986 Rep. Kevin Yoder (R-3) Fax: 202-225-2807 Rep. Mike Pompeo (R-4) Fax: 202-225-3489  .

Kentucky Gov. Steve Beshear (D) 502-564-2611 State Legislature Links Sen. Rand Paul (R) Fax: 202-228-1373 Sen. Mitch McConnell (R) Fax: 202-224-2499 Rep. Ed Whitfield (R-1) Fax: 202-225-3547 Rep. Brett Guthrie (R-2) Fax: 202-226-2019 Rep. John Yarmuth (D-3) Fax: 202-225-5776 Rep. Geoff Davis (R-4) Fax: 202-225-0003 Rep. Harold Rogers (R-5) Fax: 202-225-0940 Rep. Ben Chandler (D-6) Fax: 202-225-2122   Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal (R) 225-342-7015 State Legislature Links Sen. Mary Landrieu (D) Fax: 202-224-9735 Sen. David Vitter (R) Fax: 202-228-2577 Rep. Steve Scalise (R-1) Fax: (202) 226-0386 Rep. Cedric Richmond (R-2) Fax: 202-225-1988  . Rep. Jeffrey Landry (R-3) Fax: (202) 226-3944  . Rep. John Fleming (R-4) Fax: 202-225-8039 Rep. Rodney Alexander (R-5) Fax: 202-225-5639 Rep. Bill Cassidy (R-6) Fax: 202-225-7313 Rep. Charles Boustany (R-7) Fax: 202-225-5724 Maine Gov. Paul LePage (R) Phone: 207-287-3531 Fax: 207-287-1034 State Legislature Links Sen. Susan Collins (R) Fax: 202-224-2693 Sen. Olympia Snowe (R) Fax: 202-224-1946 Rep. Chellie Pingree (D-1) Fax: 202-225-5590  . Rep. Michael Michaud (D-2) Fax: 202-225-2943 Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley (D) 800-811-8336 State Legislature Links Sen. Benjamin Cardin (D) Fax: 202-224-1651 Sen. Barbara Mikulski (D) Fax: 202-224-8858 Rep. Andy Harris (R-1) Fax: 202-225-0254  . Rep. "Dutch" Ruppersberger (D-2) Fax: 202-225-3094 Rep. John Sarbanes (D-3) Fax: 202-225-9219 Rep. Donna Edwards (D-4) Fax: 202-225-8714 Rep. Steny Hoyer (D-5) Fax: 202-225-4300 Rep. Roscoe Bartlett (R-6) Fax: 202-225-2193 Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-7) Fax: 202-225-3178 Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-8) Fax: 202-225-0375 Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick (D) Fax: 202-624-7714 State Legislature Links Sen. Scott Brown (R) Fax: 202-224-2417 Sen. John Kerry (D) Fax: 202-224-8525 Rep. John Olver (D-1) Fax: 202-226-1224 Rep. Richard Neal (D-2) Fax: 202-225-8112 Rep. Jim McGovern (D-3) Fax: 202-225-5759 Rep. Barney Frank (D-4) Fax: 202-225-0182 Rep. Niki Tsongas (D-5) Fax: 202-226-0771 Rep. John Tierney (D-6) Fax: 202-225-5915 Rep. Edward Markey (D-7) Fax: 202-226-0092 Rep. Michael Capuano (D-8) Fax: 202-225-9322 Rep. Stephen Lynch (D-9) Fax: 202-225-3984 Rep. William Keating (D-10) Fax: 202-225-5658  .. Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder (R) Phone: 517-335-7858 Fax: 517-335-6863 State Legislature Links Sen. Carl Levin (D) Fax: 202-224-1388 Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D) Fax: 202-228-0325 Rep. Dan Benishek (R-1) Fax: 202-225-4744  .. Rep. Bill Huizenga (R-2) Fax: 202-226-0779  .. Rep. Jestin Amash (R-3) Fax: 202-225-5144  .. Rep. David Camp (R-4) Fax: 202-225-9679 Rep. Dale Kildee (D-5) Fax: 202-225-6393 Rep. Fred Upton (R-6) Fax: 202-225-4986 Rep. Tim Walberg (R-7) Fax: 202-225-6281  .. Rep. Mike Rogers (R-8) Fax: 202-225-5820 Rep. Gary Peters (D-9) Fax: 202-226-2356 Rep. Candice Miller (R-10) Fax: 202-226-1169 Rep. Thad McCotter (R-11) Fax: 202-225-2667 Rep. Sander Levin (D-12) Fax: 202-226-1033 Rep. Hansen Clarke (D-13) Fax: 202-225-5730 Rep. John Conyers (D-14) Fax: 202-225-0072 Rep. John Dingell (D-15) Fax: 202-226-0371 Minnesota Gov. Mark Dayton (D) Phone: 651-201-3400 Fax: 651-797-1850 State Legislature Links Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D) Fax: 202-228-2186 Sen. Al Franken (D) Fax: 202-224-1152 Rep. Tim Walz (D-1) Fax: 202-225-3433 Rep. John Kline (R-2) Fax: 202-225-2595 Rep. Erik Paulsen (R-3) Fax: 202-225-6351 Rep. Betty McCollum (D-4) Fax: 202-225-1968 Rep. Keith Ellison (D-5) Fax: 202-225-4886 Rep. Michelle Bachman (R-6) Fax: 202-225-6475 Rep. Collin Peterson (D-7) Fax: 202-225-1593 Rep. Chip Cravaack (R-8) Fax: 202-225-0699  . .Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour (R) 601-359-3150 State Legislature Links Sen. Thad Cochran (R) Fax: 202-224-9450 Sen. Roger Wicker (R) Fax: 202-228-0378 Rep. Alan Nunnelee (R-1) Fax: 202-225-3549  .. Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-2) Fax: 202-225-5898 Rep. Gregg Harper (R-3) Fax: 202-225-5797 Rep. Steven Palazzo (R-4) Fax: 202-225-7074  ..Missouri Gov. Jeremiah Nixon (D) 573-751-3222 State Legislature Links Sen. Roy Blunt (R) Fax: 202-224-8149 Sen. Claire McCaskill (D) Fax: 202-228-6326 Rep. William Clay, Jr. (D-1) Fax: 202-226-3717 Rep. Todd Akin (R-2) Fax: 202-225-2563 Rep. Russ Carnahan (D-3) Fax: 202-225-7452 Rep. Vicky Hartzler (R-4) Fax: 202-225-2876 Rep. Emanuel Cleaver (D-5) Fax: 202-225-4403 Rep. Sam Graves (R-6) Fax: 202-225-8221 Rep. Billy Long (R-7) Fax: 202-225-5604 Rep. Jo Ann Emerson (R-8) Fax: 202-226-0326 Rep. Blaine Luetkemeyer (R-9) Fax: 202-225-5712 Montana Gov. Brian Schweitzer (D) 406-444-3111 State Legislature Links Sen. Max Baucus (D) Fax: 202-224-9412 Sen. Jon Tester (D) Fax: 202-224-8594 Rep. Dennis Rehberg (R-At Large) Fax: 202-225-5687 Nebraska Gov. Dave Heineman (R) Fax: 402-471-6031 State Legislature Links Sen. Mike Johanns (R) Fax: 202-224-5213 Sen. Ben Nelson (D) Fax: 202-228-0012 Rep. Jeff Fortenberry (R-1) Fax: 202-225-5686 Rep. Lee Terry (R-2) Fax: 202-226-5452 Rep. Adrian Smith (R-3) Fax: 202-225-0207 Nevada Gov. Brian Sandoval (R) Phone: 775-684-5670 Fax: 775-684-5683 State Legislature Links Sen. John Ensign (R) Fax: 202-228-2193 Sen. Harry Reid (D) Fax: 202-224-7327 Rep. Shelley Berkley (D-1) Fax: 202-225-3119 Rep. Dean Heller (R-2) Fax: 202-225-5679 Rep. Joseph Heck (R-3) Fax: 202-225-2185 New Hampshire Gov. John Lynch (D) 603-271-7680 State Legislature Links Sen. Kelly Ayotte (R) Fax: 202-224-4952 Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D) Fax: 202-228-4131 Rep. Frank Guinta (R-1) Fax: 202-225-5822 Rep. Charles Bass (R-2) Fax: 202-225-2946 New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie (R) 609-292-6000 State Legislature Links Sen. Robert Menendez (D) Fax: 202-228-2197 Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D) Fax: 202-228-4054 Rep. Robert Andrews (D-1) Fax: 202-225-6583 Rep. Frank LoBiondo (R-2) Fax: 202-225-3318 Rep. John Alder (D-3) Fax: 202-225-0778 Rep. Christopher Smith (R-4) Fax: 202-225-7768 Rep. Scott Garrett (R-5) Fax: 202-225-9048 Rep. Frank Pallone (D-6) Fax: 202-225-9665 Rep. Leonard Lance (R-7) Fax: 202-225-9460 Rep. William Pascrell (D-8) Fax: 202-225-5751 Rep. Steven Rothman (D-9) Fax: 202-225-5851 Rep. Donald Payne (D-10) Fax: 202-225-4160 Rep. Rodney Frelinghuysen (R-11) Fax: 202-225-3186 Rep. Rush Holt (D-12) Fax: 202-225-6025 Rep. Albio Sires (D-13) Fax: 202-226-0792 New Mexico Gov. Susana Martinez (R) Phone: 505-476-2200 State Legislature Links Sen. Jeff Bingaman (D) Fax: 202-224-2852 Sen. Tom Udall (D) Fax: 202-228-3261 Rep. Martin Heinrich (D-1) Fax: 202-225-4975 Rep. Stevan Pearce (R-2) Fax: 202-225-9599  .. Rep. Ben Lujan (D-3) Fax: 202-226-1528 New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo (D) Phone: 518-474-8390 State Assembly Links State Senate Links Sen. Charles Schumer (D) Fax: 202-228-3027 Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D) Fax: 202-228-0282 Rep. Tim Bishop (D-1) Fax: 202-225-3143 Rep. Steven Israel (D-2) Fax: 202-225-4669 Rep. Peter King (R-3) Fax: 202-226-2279 Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-4) Fax: 202-225-5758 Rep. Gary Ackerman (D-5) Fax: 202-225-1589 Rep. Gregory Meeks (D-6) Fax: 202-226-4169 Rep. Joseph Crowley (D-7) Fax: 202-225-1909 Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-8) Fax: 202-225-6923 Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-9) Fax: 202-226-7243 Rep. Edolphus Towns (D-10) Fax: 202-225-1018 Rep. Yvette Clarke (D-11) Fax: 202-226-0112 Rep. Nydia Velazquez (D-12) Fax: 202-226-0327 Rep. Michael Grimm (R-13) Fax: 202-226-1272 Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-14) Fax: 202-225-4709   Non-constituents Rep. Charles Rangel (D-15) Fax: 202-225-0816 Rep. Jose Serrano (D-16) Fax: 202-225-6001 Rep. Eliot Engel (D-17) Fax: 202-225-5513 Rep. Nita Lowey (D-18) Fax: 202-225-0546 Rep. Nan Hayworth (R-19) Fax: 202-225-3289 Rep. Christopher Gibson (R-20) Fax: 202-225-1168 Rep. Paul Tonko (D-21) Fax: 202-225-5077 Rep. Maurice Hinchey (D-22) Fax: 202-226-0774 Rep. Bill Owens (D-23) Fax: 202-226-0621 Rep. Richard Hanna (R-24) Fax: 202-225-1891 Rep. Ann Marie Buerkle (R-25) Fax: 202-225-4042 Rep. Christopher Lee (R-26) Fax: 202-225-5910 Rep. Brian Higgins (D-27) Fax: 202-226-0347 Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-28) Fax: 202-225-7822 Tom Reed (R-29) Fax: 202-226-6599 North Carolina Gov. Bev Purdue (D) 919-733-4240 State Legislature Links Sen. Richard Burr (R) Fax 202-228-2981 Sen. Kay Hagan (D) Fax: 202-228-2563 Rep. G.K. Butterfield (D-1) Fax: 202-225-3354 Rep. Renee Ellmers (R-2) Fax: 202-225-5662 Rep. Walter Jones (R-3) Fax: 202-225-3286 Rep. David Price (D-4) Fax: 202-225-2014 Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-5) Fax: 202-225-2995 Rep. Howard Coble (R-6) Fax: 202-225-8611 Rep. Mike McIntyre (D-7) Fax: 202-225-5773 Rep. Larry Kissell (D-8) Fax: 202-225-4036 Rep. Sue Myrick (R-9) Fax: 202-225-3389 Rep. Patrick McHenry (R-10) Fax: 202-225-0316 Rep. Heath Shuler (D-11) Fax: 202-226-6422 Rep. Melvin Watt (D-12) Fax: 202-225-1512 Rep. Brad Miller (D-13) Fax: 202-225-0181 North Dakota Gov. Jack Dalrymple (R) 701-328-2200 State Legislature Links Sen. Kent Conrad (D) Fax: 202-224-7776 Sen. John Hoeven (R) Fax: 202-224-7999 Rep. Rick Berg (R-At Large) Fax: 202-226-0893  .

Ohio Gov. John Kasich (R) Phone: 614-466-3555 State Legislature Links Sen. Sherrod Brown (D) Fax: 202-224-6519 Sen. Rob Portman (R) Fax: 202-228-1382  .. Rep. Steve Chabot (R-1) Fax: 202-225-3012 Rep. Jean Schmidt (R-2) Fax: 202-225-1992 Rep. Michael Turner (R-3) Fax: 202-225-6754 Rep. Jim Jordan (R-4) Fax: 202-226-0577 Rep. Bob Latta (R-5) Fax: 202-225-1985 Rep. Bill Johnson (R-6) Fax: 202-225-5907 Rep. Steve Austria (R-7) Fax: 202-225-1984 Rep. John Boehner (R-8) Phone: 202-225-6205 Fax: 202-225-0704   Constituent Comments Page   Non-Constituent Email Rep. Marcy Kaptur (D-9) Fax: 202-225-7711 Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-10) Fax: 202-225-5745 Rep. Marcia Fudge (D-11) Fax: 202-225-1339 Rep. Pat Tiberi (R-12) Fax: 202-226-4523 Rep. Betty Sutton (D-13) Fax: 202-225-2266 Rep. Steven LaTourette (R-14) Fax: 202-225-3307 Rep. Steve Stivers (R-15) Fax: 202-225-3529 Rep. James Renacci (R-16) Fax: 202-225-3059 Rep. Tim Ryan (D-17) Fax: 202-225-3719 Rep. Bob Gibbs (R-18) Fax: 202-225-3394   . Oklahoma Gov. Mary Fallin (R) Phone: 405-521-2342 Fax: 405-521-3353 State Legislature Links Sen. James Inhofe (R) Fax: 202-228-0380 Sen. Tom Coburn (R) Fax: 202-224-6008 Rep. John Sullivan (R-1) Fax: 202 225-9187 Rep. Dan Boren (D-2) Fax: 202-225-3038 Rep. Frank Lucas (R-3) Fax: 202-225-8698 Rep. Tom Cole (R-4) Fax: 202-225-3512 Rep. James Lankford (R-5) Fax: 202-226-1463  . Oregon Gov. John Kitzhaber (D) Phone: 503-378-4582 Fax 503-378-6827  . State Legislature Links Sen. Jeff Merkley (D) Fax: 202-228-3997 Sen. Ron Wyden (D) Fax: 202-228-2717 Rep. David Wu (D-1) Fax: 202-225-9497 Rep. Greg Walden (R-2) Fax: 202-225-5774 Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-3) Fax: 202-225-8941 Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-4) Fax: 202-225-0032 Rep. Kurt Schrader (D-5) Fax: 202-225-5699 Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Corbett (R) 717-787-2500 State Legislature Links Sen. Robert Casey, Jr. (D) Fax: 202-228-0604 Sen. Pat Toomey (R) Fax: 202-228-1229 Rep. Robert Brady (D-1) Fax: 202-225-0088 Rep. Chaka Fattah (D-2) Fax: 202-225-5392 Rep. Mike Kelly (R-3) Fax: 202-225-3103  . Rep. Jason Altmire (D-4) Fax: 202-226-2274 Rep. Glenn Thompson (R-5) Fax: 202-225-5796  . Rep. Jim Gerlach (R-6) Fax: 202-225-8440 Rep. Patrick Meehan (R-7) Fax: 202-225-0280 Rep. Michael Fitzpatrick (R-8) Fax: 202-225-9511  . Rep. Bill Shuster (R-9) Fax: 202-225-2486 Rep. Tom Marino (R-10) Fax: 202-225-9594  . Rep. Lou Barletta (R-11) Fax: 202-226-6250  . Rep. Mark Critz (D-12) Fax: 202-225-5709 Rep. Allyson Schwartz (D-13) Fax: 202-226-0611 Rep. Michael Doyle (D-14) Fax: 202-225-3084 Rep. Charlie Dent (R-15) Fax: 202-226-0778 Rep. Joseph Pitts (R-16) Fax: 202-225-2013 Rep. Tim Holden (D-17) Fax: 202-226-0996 Rep. Tim Murphy (R-18) Fax: 202-225-1844 Rep. Todd Platts (R-19) Fax: 202-226-1000 Rhode Island Gov. Lincoln Chafee (I) 401-222-2080 State Legislature Links Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D) Fax: 202-228-2853 Sen. Jack Reed (D) Fax: 202-224-4680 Rep. David Cicilline (D-1) Fax: 202-225-3290  . Rep. James Langevin (D-2) Fax: 202-225-5976 South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley (R) 803-734-2100 State Legislature Links Sen. Jim DeMint (R) Fax: 202-228-5143 Sen. Lindsey Graham (R) Fax: 202-224-3808 Rep. Tim Scott (R-1) Fax: 202-225-3407  .. Rep. Joe Wilson (R-2) Fax: 202-225-2455 Rep. Jeff Duncan (R-3) Fax: 202-225-3216 Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-4) Fax: 202-226-1177  .. Rep. Mick Mulvaney (R-5) Fax: 202-225-0464 Rep. James Clyburn (D-6) Fax: 202-225-2313 South Dakota Gov. Dennis Daugaard (R) Phone: 605-773-3212 State Legislature Links Sen. John Thune (R) Fax: 202-228-5429 Sen. Tim Johnson (D) Fax: 202-228-5765 Rep. Kristi Noem (R-At Large) Fax: 202-225-5823  ..Tennessee Gov. Bill Haslam (R) 615-741-2001 State Legislature Links Sen. Bob Corker (R) Fax: 202-228-1264 Sen. Lamar Alexander (R) Fax: 202-228-3398 Rep. Phil Roe (R-1) Fax: 202-225-5714 Rep. John Duncan, Jr. (R-2) Fax: 202-225-6440 Rep. Charles Fleishmann (R-3) Fax: 202-225-3494 Rep. Scott DesJarlais (D-4) Fax: 202-226-5172 Rep. Jim Cooper (D-5) Fax: 202-226-1035 Rep. Diane Black (R-6) Fax: 202-225-6887 Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-7) Fax: 202-225-3004 Rep. Stephen Fincher (R-8) Fax: 202-225-1765 Rep. Steve Cohen (D-9) Fax: 202-225-5663 Texas Gov. Rick Perry (R) 512-463-2000 State Legislature Links Sen. John Cornyn (R) Fax: 202-228-2856 Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R) Fax: 202-224-0776 Rep. Louis Gohmert (R-1) Fax: 202-225-5866 Rep. Ted Poe (R-2) Fax: 202-225-5547 Rep. Sam Johnson (R-3) Fax: 202-225-1485 Rep. Ralph Hall (R-4) Fax: 202-225-3332 Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R-5) Fax: 202-226-4888 Rep. Joe Barton (R-6) Fax: 202-225-3052 Rep. John Culberson (R-7) Fax: 202-225-4381 Rep. Kevin Brady (R-8) Fax: 202-225-5524 Rep. Al Green (D-9) Fax: 202-225-2947 Rep. Michael McCaul (R-10) Fax: 202-225-5955 Rep. Mike Conaway (R-11) Fax: 202-225-1783 Rep. Kay Granger (R-12) Fax: 202-225-5683 Rep. "Mac" Thornberry (R-13) Fax: 202-225-3486 Rep. Ron Paul (R-14) Fax: 202-226-6553 Rep. Ruben Hinojosa (D-15) Fax: 202-225-5688 Rep. Silvestre Reyes (D-16) Fax: 202-225-2016 Rep. Bill Flores (R-17) Fax: 202-225-2234 Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee (D-18) Fax: 202-225-3317 Rep. Randy Neugebauer (R-19) Fax: 202-225-9615 Rep. Charles Gonzalez (D-20) Fax: 202-225-1915 Rep. Lamar Smith (R-21) Fax: 202-225-8628 Rep. Pete Olson (R-22) Fax: 202-225-5241 Rep. Francisco Canseco (R-23) Fax: 202-225-2237 Rep. Kenny Marchant (R-24) Fax: 202-225-0074 Rep. Lloyd Doggett (D-25) Fax: 202-225-2947 Rep. Michael Burgess (R-26) Fax: 202-225-2919 Rep. Blake Farenthold (R-27) Fax: 202-226-1134 Rep. Enrique Cuellar (D-28) Fax: 202-225-1641 Rep. Gene Green (D-29) Fax: 202-225-9903 Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-30) Fax: 202-226-1477 Rep. John Carter (R-31) Fax: 202-225-5886 Rep. Pete Sessions (R-32) Fax: 202-225-5878 Utah Gov. Gary Herbert (R) 801-538-1000 State Legislature Links Sen. Mike Lee (R) Fax: 202-228-1168  . Sen. Orrin G. Hatch (R) Fax: 202-224-6331 Rep. Rob Bishop (R-1) Fax: 202-225-5857 Rep. Jim Matheson (D-2) Fax: 202-225-5638 Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-3) Fax: 202-225-5629 Vermont Gov. Peter Shumlin (D) 802-828-3333 State Legislature Links Sen. Bernie Sanders (I) Fax: 202-228-0776 Sen. Patrick J. Leahy (D) Fax: 202-224-3479 Rep. Peter Welch (D-At Large) Fax: 202-225-6790 Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell (R) 804-786-2211 State Legislature Links Sen. Jim Webb (D) Fax: 202-228-6363 Sen. Mark Warner (D) Fax: 202-224-6295 Rep. Robert Wittman (R-1) Fax: 202-225-4382 Rep. Scott Rigell (R-2) Fax: 202-225-4218 Rep. Robert Scott (D-3) Fax: 202-225-8354 Rep. Randy Forbes (R-4) Fax: 202-226-1170 Rep. Robert Hurt (R-5) Fax: 202-225-5681 Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-6) Fax: 202-225-9681 Rep. Eric Cantor (R-7) Fax: 202-225-0011 Rep. Jim Moran (D-8) Fax: 202-225-0017 Rep. Morgan Griffith (R-9) Fax: 202-225-0442 Rep. Frank Wolf (R-10) Fax: 202-225-0437 Rep. Gerald Connolly (D-11) Fax: 202-225-3071 Washington Gov. Christine Gregoire (D) 360-902-4111 State Legislature Links Sen. Maria Cantwell (D) Fax: 202-228-0514 Sen. Patty Murray (D) Fax: 202-224-0238 Rep. Jay Inslee (D-1) Fax: 202-226-1606 Rep. Rick Larsen (D-2) Fax: 202-225-4420 Rep. Jaime Herrera-Beutler (R-3) Fax: 202-225-3478  .. Rep. Doc Hastings (R-4) Fax: 202-225-3251 Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-5) Fax: 202-225-3392 Rep. Norman Dicks (D-6) Fax: 202-226-1176 Rep. Jim McDermott (D-7) Fax: 202-225-6197 Rep. Dave Reichert (R-8) Fax: 202-225-4282 Rep. Adam Smith (D-9) Fax: 202-225-5893 West Virginia Gov. Earl Ray Tomblin (D) 888-438-2731 State Legislature Links Sen. Joe Manchin (D) Fax: 202-228-0002 Sen. John D. Rockefeller, IV (D) Fax: 202-224-7665 Rep. David McKinley (R-1) Fax: 202-225-7564  .. Rep. Shelley Capito (R-2) Fax: 202-225-7856 Rep. Nick Rahall (D-3) Fax: 202-225-9061 Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker (R) Phone: 608-266-1212 State Legislature Links Sen. Ron Johnson (R) Fax: 202-224-2725 Sen. Herb Kohl (D) Fax: 202-224-9787 Rep. Paul Ryan (R-1) Fax: 202-225-3393 Rep. Tammy Baldwin (D-2) Fax: 202-225-6942 Rep. Ron Kind (D-3) Fax: 202-225-5739 Rep. Gwen Moore (D-4) Fax: 202-225-8135 Rep. James Sensenbrenner (R-5) Fax: 202-225-3190 Rep. Tom Petri (R-6) Fax: 202-225-2356 Rep. Sean Duffy (R-7) Fax: 715-842-4488 Rep. Reid Ribble (R-8) Fax: 202-225-5729 Wyoming Gov. Matt Mead (R) 307-777-7434 State Legislature Links Sen. Mike Enzi (R) Fax: 202-228-0359 Sen. John Barrasso (R) Fax: 202-224-1724 Rep. Cynthia Lummis (R-At Large) Fax: 202-225-3057   ..Territories and Delegates: American Samoa Gov. Togiola Tulafono (D) 684-633-4116 Delegate Eni Faleomavaega (D-At Large) Fax: 202-225-8757 Washington, D.C. Mayor Vincent Gray (D) Phone: 202-727-6300 Fax: 202-727-8527 DC City Council Links Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-At Large) Fax 202-225-3002 Guam Gov. Eddie Calvo (R) Territorial Legislature Links Delegate Madeilene Bordallo (D-At Large)  Fax: 202-226-0341Northern Mariana Islands Gov. Benigno Fitial (Covenant) 670-664-1100 Delegate Gregorio Sablan (D-At Large) Territorial Legislature Links Puerto Rico Gov. Luis Fortuno (R) 787-721-7000 Territorial Legislature Links Resident Commissioner Pedro Pierluisi (D-At Large) Fax: 202-225-2154 Virgin Islands Gov. John de Jongh (D) Territorial Legislature Links Delegate Donna Christensen (D-At Large)  Fax: 202-225-5517

Note: Representatives and Senators have ended the use of real email addresses and only use web forms.

Tip: Fax your letters instead of mailing them because Congressional mail security screening can delay postal letters by a few weeks, particularly during security alerts.

•  
•  

We will verify and collate their response and post them on this page.  
Download the flyer:

Tip: Fax urgent letters instead of mailing them - Congressional mail security screening can delay postal letters by weeks.  When writing to a Senator or Representative other than your own, you will not get a reply unless you make it clear why they should reply; for example, if you represent an organization or company which has members or does business in their district.

Select your state to jump to state, or scroll down page: [Alabama] [Alaska] [Arizona] [Arkansas] [California] [Colorado] [Connecticut] [Delaware] [Florida] [Georgia] [Hawaii] [Idaho] [Illinois] [Indiana] [Iowa] [Kansas] [Kentucky] [Louisiana] [Maine] [Maryland] [Massachusetts] [Michigan] [Minnesota] [Mississippi] [Missouri] [Montana] [North Carolina] [North Dakota] [Nebraska] [Nevada] [New Hampshire] [New Jersey] [New Mexico] [New York] [Ohio] [Oklahoma] [Oregon] [Pennsylvania] [Rhode Island] [South Carolina] [South Dakota] [Tennessee] [Texas] [Utah] [Vermont] [Virginia] [Washington] [West Virginia] [Wisconsin] [Wyoming] DELEGATES: [American Samoa] [Guam] [Puerto Rico] [Virgin Islands] [Washington, D.C.] Note: Representatives and Senators have ended the use of real email addresses and only use web forms.