The story was interesting and useful, and credits go to Jill Terreri (the writer) and the D&C for running it, but it was incomplete -- as was the quote in this post. The $35k she mentioned being spent by Alesi was, she said, the figure from October 2007 through March 2008. That's only a 6-month period, and NOT during campaign season. The problem is the mailers sent in the last 60 days, during his campaign, which we estimate cost taxpayers at least $100k, and more likely closer to $200.
The core problem is actually even bigger and more complicated than just mailings. The Senate runs pretty much like a Republican reelection machine. The internal rules for taxpayer funded mailings, which change frequently and are almost impossible to find in writing, are skewed heavily in favor of Republican incumbents.
The abuses extend into other campaign areas. Here's a little-known anecdote that I heard from sources unnamed that indicates how the machinery can work. In the 2006 campaign to defend Republican incumbent Nick Spano in SD-35, Senator Bruno, who controlled the purse strings, authorized an abrupt upsizing in Spano's staff, the hiring of an additional 18 staffers, who were then sent into the field as canvassers. Spano, if I understand the data correctly, won reelection by 418 votes.
It would be extremely interesting to track the staffing levels for incumbents on a month to month basis, and map it against the reelection campaign cycles.
And of course, that's not to mention member item handouts, no doubt all to good causes. These are actually a major, crucial tool in the "reelection machine" toolbox. Who's going to vote against Santa Claus?
