Member-constituent communications serve a vital role in representative government. If information about legislative activity cannot easily flow from Members to constituents, citizens will be less capable of drawing policy judgments regarding congressional actions. Likewise, if constituents cannot easily communicate their preferences to Members, congressional action is less likely to reflect the interests of the governed. Constituent communication is one of the basic building blocks of a representative democracy. Throughout American history, concerns about this vital democratic connection have underpinned the existence of the franking privilege, which for much of the 19 th century allowed not only Members to send mail without personal cost, but also constituents to send mail to Congress free of charge. Technological changes during the 19 th and early 20 th centuries—most notably the rise of mass newspapers, the invention of the telephone, and advances in transportation that allowed Members to travel more easily—aided Members and constituents in exchanging information with each other. Until the late 20 th century, most Member-constituent interactions consisted of four forms of communication—postal mail; telephone calls; press releases, including through newspapers and other media; and face-to-face meetings. Although Members continue to use these traditional modes of interaction, the use of new electronic communications technology is dramatically increasing. For example, prior to 1995, there were virtually no email exchanges between Members and constituents. More recently, the volume of emails received by the House of Representatives has come to dwarf the volume of postal mail, while the amount of postal mail sent to Congress has continued to decline. Member official websites, blogs, YouTube channels, and Facebook pages—all nonexistent 20 years ago—also receive significant traffic. In less than 20 years, the entire nature of Member-constituent communication has been transformed, perhaps more than in any other period in American history. The rise of such electronic tools has altered the traditional patterns of communication between Members and constituents. Electronic technology has reduced the marginal cost of Member-constituent communications; unlike postal letters, Members can reach large numbers of constituents for a fixed cost, and constituents can reach Members at virtually no cost. The relay of information from Capitol Hill to the rest of the country (and vice versa) has been reduced to at times an instantaneous exchange. As soon as something happens in Congress, it can be known widely in real time. Members can now reach large numbers of citizens who are not their own constituents. These changes have wide-ranging implications for the work of Congress. They are altering how Members organize their personal offices and influencing how Members manage their legislative activities on and off the floor. And, perhaps most importantly, they are changing the nature of representation in the United States, as Members can more easily engage wider political and policy constituencies, in addition to their core interactions with their geographic constituencies. This report is divided into five parts. First, it discusses the role of constituent communications in a representative democracy, and briefly reviews the historical development of constituent communications in the United States. Second, it reviews the current nature of electronic communications in Congress. Third, it discusses how existing laws, rules, and regulations might apply to social media. Fourth, it discusses some of the strategic opportunities and challenges social media presents to Member offices. Finally, it presents some concluding observations that cover both the public nature of social media and the changing nature of representation. Since the Continental Congress, constituents have been communicating with their elected representatives. How communication occurs, however, has changed significantly. Changes in congressional communications technology and use can be considered in three groups: 1. historical communications (e.g., postal mail, telephone calls, press releases, and face-to-face meetings), 2. electronic communications (e.g., email and websites), and 3. social media (e.g., web 2.0, Twitter, Facebook, and other social media platforms). Constituent communications serve a vital role in representative government. In early America, concerns about these vital democratic connections underpinned the existence of the franking privilege. The franking privilege has its roots in the 17 th century. The British House of Commons instituted it in 1660, and free mail was available to many officials under the colonial postal system. In 1775, the First Continental Congress passed legislation giving Members mailing privileges so they could communicate with their constituents. In 1782, under the Articles of Confederation, Congress granted Members of the Continental Congress, heads of various departments, and military officers the right to send and receive letters, packets, and dispatches under the frank. After the adoption of the Constitution, the First Congress passed legislation for the establishment of federal post offices, which contained language continuing the franking privilege as enacted under the Articles of Confederation. Under the Post Office Act of 1792, Members could send and receive under their frank all letters and packets up to two ounces in weight while Congress was in session. Subsequent legislation extended Member use of the frank to a specific number of days before and after a session. The act of 1825 also provided for the unlimited franking of newspapers and documents printed by Congress, regardless of weight. Scholarly work suggests that franked mail played an important role in national politics during the late 18 th and early 19 th centuries. In 1782, James Madison described the postal system as the "principal channel" that provided citizens with information about public affairs. Members mailed copies of acts, bills, government reports, and speeches, serving as a distributor for government information and a proxy for the then-nonexistent Washington press corps. The distribution of information by Members provided local newspapers across the country with news on Washington politics. Because franking statutes allowed Members to both send and receive franked mail during much of the 19 th century, constituents could also mail letters to their Senators and Representatives for free. Historically, the franking privilege was seen as a right of the constituents, not of the Members. When the franking statutes were first revised in 1792, a proponent argued that "the privilege of franking was granted to the Members ... as a benefit to their constituents." More generally, President Andrew Jackson suggested that the Post Office Department itself was an important element of a democratic republic: This Department is chiefly important as a means of diffusing knowledge. It is to the body politic what the veins and arteries are to the natural—carrying, conveying, rapidly and regularly to the remotest parts of the system correct information of the operations of the Government, and bringing back to it the wishes and the feelings of the people. Even in the modern era, in addition to direct communications with constituents about matters of public concern, proponents of franking argue that free use of the mails allows Members to inform their constituents about upcoming town-hall meetings, important developments in Congress, and other civic concerns. Proponents argue that without a method of directly reaching his or her constituents, a Member would be forced to rely on intermediaries in the media or personal costs in order to publicize information. Technological changes during the late 19 th and early 20 th centuries—most notably the rise of mass newspapers, the invention of the telephone, and advances in transportation—aided Members and constituents in the exchange of information. Until the late 20 th century, the vast majority of Member-constituent communications comprised four forms of communication—postal mail; telephone calls; press releases, including through newspapers and other media; and face-to-face meetings. How Representatives and Senators have used various forms of communication to reach constituents and understand their preferences has changed based on media. For example, one Representative recounted that "newspapers, editors, and newsmen in one's district are particularly helpful in assessing public opinion" among constituents in the district. Another Representative emphasized the importance of being seen by constituents in the district and making sure everyone knows your name. Finally, another Representative recalled purposefully making phone calls to constituents who disagreed with him "not to change the individual's minds, but to let them know that I had read their letters, appreciated their opinion, but had legitimate reasons for disagreeing with them." Contemporary law and chamber regulations continue to reflect the belief that these traditional forms of Member-constituent communication are vital to the functioning of our representative system. By law, Representatives and Senators are provided an annual allowance that may be used to frank letters, make long-distance phone calls, travel to and from their districts for the purpose of interacting with constituents, and buy office equipment that supports their constituent contact. Although all Members continue to use traditional modes of constituent communication, they have many more choices and options than they did 20 years ago. In addition to traditional modes of communication Members can now reach their constituents via email, websites, tele-townhalls, online videos, social networking sites, and other electronic-based communication applications. Constituents can take advantage of these new mediums as well. There is overwhelming evidence that both Members and constituents are taking advantage of these new mediums; the use of new electronic communications technology is dramatically increasing. On the constituent side, email has now become the preferred form of communication with Congress. Prior to 1995, there were virtually no email exchanges between Members and constituents. More recently, the volume of emails received by the House of Representatives has come to dwarf the volume of postal mail received. Similar growth was seen in incoming Senate electronic mail. Figure 1 shows the rapid growth of email from constituents to Congress between 1995 and 2011, after widespread Internet access became available in the late 1990s. In comparison, the amount of postal mail sent to Congress dropped by more than 50% during the same time period, from almost 53 million pieces of mail in 1995 to fewer than 22 million pieces in 2011. But it had been replaced by over three hundred million emails. By 2011, postal mail was 7% of all mail coming to Capitol Hill. Communications from Congress have seen a similar transformation, with electronic communications over time seeing much greater volume than more traditional means of communication.