Members of Congress Go Silent Over Prior False Testimony On Surveillance

Re:Members of Congress Go Silent Over Prior False Testimony ... by wallawe on Thursday June 13, 2013 @05:26PM (#5876694)

I was an intern for a congressman. My job was to answer and return constituent emails and calls. We took the feedback, searched for the proper prewritten form letter, printed it out and sent it back with a stamp of the congressman's signature. He never got a single bit of the feedback himself.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Members of Congress Go Silent Over Prior False Testimony ... by smky80 on Thursday June 13, 2013 @08:26PM (#5877601)

Not even a summary of the feedback? Or was the staff chief basically running the show policy wise?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Members of Congress Go Silent Over Prior False Testimony ... by PeterisP on Friday June 14, 2013 @02:08AM (#5878507)

What do you mean, "policy wise"? Responding to (unpaid) feedback is in practice a PR / campaigning issue, not a question of policy.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Members of Congress Go Silent Over Prior False Testimony ... by smky80 on Friday June 14, 2013 @05:29AM (#5879031)

I would hope feedback from constituents would at least be a consideration in forming policy?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Members of Congress Go Silent Over Prior False Testimony ... by flyinRyan on Friday June 14, 2013 @08:52AM (#5879587)

If you're not paying the bills your views aren't interesting. Advertising is what wins elections.

[ Parent | on HN ]