In the section of the Open House Project report that David All and I co-authored we focused our attention on the Franking regime that restricts the ability of members of Congress from using their Web sites as platforms to communicate with their constituents by using the tools available to enable that communication. What we neglected to talk about, mainly because it is not a problem that can be solved by changing rules, is the perception of what member Web sites ought to be. The clearest example of the kind of confused attitude regarding member Web sites comes in an article from yesterday’s Hill newspaper titled, “Congressional Websites: The bright, bland and bizarre.“

The 1,361 word article details the contents of some member Web sites by explaining which Web site has a picture of the member at the top, or whether they feature the state flower, or stating that some members have a “Support the troops” image on their site. The article comes across as the type of reportage that compares the clothing styles of members of Congress. This attitude about member Web sites, that they are accessories and not central to a members’ activities, is pervasive on Capitol Hill. I could care less if Nancy Boyda prominently features the sunflower on her Web site. It would be interesting to know if she posts her earmark requests or if she uses YouTube to feature videos of her floor speeches. Perhaps the author of this article (whom I really hope is an intern) could have looked for innovative ways in which members are using their Web sites.

For example, this article could have looked at the Web site of David’s old boss Rep. Jack Kingston. Kingston’s Web site is probably the most sophisticated site in the entire House. It has an active blog, operating on drupal, that does not operate as a retooled press release vehicle and which contains a blogroll that connects his blog to the wider conversation going on online by listing conservative blogs and by listing the blogs of other Republican congressmen. Kingston’s site also includes a feature called MailTube where the congressman solicits video questions, through YouTube, from constituents which he will then respond to in a YouTube video. Instead of having his pictures in a “Photos” section of his Web site, Kingston offers up a link to his Flicker account. Most House sites have a search function that is truly confusing and that rarely helps you find what you’re looking for. Kingston’s search function is powered by Google so you can search his site and actually find what you are looking for. This list could probably go on for quite some time so I’ll stop.

The key to consider here is that every single thing I listed above that Kingston is doing with his Web site is technically not allowed under the House Web Rules. It seems pretty crazy to me, and probably to most people, that members of Congress have to break the rules to have an interesting Web site that connects people to their congressman. The Franking Rules that govern Web sites reinforce the view that Web sites are accessories by restricting members of Congress from using their Web sites as communicative platforms that connect people to power.

Only when the rules restricting Web sites are removed will members of Congress be able to realize the potential of their sites as Jack Kingston is doing by rebelling against the rules. This will enable more people on Capitol Hill to see how member Web sites could be integrated into the activities central to members’ key representational duties. In the meantime, reporters from The Hill could do well by reading their own paper.