The question for debate is simple. The franking priviledge allows members of Congress to mail information for free. This creates an obvious advantage for incumbents during elections. The House has a retention rate of ninety-eight percent. You must have name recognition and money in order to win an election...but no one will give money to a challenger. Thus, you must have either strong personal connections or a significant personal fortune. This creates an environment that excludes many viable candidates.

Should the franking privilege be abolished?

Obviously important, non-partisan mailings should be free as a way to show governmental transparency. However, stricter guidelines in regard to potentially "political" focused mailing should be curtailed, in my opinion

Yes, isn't it ironic that we never ever get mail from our representatives talking about what's going on in Washington until about 6 months before an election?

My gut says to abolish it. My head says that our representatives send out a LOT of mail in response to requests, to make requests, etc.

So, a compromise: abolish free mass-mailings from our representatives. Allow unlimited free personalized mailings. In other words: a pre-printed bulk-mailing will cost money to send, but a letter sent to an individual is cost-free.

No, it shouldn't be abolished-the guidelines that you gave are sufficient enough. What necessarily constitutes constituent business and election business might be a little dicey to determine, but I think you could suspend franking privileges for a time period, say five months before the election until the end of voting in the general election. Constitutent concerns between this time could be addressed on an internet website or through a phone call.