THE MIDDLE COAST
House of Representatives
Waste, Fraud, & Abuse Scorecard
2024 Scores
NOTE: This is an active investigation. You can help us complete this work by donating to Solarpunk PAC.
A short explainer on “Franking Privilege” and “Members’ Representational Allowance”
Each member of the House of Representatives is given a set budget to run their office. This is called the “Members’ Representational Allowance”. Within this budget is a line item called “franking”. For centuries, the franking privilege allowed congress members to communicate with constituents and conduct official government business through the US Postal Service at no charge. The US Government reimburses the USPS for this expense and the line item is associated with each Representative. In the House Ethics manual, guidelines require franking not be used for campaign-related items.
Unfortunately, we found many Representatives abusing this privilege and wasting taxpayer funds on clearly political ads against another political party, instead of using their campaign funds. This is waste, fraud, and abuse of the government so they can remain in power at the expense of taxpayers.
Review our methodology here.
What we found shocked us.
Representatives say they are cutting waste, but in reality are wasting taxpayer money.
Research how your representative did in our new scorecard on taxpayer money used for political ads in 2024. We are building out this research for all congressional representatives in the Middle Coast states of Wisconsin, Minnesota, and Michigan.
Franking spend by Representatives in Wisconsin, Minnesota, and Michigan
Wisconsin
*
Wisconsin *
WI-01
Bryan Steil (R)
Waste, Fraud, & Abuse Score
D
No taxpayer funded campaign material found. Extremely high franking spend of total office budget.
Franking Cost to Taxpayers
$145,366.38
Franking % of Total Office Budget
8.35%
Example of taxpayer-funded campaign material
WI-02
Mark Pocan (D)
Waste, Fraud, & Abuse Score
A
Franking Cost to Taxpayers
$208.17
Franking % of Total Office Budget
0.01%
Example of taxpayer-funded campaign material
WI-03
Derrick Van Orden (R)
Waste, Fraud, & Abuse Score
F
Multiple political messages paid for by taxpayers against another political party and/or candidate. Very high franking spend of total office budget.
Franking Cost to Taxpayers
$117,426.26
Franking % of Total Office Budget
6.80%
Example of taxpayer-funded campaign material
WI-04
Gwen Moore (D)
Waste, Fraud, & Abuse Score
A
Franking Cost to Taxpayers
$25,240.70
Franking % of Total Office Budget
1.43%
Example of taxpayer-funded campaign material
WI-05
Scott Fitzgerald (R)
Waste, Fraud, & Abuse Score
F
Multiple political messages paid for by taxpayers against another political party and/or candidate. Extremely high franking spend of total office budget.
Franking Cost to Taxpayers
$270,310
Franking % of Total Office Budget
16.88%
Example of taxpayer-funded campaign material
WI-06
Glenn Grothman (R)
Waste, Fraud, & Abuse Score
F
Multiple political messages paid for by taxpayers against another political party and/or candidate. Very high franking spend of total office budget.
Franking Cost to Taxpayers
$95,128.35
Franking % of Total Office Budget
6.11%
Example of taxpayer-funded campaign material
WI-07
Tom Tiffany (R)
Waste, Fraud, & Abuse Score
F
Multiple political messages paid for by taxpayers against another political party and/or candidate. Very high franking spend of total office budget.
Franking Cost to Taxpayers
$100,256.60
Franking % of Total Office Budget
5.49%
Example of taxpayer-funded campaign material
WI-08
Former Representative Mike Gallagher (R)
Waste, Fraud, & Abuse Score
A
Franking Cost to Taxpayers
$29,870.48
Franking % of Total Office Budget
2.71%
Example of taxpayer-funded campaign material
Minnesota
*
Minnesota *
NOTE: This is an active investigation. Your donation to Solarpunk PAC helps us complete this work. Your contribution helps us finish this important work.
We all know that the current administration is gutting critical services in the name of “waste, fraud, & abuse” but what most taxpayers don’t know is that those crying “waste, fraud & abuse” are actually committing it!
MN-01
Brad Finstad (R)
Waste, Fraud, & Abuse Score
C
Veiled political message paid for by taxpayers against another political party and/or candidate. High franking spend of total office budget.
Franking Cost to Taxpayers
$77,351.25
Franking % of Total Office Budget
4.41%
Example of taxpayer-funded campaign material
MN-02
Angie Craig (D)
Waste, Fraud, & Abuse Score
A
Franking Cost to Taxpayers
$290.40
Franking % of Total Office Budget
0.02%
Example of taxpayer-funded campaign material
MN-03
Dean Phillips (D)
Waste, Fraud, & Abuse Score
A
Franking Cost to Taxpayers
$0
Franking % of Total Office Budget
0.00%
Example of taxpayer-funded campaign material
MN-04
Betty McCollum (D)
Waste, Fraud, & Abuse Score
B
Veiled political message paid for by taxpayers against another political party and/or candidate.
Franking Cost to Taxpayers
$21,106.96
Franking % of Total Office Budget
1.28%
Example of taxpayer-funded campaign material
MN-05
Ilhan Omar (D)
Waste, Fraud, & Abuse Score
A
Franking Cost to Taxpayers
$409.20
Franking % of Total Office Budget
0.02%
Example of taxpayer-funded campaign material
MN-06
Tom Emmer (R)
Waste, Fraud, & Abuse Score
F
Multiple political messages paid for by taxpayers against another political party and/or candidate. Very high franking spend of total office budget.
Franking Cost to Taxpayers
$102,470.01
Franking % of Total Office Budget
6.43%
Example of taxpayer-funded campaign material
MN-07
Michelle Fischbach (R)
Waste, Fraud, & Abuse Score
F
Multiple political messages paid for by taxpayers against another political party and/or candidate. Very high franking spend of total office budget.
Franking Cost to Taxpayers
$81,858.64
Franking % of Total Office Budget
4.51%
Example of taxpayer-funded campaign material
MN-08
Pete Stauber (R)
Waste, Fraud, & Abuse Score
C
Veiled political message paid for by taxpayers against another political party and/or candidate. High franking spend of total office budget.
Franking Cost to Taxpayers
$67,451.93
Franking % of Total Office Budget
3.60%
Example of taxpayer-funded campaign material
Michigan
*
Michigan *
NOTE: This is an active investigation. Your donation to Solarpunk PAC helps us complete this work. Your contribution helps us finish this important work.
We all know that the current administration is gutting critical services in the name of “waste, fraud, & abuse” but what most taxpayers don’t know is that those crying “waste, fraud & abuse” are actually committing it!
MI-01
Jack Bergman (R)
Waste, Fraud, & Abuse Score
D
Veiled political message paid for by taxpayers against another political party and/or candidate. Very high franking spend of total office budget.
Franking Cost to Taxpayers
$132,728.91
Franking % of Total Office Budget
6.94%
Example of taxpayer-funded campaign material
MI-02
John Moolnaar (R)
Waste, Fraud, & Abuse Score
D
Multiple political messages paid for by taxpayers against another political party and/or candidate.
Franking Cost to Taxpayers
$52,365.56
Franking % of Total Office Budget
2.80%
Example of taxpayer-funded campaign material
MI-03
Hillary Scholten (D)
Waste, Fraud, & Abuse Score
A
Franking Cost to Taxpayers
$12,467.09
Franking % of Total Office Budget
0.73%
Example of taxpayer-funded campaign material
MI-04
Bill Huizenga (R)
Waste, Fraud, & Abuse Score
C
Veiled political message paid for by taxpayers against another political party and/or candidate.
Franking Cost to Taxpayers
$1,502.41
Franking % of Total Office Budget
0.09%
Example of taxpayer-funded campaign material
MI-05
Tim Walberg (R)
Waste, Fraud, & Abuse Score
D
Multiple political messages paid for by taxpayers against another political party and/or candidate. High franking spend of total office budget.
Franking Cost to Taxpayers
$75,968.17
Franking % of Total Office Budget
4.23%
Example of taxpayer-funded campaign material
MI-06
Debbie Dingell (D)
Waste, Fraud, & Abuse Score
B
Franking Cost to Taxpayers
$60,472.23
Franking % of Total Office Budget
3.45%
Example of taxpayer-funded campaign material
MI-07
Elissa Slotkin (D)
Waste, Fraud, & Abuse Score
A
Franking Cost to Taxpayers
$959.29
Franking % of Total Office Budget
0.05%
Example of taxpayer-funded campaign material
MI-08
Dan Kildee (D)
Waste, Fraud, & Abuse Score
A
Franking Cost to Taxpayers
$1,949.27
Franking % of Total Office Budget
0.11%
Example of taxpayer-funded campaign material
MI-09
Lisa McClain (R)
Waste, Fraud, & Abuse Score
F
Multiple political messages paid for by taxpayers against another political party and/or candidate. High franking spend of total office budget.
Franking Cost to Taxpayers
$82,259.95
Franking % of Total Office Budget
4.65%
Example of taxpayer-funded campaign material
MI-10
John James (R)
Waste, Fraud, & Abuse Score
C
Veiled political message paid for by taxpayers against another political party and/or candidate. High franking spend of total office budget.
Franking Cost to Taxpayers
$76,647.08
Franking % of Total Office Budget
4.13%
Example of taxpayer-funded campaign material
MI-11
Haley Stevens (D)
Waste, Fraud, & Abuse Score
A
Franking Cost to Taxpayers
$507.63
Franking % of Total Office Budget
0.03%
Example of taxpayer-funded campaign material
MI-12
Rashida Tlaib (D)
Waste, Fraud, & Abuse Score
C
Veiled political message paid for by taxpayers against another political party and/or candidate. High franking spend of total office budget.
Franking Cost to Taxpayers
$96,744.76
Franking % of Total Office Budget
5.86%
Example of taxpayer-funded campaign material
MI-13
Shri Thanedar (D)
Waste, Fraud, & Abuse Score
B
No taxpayer funded campaign material found. High franking spend of total office budget.
Franking Cost to Taxpayers
$84,110.11
Franking % of Total Office Budget
4.38%
Example of taxpayer-funded campaign material
Methodology
We accessed the US House Of Representatives, Office of the Clerk: House Communications Standards Commission’s Advisory Opinions to see if a Representative made any advertisements or mailers that communicate a political message against another political party and/or candidate. The more they did, the lower their score in our Waste, Fraud, & Abuse Scorecard.
We also accessed the US House of Representatives Statement of Disbursements to total the cost of franking to taxpayers for each Representative in 2024. We then calculated the percentage of their office spend for the franking line item.
A score of “A” means we did not find any abuse of franking priviledge in 2024. A score of “F” means we found many instances of wasteful campaign material AND a high franking spend as a percentage of their office budget.