Congress
+
Social Media
Congress
+
Social Media
October 22, 2012
Sherri R. Greenberg
Lyndon B. Johnson School of Public Affairs
The University of Texas at Austin
© 2012 by The University of Texas at Austin.
All rights reserved.
Research Team
Project Director:
Sherri R. Greenberg
Students:
Bryce Bencivengo
Lyndon B. Johnson School of Public Affairs, 2013
Daniel Dillon
Lyndon B. Johnson School of Public Affairs, 2013
Rhiannon Goad Lyndon B. Johnson School of Public Affairs, 2013
Center for Women’s and Gender Studies, 2013
Matthew T. Cornelius Lyndon B. Johnson School of Public Affairs, 2013
Noelle Gaughen
Elizabeth Joseph Racheal Kane Tara Kavaler
Alyssa Legler
Jessica Conway
Charles Maddox
Linnea Nasman
Andrew Phifer
Reid Porter
Brooke Russell
Phil Ulloa
Courtney Weaver
Lyndon B. Johnson School of Public Affairs, 2013
Lyndon B. Johnson School of Public Affairs, 2013
Lyndon B. Johnson School of Public Affairs, 2013
Lyndon B. Johnson School of Public Affairs, 2013
Lyndon B. Johnson School of Public Affairs, 2013
Lyndon B. Johnson School of Public Affairs, 2013
Lyndon B. Johnson School of Public Affairs, 2013
Lyndon B. Johnson School of Public Affairs, 2013
Lyndon B. Johnson School of Public Affairs, 2013
Lyndon B. Johnson School of Public Affairs, 2013
Lyndon B. Johnson School of Public Affairs, 2013
Lyndon B. Johnson School of Public Affairs, 2012
Lyndon B. Johnson School of Public Affairs, 2013
School of Social Work, 2013
Table of Contents
Executive Summary vii
Introduction 1
Overview 1
Platforms 1
Current Research 3
Methodology 5
Background 5
Post Dataset Collection 5
Coding for Post Dataset 6
Member Dataset Collection 8
Data Analysis 9
Congressional Use of Social Media 9
The Geography of Congressional Usage 10
Usage Variation Across Congress 11
Profile Data
15
Correlations 16
Discussion of Results 17
Context: Limitations of Current Policy and Considerations for the Future 19
Rapid Changes in Current and Future Technology 19
Legislating Use, Not Intent 19
Privacy and Security 19
Accuracy 19
Public Participation—Does Social Media Count? 19
Expectations for Communication and Response Time 20
To Regulate or Not To Regulate 20
Application of the Franking Privilege 20
Policy Options 21
Training and Education 21
Best Practices 22
Regulation and Legislation 24
Future Research 29
Conclusion 31
Bibliography 33
Appendix A: Glossary of Terms 35
Appendix B: Sources for Existing Social Media Policies 37
Executive Summary
As social media popularity has increased in the United
States, so has the use of social media by Members of Congress. Communication technology developments of the
20th century, such as email, changed the way Members
interact with their constituents, the media, and other
interested parties. Common social media platforms including Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube are now routine communication tools for Members and their staffs,
and the rapid pace of development in social media will
continue to shape interactions between Members of
Congress and the public. This report explores the official use of social media by current Members of Congress, including the history of adoption, analysis of current social media behavior, best practices, and policy
options for future use.
To understand how and why Members use social media, researchers collected data from official congressional social media accounts on Facebook, Twitter, and
YouTube. The research team collected approximately
47,000 messages posted by Members on Facebook and
Twitter from 59 consecutive days between August and
October 2011. Researchers coded, individual messages
as one or more of eight categories: Campaign, Official
Congressional Action, Position-Taking, Policy Statement, District or State, Media or Public Relations, Personal, and Other. We collected profile information from
Facebook and YouTube during a single week in February 2012.
The data that we collected reveals that a large majority of Members have adopted social media as part of
their communication strategy, and that Members are
devoting time and resources to their digital presence.
Currently, 72 percent of Members have accounts on all
three platforms, while only 2 percent have no current
social media presence. Senators are more frequent users than Representatives, and Republicans are more
frequent users than Democrats. Both Democrats and
Republicans primarily posted Position-Taking messages. Additionally, Democrats posted more messages
than Republicans on District and State Affairs. Republican messages focused more on Official Congressional
Action, Media, and Policy Statements than Democrats’
messages. Some of these differences between parties
and chambers may be attributable to differences in
leadership, organization, and status as minority or majority party. An analysis of social media use by several
Congresses over time would enhance the understanding of these differences.
While social media allows Members to interact with
followers, current usage is largely one-sided. Feedback
mechanisms integrated into social media platforms including view counters and comments show no correlation with a Member’s social media output. External
factors such as committee appointments, prominence
in the media, and leadership positions may be a better
determinant of social media popularity than any controllable patterns of use.
Current congressional policies for social media stem
from the tradition of franking regulations, and rapid
adoption of new social media technologies has outpaced official recognition and regulation. Franking
regulations, originally designed for stamped mail, have
proven to be difficult to apply to electronic communications. Future policies must reconcile the tension between the informal, interactive communication allowed
by social media and the need to maintain official process, protect privacy and security, and adhere to ethics
rules. Policies should take into account the rapid pace
of change of social media, and the instantaneous communication that it offers. Policies should seek to guide
the best use of social media and to prevent any abuses
of privilege or taxpayer dollars.
“Just as social media and just-in-time applications have changed the way
Americans get information about current events or health information,
they are now changing how citizens interact with elected officials and government agencies. People are not only getting involved with government
in new and interesting ways, they are also using these tools to share their
views with others and contribute to the broader debate around government policies.”
—Aaron Smith, Research Specialist at the Pew Research Center’s Internet &
American Life Project1
Introduction
Overview
Platforms
Since Congress began using email in the 1990s, internet-based constituent communication consistently has
increased. From fax, to email, to interactive web pages,
today, Members of Congress widely have adopted social
media. In fact, 98 percent of Congress has adopted at
least one social media platform as a communication
and outreach tool.2 These technologies enable Members to communicate with more constituents in direct
and, often, innovative ways. Existing social media platforms continue to evolve even as developers create new
platforms. The constantly changing technology poses
questions regarding the appropriate use of social media
by Members of Congress.
The social media platforms that we analyzed in this
project share several characteristics. All are free, accessible with mobile devices, often integrated with one
another, and popular worldwide; but the usage, ownership, and rules of each platform differ.
The focus of this project is to provide an overview and analysis
of the use of social media by Members of Congress based on
data collected by the project team from social media’s most
popular platforms: Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube. To understand how, why, and for what purposes Members of Congress use social media, researchers compiled two datasets.
One dataset contains messages posted by Members on both
Facebook and Twitter and documents the frequency with
which Members post to their accounts, as well as the types
of messages they send. A second dataset analyzes trends apparent on Members’ Facebook and YouTube profile pages,
specifically examining how Members present themselves on
these platforms. This report examines Congress Members’
use of social media, provides an analysis of the potential
policy implications, and outlines various policy options and
social media best practices.
1.
2.
“Government Online.” Pew Research Center, Internet
and American Life Project. http://www.pewinternet.
org/Reports/2010/Government-Online.aspx (accessed April 17, 2012).
“Use of Social Media by Members of Congress.” LBJ
School of Public Affairs. August 25, 2011 to October
25, 2011.
Facebook
Launched in February 2004, Facebook is now the
world’s largest social networking service and website.3
As of February 2012, Facebook had more than 845 million active users.4 Facebook provides two categories of
membership for users: “profiles5” and “pages6.” Profiles
are personalized websites within Facebook belonging to individual Facebook users.7 The profile pages of
Members of Congress, however, are simply referred to
as pages rather than profiles.8 Members of Congress
create pages under Facebook’s Government Official category, which is reserved for elected officials to use for
their official government duties.9
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
Emil Protalinski. “Facebook has over 845 million
users.” Technology News, Analysis, Comments and
Product Reviews for IT Professionals. http://www.
zdnet.com/blog/facebook/facebook-has-over-845million-users/8332 (accessed March 21, 2012).
Ibid.
“Facebook Glossary.” Facebook. http://www.facebook.
com/help/glossary. (accessed April 29, 2012).
Pages Overview.” Facebook. ads.ak.facebook.com/ads/
FacebookAds/Pages_Overview.pdf (accessed March
21, 2012).
Ibid.
“Facebook Pages: Mission control for your business
on Facebook,” Facebook. http://ads.ak.facebook.com/
ads/FacebookAds/Pages_Product_Guide_022812.pdf
(accessed March 21, 2012).
Ibid.
Congress + SOCIAL MEDIA
A Facebook user becomes a fan of a page by clicking “like”
on the Facebook page of interest.10 Then, the activity of
the “liked” page appears on the user’s “newsfeed.”11 A
newsfeed contains activities by a user’s friends, along
with content generated by the pages of which the user
is a fan.12 Members of Congress communicate with users on Facebook primarily through the newsfeed, posting updates that are then read by those who opt-in
for updates.13 Thus, each Facebook user’s newsfeed is
personalized.14 Newsfeed content can include links to
news stories, personal updates, videos, comments, and
photographs. In addition to adding content to a user’s
newsfeed, Members of Congress may send private messages to their fans.15
Twitter
Created in 2006, Twitter is a social networking, microblogging service based in San Francisco, with additional servers and offices in New York City.16 Twitter users
communicate via “tweets” and private direct messages.17 Communication on Twitter is purposely short—
limited to 140 characters per tweet—allowing users
to highlight specific information.18 Similar to the Facebook newsfeed, each Twitter account generates a personalized subscription page of tweets posted by other
Twitter users that an individual elects to “follow.”19 All
tweets are publicly visible unless specifically restricted.20 Unlike tweets, direct messages to other users are
private and not restricted to the 140-character limit.21
10.
“Facebook Glossary.” Facebook. http://www.facebook.
com/help/glossary. (accessed April 29, 2012).
12.
Ibid.
11.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
2
Ibid.
Ibid.
Ibid.
“Facebook Pages: Mission control for your business
on Facebook,” Facebook. http://ads.ak.facebook.com/
ads/FacebookAds/Pages_Product_Guide_022812.pdf
(accessed March 21, 2012).
Twitter allows Members of Congress to open official
congressional Twitter accounts. Official accounts enable Twitter to ensure its users that a given person is
a verified Member of Congress.22 Therefore, users can
distinguish Members’ official accounts from Members’
private accounts or Twitter users posing as a Member
of Congress.23 Ensuring authenticity is important because, unlike Facebook, pretending to be someone else
is not against Twitter’s terms of service.24 Therefore, a
given Member of Congress may have a Twitter account
associated with his or her name that is unofficial and/
or unauthentic.25
YouTube
Created by three former PayPal employees in 2005,
YouTube is the world’s most popular video-sharing
website.26 YouTube allows users to upload, view, and
share videos.27 Today, Google owns YouTube.28
As with Twitter and Facebook, YouTube allows Members of Congress to register under an official congressional account.29 Like Twitter users, YouTube users are
not required to register under a real name.30 Therefore,
official accounts allow viewers to distinguish between
official, authentic channels and unofficial, potentially
inauthentic channels.31 A Congress Member’s channel
serves as a hub for his or her YouTube videos.32
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
Chris Taylor. “Social Networking ‘Utopia’ isn’t Coming.”
Featured Articles. http://articles.cnn.com/2011-0627/tech/limits.social.networking.taylor_1_twitterusers-facebook-friends-connections?_s=PM:TECH
(accessed March 21, 2012).
27.
“Twitter 101: How should I get started using Twitter?.”
Twitter. http://support.twitter.com/groups/31-twitter-basics/topics/104-welcome-to-twitter-support/
articles/215585-twitter-101-how-should-i-get-started-using-twitter (accessed March 21, 2012).
29.
Ibid.
31.
Ibid.
Ibid.
Ibid.
28.
30.
32.
“FAQs about Verified Accounts.” Twitter Help Center.
http://support.twitter.com/groups/31-twitter-basics/
topics/111-features/articles/119135-about-verifiedaccounts (accessed March 21, 2012).
Ibid.
Ibid.
Ibid.
Jim Hopkins. “Surprise! There’s a third YouTube cofounder—USATODAY.com.” News, Travel, Weather, Entertainment, Sports, Technology, U.S. & World. http://
www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2006-10-11-youtubekarim_x.htm (accessed March 21, 2012).
Ibid.
Associated Press . “Google buys YouTube for $1.65
billion—Business—US business—msnbc.com.” U.S.
Business. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15196982/
ns/business-us_business/t/google-buys-youtubebillion/#.T3ihp79bX7A (accessed March 21, 2012).
Jill Lawrence. “Congress Launches Official Channels on
YouTube.” On Politics. http://content.usatoday.com/
communities/onpolitics/post/2009/01/61236496/1
(accessed March 21, 2012).
“Terms of Service.” YouTube. http://www.youtube.
com/t/terms (accessed March 21, 2012).
Ibid.
Ibid.
Congress + SOCIAL MEDIA
With a Google account, users can choose to subscribe
to a Congress Member’s channel, and generate videos
from that channel on the user’s video feed.33 Subscribers also may elect to receive email alerts when a Member of Congress uploads a video.34 Members of Congress
can post comments on videos and channels, send direct
private messages, and post text message alerts through
their official accounts. Users can view a Congress Member’s videos without subscribing to the Member’s channel and without having a Google account.35 Users also
can view videos without going to the YouTube website, because YouTube videos frequently are posted on
and viewed through other websites (e.g., the Congress
Member’s official website, Twitter, or Facebook.)36
Current Research
Several studies by the Congressional Research Service
(CRS), the Congressional Management Foundation
(CMF), and Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government
have sought to understand the implications for Congress and government of the growth of the internet and
social media. The 2008 CMF report, “Communicating
with Congress: How the Internet Has Changed Citizen
Engagement,” found that the internet has become a primary source for constituents to learn about and communicate with Members of Congress. Surveys showed
that people want to hear from Congress and, increasingly, prefer to communicate with Members online.
Yet, Members of Congress also feel a sense of mistrust.
The CMF study found that Members and their staff are
distrustful of interest groups and internet-generated
advocacy campaigns. Members and their staff have
doubts about the accuracy of the information presented
in online advocacy campaigns and question how well
these groups actually reflect their constituents. The
“Communicating with Congress: How the Internet Has
Changed Citizen Engagement” study is part of an ongoing working paper series by CMF that seeks to help
Members of Congress and constituents communicate
better. The CMF researchers propose that if Members
of Congress have an increased knowledge and understanding of social media and the role this kind of com-
munication plays in political conversations, trust could
be fostered among all parties.37
In a similar vein, Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government conducted a study of online town hall meetings.
In 2006, such meetings were relatively new, so the researchers facilitated 20 online town hall meetings with
U.S. Representatives, and one online town hall in 2008
with a U.S. Senator. They found that online town halls
increased constituents’ approval of the Member, and
also increased their approval of the Member’s position
on the issue being discussed.
Additionally, the study found that town halls attracted
diverse groups of attendees, and overall, increased those
attendees’ engagement in politics. Furthermore, participation in the online town hall meetings increased an
attendee’s probability of voting for the Member. The researchers noted that the town halls were popular among
constituents, and the discussions were of high quality.38
The CMF also recently surveyed congressional staffers—
senior managers and others who handle their offices’ social media efforts. Though many staffers reported that they
still rely on traditional communications (events, personal
messages from constituents, and town halls), they see social media as an important tool for Members of Congress
to adopt. Nearly two-thirds of managers use social media
to inform constituents of their Senators’ and Representatives’ views and activities.
Three-fourths of managers think that social media
enables their offices to reach people they were not
reaching before. Of those surveyed, younger staffs
(under the age of 30) are more likely to think the
benefits of social media outweigh the risks. Based
on responses, researchers concluded that offices
that adopted social media early on are more likely to
think that social media is worth the time and effort
for Members and their staffs.39
37.
38.
33.
“YouTube Essentials.” YouTube. http://www.youtube.
com/t/about_essentials (accessed March 21, 2012).
35.
Ibid.
34.
36.
Ibid.
Ibid.
39.
Kathy Goldschmidt and Leslie Ochreiter, “Communicating with Congress: How the Internet Has Changed
Citizen Engagement.” 2008. Congressional Management Foundation. http://www.congressfoundation.
org/projects/communicating-with-congress/how-theinternet-has-changed-citizen-engagement.
David Lazer, et. al., “Online Town Hall Meetings:
Exploring Democracy in the 21st Century.” 2009.
Congressional Management Foundation. http://www.
congressfoundation.org/index.php?option=com_
content&task=view&id=294.
“#Social Congress: Perceptions and Use of Social Media
on Capitol Hill.” 2011. Congressional Management Foundation. http://www.congressfoundation.org/storage/
documents/CMF_Pubs/cmf-social-congress.pdf.
3
Congress + SOCIAL MEDIA
In “Social Networking and Constituent Communications”, CRS researchers studied how Members of Congress adopted Twitter and used the platform as a tool
to communicate with constituents. They noted, like
others, that technology has changed constituent communications significantly since the mid-1990s, with
widespread adoption of email by Members of Congress.
The last decade has seen exponential growth in internet and social media use. While almost no email traffic between Members and constituents existed before
1995, constituent communications have proliferated to
nearly 200 million emails sent to House Members and
almost as many messages sent out by Members’ offices
in 2008.40
The CRS study collected all 7,078 Member-generated
tweets during the months of August and September
in 2009. Members combined issued an average of 116
tweets per day during the collection period. As of September 30, 2009, a total of 205 Representatives and
Senators were registered with Twitter—38 percent of
the House and 39 percent of the Senate.
40.
4
Matthew Glassman, Jacob Straus, and Colleen Shogan,
“Social Networking and Constituent Communications:
Member Use of Twitter During a Two-Month Period in
Congress.” February 3, 2010. Congressional Research
Service, R41066.
Methodology
Background
Collecting, standardizing, and coding social media information is a central part of analyzing Congress Members’ usage of social media. Hence, this research project
developed two main datasets. The first dataset, the Post
Dataset, consists of individual posts and tweets from Facebook and Twitter, respectively. We used this dataset
to analyze how frequently Members posted on the two
social media sites, what types of messages they shared,
and any innovative uses by individual members.
As shown in the table below, we coded 16,239 Facebook posts and 30,765 Twitter posts for a total number
of 47,004 coded posts.
Table 1
Total Number of Posts on Facebook and Twitter
Facebook
Twitter
Total
Number of Member Accounts
418
408
477
Total Number of Posts
16,239
30,765
47,004
The second dataset (called the Member Dataset) consists of information on each Member of Congress—
including whether the Member uses specific social media platforms, general Member demographic data, and
qualitative information on how the Member presents
himself or herself to the public on social media sites.
We used this dataset to identify general trends among
Members of Congress and how they use social media.
Researchers compiled the Member Dataset from 512
YouTube accounts and 472 Facebook accounts.
Post Dataset Collection
The data collection process included pulling information directly from social media sites, coding qualitative
information, and gathering other pertinent variables
such as demographic information.
The core of the Post Dataset consists of individual entries that Members posted on either official Facebook
or Twitter accounts. We chose these social media platforms based on their wide usage among Members and
the public. To compile a complete list of official accounts, we used the list of current Members generated
by the clerks of the House and Senate, and we gathered
the individual social media URLs for these Members
through official congressional websites and internet
research. We made every effort only to include official
accounts, and we did not include in this dataset any accounts that Members used primarily or exclusively for
campaign purposes.
For both Facebook and Twitter, researchers collected
the entries using the respective site’s API and a custom
programming script. For Facebook, the API allows users
to systematically collect information and posts on public Facebook accounts or pages; therefore, the dataset
only includes publicly available information. Additionally, the Post Dataset includes any entry that a Member
posted on his or her own account wall, but posts without text (such as sharing a link) or posts from other Facebook users on a Member’s wall are not included. Researchers collected Facebook posts from 12:01 a.m. on
August 25, 2011, through midnight October 25, 2011.
Only accounts that were created and active prior to October 25, 2011, were included in this study.
We pulled data from all existing Members’ Facebook accounts where possible. However, there were a total of
forty-eight accounts that could not be accessed using
Facebook’s API. The largest problem that we encountered when pulling information from Facebook’s API is
that several Members (a total of 29) have a special type
of account that requires a user to log into Facebook before viewing the Member’s page. Consequently, these
pages are not considered public information; therefore,
the API would not allow us to pull these Members’ data.
Additionally, there were eleven other accounts from
which we could not collect data due to problems with
Facebook’s API tool. While the limits on these accounts
are unfortunate, we strove to systematically collect as
much information as possible. Lastly, there were nine
Members with social media accounts who did not post
anything during the study period; thus, their accounts
do not show up in the Post Dataset.
The information that we collected from Twitter’s API
includes any tweet coming from the Member’s official account from 12:01 a.m. on August 25, 2011, and
through midnight October 24, 2011.41 In this study, we
only included accounts that were created and were active prior to October 25, 2011. Twitter designates official, verified Member of Congress accounts with a
check mark logo. Researchers pulled data from all ex41.
The Twitter data therefore has one fewer day of
entries. This should not present a methodological
problem to data analysis, since the additional data is
systematic, and the additional data compared to the
rest of the dataset is only about 0.6%.
Congress + SOCIAL MEDIA
isting Member accounts, except for 19 Twitter accounts
where we encountered collection problems. Not included in the dataset were Members who did not tweet during the study period (a total of 12 accounts). The other
seven accounts could not be collected because of API
problems—when our collection script queried Twitter’s API, the API did not send back any information. In addition to collecting information on Representatives
from the 50 states, we also collected data from Representatives of United States territories who had existing
accounts and posted on Facebook or Twitter during the
data collection period. All maps, graphs, and charts reflect this aggregate data.
For data analysis purposes, the in-session versus outof-session dates for the House came from the Library
of Congress.42 Similarly, the dates for the Senate, which
are unique from the House, came from the Library of
Congress.43 During the time period examined by this
research project, both chambers were in and out-ofsession for numerous days.44
Coding for Post Dataset
For the Post Dataset, we coded posts and tweets for
purpose, voice, and reference to other Members. To
code for purpose, researchers placed each post into one
or more categories since many posts often covered multiple topics. As an example, a post that said “Will be on
@MSNBC later to discuss my support of #dadt repeal.
Please watch” was coded as both Position Taking and
Media. Coding a post into multiple categories allowed
us to capture all of the information in the entry and
gave a stronger understanding of the Member’s communication strategy. Explanations of these categories
and common examples include the following45:
42.
43.
44.
45.
6
“Days in Session Calendars 112th Congress 2nd Session,” THOMAS, Library of Congress, http://thomas.
loc.gov/home/ds/h1122.html, (accessed April 2,
2012).
“Days in Session Calendars U.S. Senate—112th Congress 2nd Session,” THOMAS, Library of Congress,
http://thomas.loc.gov/home/ds/s1122.html, (accessed April 2, 2012).
Days in and out-of-session during our collection period were as follows: Facebook: House (31 in-session,
31 out-of-session), Senate (32 in-session, 30 out-ofsession); Twitter: House (30 in-session, 31 out-ofsession), Senate (32 in-session, 29 out-of-session).
The following Facebook and Twitter postings were
observed during 2011 and used to code the posts in
our dataset that were compiled from August 25, 2011,
to October 24 2011.
Campaign
This is an entry in which a Member of Congress
includes campaign-related material. These include calls for fundraising support, or mentions
of campaign-related events.
•“Sign up to join our grassroots campaign & help
send a progressive fighter to the U.S. Senate!”
Official Congressional Action
This is an entry in which a Member of Congress
mentions an official congressional action by himself or herself. Most of these relate to activities
based in Washington, D.C., or official trips abroad.
Official Congressional Action includes reporting
on official votes, letters to the President, committee hearings, roll calls, introducing bills, etc. Also,
virtual town hall meetings (such as Twitter Town
Halls) are classified in this category, as well as
meetings with important or high-profile people
(politician or person otherwise associated with a
policy issue or agenda).
•“Just voted yes on ordering the previous question (closing debate) on H Res 269, the rule defining the process for. . . .”
•“I just introduced a bill to protect food assistance
for families struggling during this recession. Gov.
Snyder shouldn’t make families choose between
food or finding a job.”
•“Today we created the Senate Oceans Caucus to
address the challenges and opportunities of our
oceans.”
Position Taking
This is an entry in which a Member of Congress
takes a stance on a policy, issue, or debate. Taking a position can come in the form of a straightforward statement as well as partisan comments,
words with strong associations, or hashtags with
strong negative or positive associations.
•“We can elim many govt regs that constrict business growth & attractiveness of the U.S. for investment in job creating enterprises #Insen.”
•“Its time to get Americans back to work. After
hearing the POTUS, I look fwd to working together to get jobs to WPA.”
•“The President is right-we need a balanced plan
for short-term job creation & long-term deficit
reduction.”
•“#NASCAR Sprint Cup race in N. Ky—all about
efficiency in the pit, unlike in DC!”
Policy Statement
This is an entry where a Member of Congress references a public policy without taking a position.
Congress + SOCIAL MEDIA
“Public policy” in this context means any topic
that would be of interest to Congress. No individual entry should receive both Position Taking and
Policy Statement—these categories are mutually
exclusive.
•“S&P cut the long-term U.S. credit rating by one
notch to AA-plus on concerns about growing
budget deficits.”
•“Reports say the President is offering significant
spending cuts, he should share the plan w/ the
American people.”
•“Overheard re means-testing on Social Security:
“Do we really want Bill Gates to have Social Security?”
•“The Washington Post has a chart illustrating
how President Obama proposes to pay for the
American Jobs Act.”
District or State
This is an entry in which a Member of Congress
describes an event, visit, or issue particular to his
or her home district or state.
•“Yesterday I joined Ferndale residents to celebrate the opening of a 52 unit housing facility
for senior and low-income residents so they can
live in a comfortable and safe home with dignity.
I am proud to have secured this surplus Navy
Housing for Ferndal.”
•“Our Judiciary Committee hearing on federal-local law enforcement is underway here in Wilmington.”
•“PIC—Rep. Conaway speaking w/ students in
their American Government class at Howard
Payne University.”
•“Don’t forget, I’m hosting a town hall mtg tomorrow night at the Milford Town Hall.”
Media or Public Relations
This is an entry where a Member announces his
or her own media appearance or provides information on a media-specific event. Entries that fall
under this category include references to press
conferences, editorial articles, or other media
outlets.
•“Bernie will be talking with @WeGotEd on The
Ed Show in just a few minutes.”
•“About to be on the @DrCarolShow. Listen online: http://t.co/Xtn0Tvq.”
•“In case you missed it: Senator Ayotte discussed
POTUS #speech, GOP #debate on @foxandfriends this AM. VIDEO: http://t.co/4mcPTfR.”
Personal
This is an entry in which a Member of Congress
mentions events, issues, or people from his or her
personal life. Anything explicitly unrelated to the
Member’s work in Congress fits in this category,
including references to family, pets, eating out,
birthday wishes, holiday greetings, and so forth.
•“Happy Birthday to #CT delegation colleague @
RepJohnLarsonOther.”
•“Senator Inouye is enjoying the beef stew @Zippys Kapolei.”
•“Teri and I will be attending the 10 AM service
at Rock Church this morning. If you’re there as
well, please say hello!”
Other
These are entries that do not adequately fit in the
other seven categories.
•“Welcome to Twitter, @GovernorQuinn!”
•“So who wants to be a millionaire?”
•“@BrotherAliMpls, yes Sir! Ramadan Mubarak.”
Coding for Multiple Categories
Some social media entries serve multiple purposes under these categories. To fully capture that information,
each entry could be assigned to multiple categories. For
example, a post could be categorized as both Official
Congressional Action and Position-Taking if the post
mentioned a vote and a position on the bill.
In addition to coding for message purpose, this project
examined two additional layers: Voice and Reference
to Other Members. Voice indicates whether individual
members refer to themselves in the First or Third-Person. Reference to Other Members indicates whether a
post mentions another member in a Negative, Positive,
or Neutral/No Reference manner.
Below are a few examples that received multiple category codes:
•“Last week, I spoke on the floor in support of HR
2218, #edreform bill to improve #ESEA #NCLB.
WATCH —http://t.co/NrZtlHb.”
•This entry should be categorized as both Official
Congressional Action and Position Taking because it mentions both a vote and gives a position on the bill.
•“Tennessee Delegation Sends Letter to President
Supporting Gov. Haslam’s Disaster Declaration
Request: http://1.usa.gov/kWSkB5”
•Qualifies as Official Action Taking (sending letter to President), Position Taking (supporting
request), and District or State (local disaster request)
7
Congress + SOCIAL MEDIA
•“I’ll be on #msnbc w/ @TheRevAl tonight @
6pm to discuss #jobs, POTUS speech, and need
to invest in infrastructure. Hope u can tune in!”
•Fits under Position Taking (partisan reference
#he is making it worse) and Media (reference to
link on CBS News)
“Continue to push Obama Administration on Arctic energy projects. Good talk today with EPA
R-10 on OCS and NPR-A.”
•Qualifies as Media (NPR-A), Position Taking
(push administration), and District or State (Artic energy projects).
Member Dataset Collection
In addition to utilizing Facebook’s Graph API to collect entry information, the team analyzed and recorded individual social media account information from
each Member of Congress. This dataset identifies any
official account that a Member has on Facebook, Twitter, or YouTube and whether that account information
is included in the Post Dataset. Members of our team
analyzed this information to capture how the Member
was choosing to craft his or her own image using social
media and to identify any innovative uses of social media platforms. For consistency, researchers pulled the
information during a one-week period from January 18,
2012, to January 24, 2012.
8
For the Facebook profile information, the categories
that we used included: Member Name, Landing Page,
Number of Friends or Number of Page Likes, Characteristics of Member’s Profile Picture, Number of Photos,
Categories Under Information Section, and any Other
unique features. Landing page is defined as the page
content that appears when first visiting the Member’s
page (i.e., Wall, Welcome Page, Info, etc.). Characteristics of a Member’s Profile Picture include designations
based on the following categories: Member is only person in picture; Multiple people in profile picture; Action
shot; Professional portrait; Military (member with military personnel); Flag; President (posing with current or
former presidents); Politician (posing with other politicians); Constituent (posing with members of the public); Casual clothing; Business clothing; No profile picture loaded. There was also a section where we noted
any innovative uses of a Member’s Facebook page.
For the YouTube account collection, the categories
that we used included: Member name; Number of
total videos; Number of channel views; Total upload views; Number of subscribers; Number of
channel comments; Date joined; Date of last activity; Number of “Favorited” videos. There was also
a section where we noted any innovative uses of a
Member’s YouTube channel.
Data Analysis
Congressional Use of Social Media
We divided Congress Members’ activities on Facebook
and Twitter into eight categories: Campaign, District/
State, Media, Official Congressional Action, Personal,
Policy Statement, Position Taking, and Other. Roughly
two-fifths of all tweets and Facebook posts were Position-Taking, 40.5 percent and 38.8 percent respectively,
making it the most popular purpose of posts on both
platforms. District/State issues ranked second among
both tweets (25.6%) and posts (32.2%).
Almost all of the 541 Members of Congress46 have a social media presence. As of January 24th, 2012, the number of official congressional accounts totaled 512 on
YouTube, 472 on Facebook, and 426 on Twitter. Seventy-two percent of members were on all three platforms,
and 2 percent (11 members) were on none of the platforms.
As a group, Members interacted with the platforms to
varying degrees. During our two-month observation,
from August 25, 2011, to October 24 2011, Members
of Congress tweeted over 30,000 times and logged over
16,000 Facebook posts. While we did not monitor the
number of YouTube videos uploaded during the study,
Members had about 55,000 total videos dating from
when Members opened their accounts to when we collected this data.
46.
The parallels in rank of purpose extend to the remaining six categories for both platforms, with Official Action third, Policy Statement fourth, Media fifth, Personal
sixth, Other seventh, and Campaign eighth.
Collectively, Congress Members used the Twitter and
Facebook platforms almost identically. Peaks and valleys showing the frequency of tweets and posts on particular days of the week rose and fell in tandem. The
platforms also were used similarly throughout the day;
both Twitter and Facebook hit peak use at 9 a.m. and 3
p.m., with a slight dip at noon. Congressional use in and
out-of-session was nearly identical across both plat-
100 Senators, 441 Representatives (voting and nonvoting).
Graph 1:
Purpose of Tweet or Facebook Post
All of Congress
40.5%
38.8%
Position
25.6%
District or State
16.5%
Official Action
21.2%
16.2%
15.9%
Policy
9.1%
Media
11.0%
8.0%
7.8%
Personal
6.9%
5.2%
Other
Campaign
32.2%
0.2%
0.3%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
Percentage of Posts
Twitter
Facebook
30%
35%
40%
45%
Congress + SOCIAL MEDIA
forms. Over a collection period with an almost equal
number of days in and out-of-session, Members made
71 percent of their total tweets and 70 percent of their
total Facebook posts while in-session.47 The similarities
continue even to the use of language, as Members referred to themselves in the First-Person or Third-Person in practically the same percentage ratios, 87/13 for
Twitter and 88/12 for Facebook. Congress Members differed slightly more when referencing their colleagues,
however, with just fewer than 9 percent of tweets and
almost 5 percent of Facebook posts mentioning another
Member. For both social media platforms, less than one
percent of the posts contained negative references.
Graph 2
Distribution of Total Posts by Quintiles of Users
100%
90%
80%
Heavy Users
The top 20 percent of users did not vary substantially
from other users in terms of post and tweet purpose;
though when compared with the bottom 80 percent,
heavy users tended to make fewer posts relating to Official Action and District or State Affairs. This held true
across both platforms. Nearly every other post type was
made in similar proportions for the top 20 percent and
bottom 80 percent of users.
The Geography of
Congressional Usage
Researchers created maps using ArcGeographic Information Systems (ArcGIS) with data obtained from the
2010 U.S. Census. Shapefiles of congressional districts
and states were joined with counts of tweets, Facebook
posts, and the sum of both platforms. These maps display the various ways that Senators and Representatives digitally represent their constituents. There do
47.
10
Days in and out-of-session during our collection period were as follows: Facebook: House (31 in-session,
31 out-of-session), Senate (32 in-session, 30 out-ofsession); Twitter: House (30 in-session, 31 out-ofsession), Senate (32 in-session, 29 out-of-session).
56%
53%
60%
Percentage of Total Posts
On both Facebook and Twitter, we found the volume of
tweets and posts were not evenly distributed among
Members. On Twitter, 86 Members—who comprise the
top 20 percent of the most frequently tweeting Members
of Congress—accounted for 56.3 percent of all tweets.
Of those Members, the top 10 individuals tweeted over
15 percent of all Member content. The results were
similar on Facebook, where 87 Members who comprise
the top 20 percent of most frequently posting Members,
could be credited for almost 53 percent of posts. More
than 14 percent of posts were produced by the 10 most
active individual Members. On both platforms, the top 1
percent of users generated more content than the bottom third.
70%
50%
40%
23%
22%
30%
20%
14%
13%
10%
7%
0%
8%
2%
3%
Twitter
Facebook
Top 20%
Lower 20%
Upper 20%
Bottom 20%
Middle 20%
not appear to be any strong geographical trends; social
media use seems to depend more on the individual
preferences of Members and other factors discussed
elsewhere in this analysis.
Congress + SOCIAL MEDIA
Usage Variation Across Congress
Table 2
Average Posts per Day per Member
Usage
We found that there was some variation in frequency of
usage between parties and between chambers. Overall,
Republicans used social media more than Democrats,
and Senators were more frequent users than House
Members. Likewise, the highest frequency user group
was the Senate Republicans. Senate and House Republicans tweeted and posted the most, followed by Senate
Democrats and then House Democrats. On both Facebook and Twitter, Senate Republicans posted 0.4 more
messages a day each than their lowest using counterparts, the House Democrats.
Analysis of Members’ usage from August 25, 2011, to
October 25, 2011, indicates a general decline in usage
over the weekends, with Senate Republicans continuing to tweet and post the most. Generally, Republicans
post more in the morning, peaking at 8:00 a.m.48 The
Congress
Republicans
Democrats
House
Senate
House R
House D
Senate R
Senate D
48.
Facebook
0.63
0.73
0.49
0.61
0.68
0.71
0.48
0.84
0.53
Twitter
1.24
1.28
1.18
1.18
1.51
1.23
1.09
1.53
1.49
Reported times are standardized to Central Standard
Time (CST) and are generated using the time zone of
the sender’s Internet Protocol (IP) address.
Graph 3
Average Number of Facebook Posts per Member Over Time
1.8
1.6
1.4
1.2
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
8/25/2011
9/1/2011
9/8/2011
9/15/2011
9/22/2011
9/29/2011
10/6/2011
10/13/2011
10/20/2011
Date of Post
House D
House R
Senate D
Senate R
Graph 4
Average Number of Twitter Posts per Member Over Time
1.8
1.6
1.4
1.2
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
8/25/2011
9/1/2011
9/8/2011
9/15/2011
9/22/2011
9/29/2011
10/6/2011
10/13/2011
10/20/2011
Date of Post
House D
House R
Senate D
Senate R
11
Congress + SOCIAL MEDIA
Democrats post more in the afternoon, peaking around
3:00 p.m.
Peaks in usage occur during heightened legislative activity (for example, the “Fast and Furious” investigation
or DADT Repeal). Certain legislative developments or
news events tended to affect usage differently in various groups of members. For example, our data shows
a decline in usage by Senators on both Facebook and
Twitter on September 15, 2011. According to the Senate calendar for September 15, 2011, the Senate only
passed two referenda on that day. Meanwhile, on the
same date, the House of Representatives passed legislation to curb the powers of the National Labor Relations
Board. Peaks in usage also occurred following messages
by the President of the United States and in reference to
the anniversary of September 11, 2001. During our collection period, 9/11 anniversary posts generated the
largest spike in usage, which occurred on September 8,
2011, as September 11 fell on a Sunday.
Age of Member
Younger Members, on average, use social media more
than Members who belong to older generations. This
trend holds across both platforms, but the usage differential is stronger with Facebook.
Gender
We did not find a significant difference in usage among
male and female Members.
Platform Use
There were some small differences in choice of platform between parties and chambers. While both parties use Twitter significantly more than Facebook, Democrats use Twitter for a greater share of their messages
than Republicans (70 percent for Democrats versus 64
percent for Republicans). Between the two social media platforms, Senate Democrats tended to use Twitter
for the largest share of their social media use (only 27
percent of their posts were on Facebook). House Republicans were the heaviest users of Facebook, as 37
percent of their messages were posted on the Facebook
platform.
Purpose
Both parties use Facebook significantly more than
Twitter when posting messages concerning District
and State Affairs. Additionally, both parties tend to use
Facebook more frequently when discussing Official Action and Media Appearances. Republicans tend to use
Twitter more often than Facebook when taking a Position, making Policy Statements or talking about their
Personal lives.
Differences also emerged between the parties. Republicans take more Positions on Twitter while Democrats
take more Positions on Facebook. On the whole, Democrats reference District or State Affairs in their social
media messages significantly more than Republicans
(approximately 10 percent more of their messages). Republicans mention Media Appearances, Official Actions,
and Policy Statements more often than Democrats.
These trends underscore differences noted during the
coding process concerning the tendency for Republican Members to echo messages from party leadership
more than Democrats. Given that leadership messages
usually involve national topics rather than District or
State topics, the tendency for Republicans to underutilize District or State posts in comparison to their Democratic counterparts makes sense in the context of their
greater message uniformity.
Presentation of Self
The vast majority of social media posts were written
in the First-Person, a trend that held across party and
platform. There was a difference in chamber; approximately 80 percent of posts from Senate Members were
written in the First-Person, versus almost 90 percent of
House Member posts.
Graph 5
Average Daily Posts by Member Age
1.6
1.4
1.2
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
House R
Facebook 37.0%
Twitter 63%
Senate R
Facebook 36.4%
Twitter 63.6%
House D
30s
40s
50s
60s
70s
Member Age by Decade
Twitter
12
Graph 6
Social Media Use by Platform
Facebook
80s
Senate D
Facebook 32.3%
Twitter 67.7%
Facebook 26.7%
0%
20%
Twitter 73.3%
40%
60%
Percentage of Posts
80%
100%
Congress + SOCIAL MEDIA
Graph 7
Democrats Purpose by Platform
Position
District or State
Official Action
Policy
Media
Personal
Other
Campaign
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
35%
40%
45%
Percentage of Total Posts per Platform
Twitter
Facebook
Graph 8
Republican Purpose by Platform
Position
District or State
Official Action
Policy
Media
Personal
Other
Campaign
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
Percentage of Total Posts per Platform
Twitter
Facebook
13
Congress + SOCIAL MEDIA
Graph 9
Twitter Purpose by Party
Position
District or State
Policy
Official Action
Media
Personal
Other
Campaign
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
30%
35%
40%
45%
Percentage of Total Party Posts
R
D
Graph 10
Facebook Purpose by Party
Position
District or State
Official Action
Policy
Media
Personal
Other
Campaign
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
Percentage of Total Party Posts
R
D
Table 3
Reference to Other Members
Republicans
Democrats
14
No Reference
Facebook
Twitter
94.8%
90.5%
95.9%
92.5%
Positive/Neutral Reference
Facebook
Twitter
4.5%
8.6%
3.7%
6.7%
Negative Reference
Facebook
Twitter
0.7%
0.8%
0.3%
0.8%
Congress + SOCIAL MEDIA
Reference to Other Members
The vast majority of social media posts (more than 90
percent) did not reference another Member. Less than
one percent of all posts from the dataset contained a
negative reference to another Member. (If other high
profile officials had been included in the coding as subjects of negative posts, e.g. the President, this number
would be higher.) While positive or neutral references
to other Members were infrequent (approximately 4 – 9
percent of all posts), these references were present approximately twice as often on Twitter as Facebook posts.
The majority of positive or neutral references in Twitter
posts included a link to the referenced Member’s Twitter account. Republicans had more positive and neutral
references to other Members than Democrats.
Profile Data
Facebook Photos
Photos give Members an opportunity to present themselves in a personal way to constituents. Of those who
post photos, the average number of photos posted per
Member was 160, but the median Member only posted
92. This variation indicates that a few Members post a
much larger number of photos, thus skewing the distribution.
Facebook Likes
Member profile pages on Facebook can be liked by visitors, giving a rough indication of the Member’s popularity and presence on Facebook. In the House, Members
averaged 4,793 likes with a median of 1,973. In the Senate, where Members have much larger constituencies,
the average was 18,178 with a median of 3,931.
Our research showed that most Members enjoy a relatively small amount of popularity compared to a handful of Members who have large national followings due
to previous campaigns for President, leadership positions, or other external factors. House Member page
likes ranged from 29 to 270,739.
The trend in the Senate was much the same, with John
McCain receiving nearly nine times as many likes as his
nearest competitor, Bernie Sanders, and 221 times the
median number of likes for Senators. Senators’ Facebook pages ranged between 415 and 869,888 likes.
Facebook Profile Photos
The Facebook profile photo gives Members an opportunity to present themselves personally to their audience.
Only one profile photo can be featured on the profile
page at a time; therefore, most Members choose to present themselves in a formal, professional manner rather
than dressing casually. While 91 percent are shown
wearing business clothing such as a suit, only 9 percent
appear in casual clothes. Most—79 percent—appear
alone. Just over a quarter chose to display themselves
in action shots rather than in posed photos.
Landing page
While several Members have selected alternate “landing pages” (custom welcome page or Member’s info
page), three-quarters choose the default option of letting visitors land on their wall.
Facebook Info Section
On the info pages, Members chose several combinations of
personal attributes to highlight. The five attributes most
commonly indicated were Members’ website address
(93%), their current office (92%), their country (79%),
their hometown (73%), and a general “about” section that
allows for a short personal description (70%).
YouTube
Of the 541 total Members of Congress, 512 Members
had a YouTube page. As with most statistics describing
Facebook and Twitter use, a few YouTube users significantly skewed the data with high numbers of videos,
views, and subscribers. Using median statistics as a
gauge, Senators had more than twice as many videos,
more than five times as many upload views, and three
times the number of subscribers as their colleagues in
the House.
YouTube Channel Comments
YouTube channel comments are not frequently utilized
by Members or visitors. The average number of comments per channel was 6.6, with the median being 1. A
total of 175 Members do not have comments enabled
on their channel page; 158 Members have the feature
enabled but have not received any comments.
Table 4
YouTube Page Data
Average
Median
Minimum
Maximum
All
107
70
0
2,064
# of Videos
House
Senate
95
159
61
129
0
23
2,064
624
# of Channel Views
All
House
Senate
12,735
12,409
14,146
6,081
5,242
9,543
108
108
1,375
371,459 371,459
65,899
# of Upload Views
All
House
Senate
140,403 134,141 167,228
17,510
12,750
66,260
0
0
3,631
8,591,177 8,591,177 1,704,885
# of Subscribers
All
House
Senate
248
207
418
63
53
154
0
0
15
21,987
21,987
10,053
15
Congress + SOCIAL MEDIA
YouTube “Favorited” Videos
Very few Members utilize the “favorite” feature to highlight specific videos that they enjoy. A total of 138 Members do not have the function enabled, and 227 have 0
favorites selected. Members with YouTube accounts averaged 4.5 favorited videos, with a median of 0.
Time Since Last YouTube Activity
The time since last YouTube activity gives an indication
of how frequently Members edit their channel pages,
make comments, or add videos to their collection. However, we recorded this data at a single point in time, so
it is less accurate for those who regularly update their
page. The average number of days with no activity is
79 (median of 30), but some Members have not edited
their channel for a number of years—22 Members (4
percent) have not made edits in a year, and the longest
running period of non-use is over 5 years. The majority of users update their channels more frequently—52
percent have made edits in the last month and 82 percent have made edits in the past 2 months.
Correlations
Our analysis also sought to highlight any underlying relationships that might reveal why some Members have
more page likes, more retweets, or more video views
than others. Across all platforms we found that the volume of posts, tweets, and activity had little to do with a
Member’s resulting followership.
Facebook
Correlation analyses revealed virtually no association
between number of Facebook posts49 and number of
page likes (r=.02).50 Correspondingly, we found a negligible relationship between number of Facebook photos
and page likes (.06). Regression analyses demonstrated
similar findings.
Twitter
As with Facebook, Twitter revealed little correlation
between a Member’s volume of posts and number of
followers (.09).
The lack of relationship between post quantity and followership is evident on both platforms and runs coun49.
50.
16
For both Facebook and Twitter, we use the number of
posts/tweets made during our collection period as an
approximation of a member’s activity level.
We use the standard correlation coefficient, or Pearson’s r, as a measure of linear dependence between
two variables on a scale from -1 to +1, inclusive. From
this point forward, when referencing the correlation
coefficient we simply display the value of r in parentheses, for example (.05).
ter to prevailing wisdom on social media best practices.
Standard advice for boosting followership emphasizes,
among other things, frequency of content—a strategy that may not necessarily elicit intended results for
Members of Congress.
Post Types
Combining the platforms, Democrats tended to make
more District posts (.10), while Republicans tended to
make more Media posts (.06). While Out-of-Session,
Members tended to post more about their District (.14)
as well as Personal topics (.11). During session, Members tended to do more Position-Taking (.12). Interestingly, the correlation between Party and Position-Taking posts overall was 0.00, suggesting that both parties
take Positions equally when looking at Facebook and
Twitter in the aggregate.
Retweets
Of all of the post types, Position-Taking seemed to elicit
the most retweets, though this correlation was still relatively weak (.16). Interestingly, Position-Taking tweets
were the only post type (other than the rare “campaign” tweet) to be positively correlated with retweets.
This suggests that while Position-Taking may increase
a Member’s chances of being retweeted, posting just
about anything else decreases those chances.51 District
tweets were the least likely to be retweeted, though
this negative correlation was still quite weak (-.13). In
spite of the Democrats’ tendency to make more District
posts, as a group, they were associated with slightly
more retweets than Republicans (.09).
YouTube
As a means of engaging with constituents, YouTube offers limited options. Members can post videos, select
favorite videos, and respond to comments. Correlation analysis suggests that a Member’s total number of
videos is moderately correlated with his or her overall
channel views (.58) and upload views (.49), as well as
with the number of subscribers (.30) and channel comments (.24). Aside from posting videos, a Member can
control his or her frequency of activity on YouTube
through updates or posting comments. We found more
recent activity52 to be very weakly associated with more
channel views (.07), upload views (.06), and subscribers (.05). This suggests that frequency of activity may
51.
52.
One exception is Policy Statements that result in a correlation of 0.00.
Frequency of Activity was approximated by taking the
difference between a member’s latest activity and the
date we surveyed his or her profile. While in individual
cases this may be a distorted measure of frequency of
activity, the randomness of our snapshot implies that,
collectively, it captures the desired effect.
Congress + SOCIAL MEDIA
have some small effect on amassing views and subscribers; however, we caution against assuming causality.
Even if the relationship were causal, the effects appear
miniscule. Finally, as might be expected, Members who
had been on YouTube the longest were associated with
more views and subscribers.
Correlation Insights
These findings suggest social media “popularity”—as
estimated by page likes, followers, retweets, or video
views—does not follow the lines of conventional wisdom for Members of Congress. The actions we might
expect to generate popularity, such as posting more on
Facebook or Twitter, tweeting about the district, or being more active on YouTube, are not generating the assumed results. Something else is driving social media
popularity for Members. One variable that might be of
interest to future research on this topic would be an index that is capable of approximating Member popularity on the national stage, perhaps through a measure
of media presence or something similar. Due to limitations in the scope of this project, we were not able to
develop this index. Further study, however, may reveal
the extent to which a Member’s number of page likes or
video views is simply a function of how popular or controversial the Member is to the public. In other words,
“best practices” for attracting followers may have only
minor significance in comparison to idiosyncratic factors such as national visibility or involvement in the latest scandal.
Discussion of Results
Taken as a whole, this analysis describes several important facets of congressional social media use.
1.
Widespread Adoption
A large majority of Members of Congress not
only have adopted social media as part of their
communication strategy, but are increasingly devoting time, energy, and resources to boosting
their digital presence on the various platforms.
Even those Members who do not participate
in frequent posting and tweeting have at least
set up profiles on social media platforms. In the
near-term, it is reasonable to expect this trend
will continue as the prevalence of social media
grows and Members continue to find new ways
of interacting with the platforms.
2.
Uneven and Varied Usage
Members utilize social media to different extents.
For example, Senators post more than Representatives, and Republicans post more than Democrats. Usage also follows the schedule of Congress
very closely, mirroring the level of activity on the
floor and surging with activities of interest to the
general public. Younger Members utilize social
media platforms more than older Members, especially Twitter. These trends indicate that social
media use depends upon the demographics of
both chambers, and large electoral shifts will result in dramatically different levels of usage. Additional studies conducted under different margins
of party majority in each chamber will produce
further insight into these trends.
There seems to be some amount of specialization between the parties. For instance, Democrats
tend to make more District and State Affairs posts
while Republicans make more Official Congressional Action, Media, and Policy Statement posts.
Republican Members also may have greater message discipline, either directly retweeting party
leadership or repackaging leadership content to
a similar effect.53 This uniformity of message did
not appear to be as present in Democratic posts,
though a dedicated study of retweet activity would
be necessary to quantify these trends. Whether
these distinctions are a product of current circumstances or indicative of more fundamental
differences between the parties is difficult to say.
Regardless, the results of this analysis should be
interpreted within the context of the current Senate and House arrangements. It is reasonable to
expect that the purposes of the majority party
and the minority party vary. Comparisons of social media use across several Congresses would
shed light on this idea.
The greatest variation in social media use exists
between the light and heavy users. On Facebook,
the top 1 percent of users (4 people) posted more
than the bottom 34 percent (142 people). Similarly, on Twitter the top 1 percent tweeted more
than the bottom 38 percent. Many of the trends
described in this analysis reflect the disproportionate utilization of social media by these heavy
users.
3.
Direct Effect of Social Media Utilization
Uncertain
Social media certainly allows Members to speak
to a wide audience easily, cheaply, and frequently.
It can allow Members to listen more as well, although this function requires a different approach.
53.
We observed this trend as a result of our extensive
coding process. While we did not specifically code for
this category, many of the team’s researchers independently observed this trend.
17
Congress + SOCIAL MEDIA
At this point, social media usage by Members may
be more aptly characterized as a megaphone,
rather than a discussion tool for interacting with
individuals. However, the effect of these and other
functions cannot be fully answered with analysis
internal to social media. The obvious proxies for
a lack of effect-focused research are the various
feedback mechanisms integrated into social media platforms: view counters, comments, likes,
etc. However, these indicators do not correlate
with social media “output,” specifically Tweets,
18
Facebook posts, or YouTube videos. As evident
from the skewed distribution of likes and the results of correlation analyses, external factors such
as committee appointments, prominence in media, past or present Presidential campaigns, or
leadership positions may be better determinants
of social media popularity and attention. A study
external to social media will be necessary to determine more precisely what is driving social media popularity.
Context: Limitations of Current Policy
and Considerations for the Future
Social media provides opportunities for Congress
Members to interact with a variety of technologybased audiences. Policy options must take into
consideration the flexibility and availability of social
media. They also must attempt to reconcile the tension between the reason social media works—it is informal, direct, and two-way—with the needs to keep
government formal; maintain official processes; protect privacy and security; and adhere to regulatory,
franking, and ethics rules.
A number of concerns frame the formation of policy options to address social media use by Members of Congress. These concerns are outlined below:
Rapid Changes in Current
and Future Technology
The rapid pace of technological change—and the rise
and fall in the popularity of social media websites—
makes it difficult to create appropriate policies for every
communication outlet a Member may use. Social media
policies and practices must take into account technology’s limited “shelf life.” In other words, a regulation that
is created today may be irrelevant in a matter of months
or years. When possible, social media policies should be
flexible and able to adapt to changes. Creating a flexible
policy, however, risks constructing a policy that is too
broad. Social media policy options should be general
enough to cover all of the variety of uses and mediums,
while also being specific enough to be enforceable.
Legislating Use, Not Intent
Ultimately, Members will use social media in ways that
they believe best meet their needs—whether it is to
develop a robust social media strategy or only to be
an occasional user. With a few exceptions, we recommend that policy options not attempt to regulate how
a Member uses social media or what types of messages
or images they communicate. Notable exceptions to this
would include the need to regulate campaign use, abuse
of another Member, lewd use, and use that poses a national security threat.
Privacy and Security
Social media allows users to share information both
publicly and on a one-to-one basis. Congress Members
with social media pages have access to information that
is both knowingly and unknowingly shared by their
visitors. Examples would be demographic or user information associated with one’s presence on a website or
choosing to follow or “like” a Member.
Privacy of information and limits on its collection are
important considerations when forming policy options.
As noted in a GAO report on federal agencies’ use of social media technologies, “social networking sites, such
as Facebook, encourage people to provide personal
information that they intend to be used only for social
purposes. Government agencies that participate in such
sites may have access to this information and may need
rules on how such information can be used.”54 Regulations might set limits on what information Members’
offices can collect, disclose, and use.
Accuracy
Members have traditionally communicated with their
constituents through newsletters or other hardcopy
materials via the U.S. Postal Service. With the growth
of technology, Members have embraced various forms
of social media to communicate, but it is often, difficult
to evaluate the accuracy of these messages. While some
communications are first-person and original material,
others are duplicated or shared via another source. The
material in these messages is not subject to any formal fact-checking process or regulations to ensure the
veracity of Member communications on social media
sites.
Public Participation—
Does Social Media Count?
Social media creates an environment that makes it challenging to identify who is and who is not a constituent.
Given the accessibility of social media sites, it may be
important to consider who is visiting a Member’s site
and how the visitor’s presence and input should be
weighed. An interaction with a user via social media
may merit a different response from a Member than an
in-person visit. This is a challenge mirrored by other
forms of communication between Members and constituents. For example, a Member must consider how
54.
Government Accountability Office. “Information Management: Challenges in Federal Agencies’ Use of Web 2.0
Technologies.” www.gao.gov/new.items/d10872t.pdf
(April 3, 2012).
Congress + SOCIAL MEDIA
to measure or value input from a constituent who calls
the Member’s office compared to a constituent who
sends an email, a fax, a letter, or a social media message. A Member also must decide what, if any, effect a
non-constituent user’s input should have on a Congress
Member’s decision-making, assuming the non-constituent can be identified.
Expectations for Communication
and Response Time
With the expansion of technology comes a shift in communication expectations by constituents. For example,
are Members and their staffs expected to respond to
any type of communication received? Email and the internet have facilitated the ease with which individuals
can communicate with a Member’s office; therefore, the
volume an office receives is sizeable. A 2010 survey of
congressional staff by the Congressional Management
Foundation found that since 2002, congressional offices have seen a 200 to 1000 percent increase in all types
of constituent communications.55 However, Congress
has not increased the size of staff in Members’ offices
since 1979.56 Policy changes should take into account
how members are expected to balance the resources allocated to constituent communications with the limits
on hiring of staff and the other tasks of the office, such
as policy research and development.
In addition to the increased volume of constituent communications, social media and technology also shift the
expected response time from congressional offices. Social media users expect rapid, “real time” response to
their messages. While Members and their staffs may
choose how often they will engage their followers
when tweeting or posting on the official Facebook page,
a site user may expect a quicker response to questions
or comments in the social media sphere than via other
communication mediums.
To Regulate or Not To Regulate
Social media has been referred to as the “wild west.”57 Because there is so much uncertain and developing territory,
55.
Congressional Management Foundation. “Communicating with Congress: How Citizen Advocacy Is Changing
Mail Operations on the Hill.” http://www.congressfoundation.org/storage/documents/CMF_Pubs/cwc-mailoperations.pdf (April 2012).
56.
Ibid.
57.
20
The Christian Science Monitor—CSMonitor.com.
“Social media: The Wild West of marketing—CSMonitor.
com.” http://www.csmonitor.com/Business/TheEntrepreneurial-Mind/2011/0217/Social-media-TheWild-West-of-marketing (April 2, 2012).
it is challenging to create regulations that are reasonable
and target specific issues. To what extent does the use of
social media by Congress Members actually need regulation, and in what ways is the practice self-policing?
A 2010 survey of congressional staffers by the CMF noted
that congressional offices use social media to help gauge
public opinion, communicate the activities and views of
their Member, and view social media as a tool for improving the dialogue between citizens and the Congress.58 Social media is used widely by Members; further regulation
could affect its ability to serve as a communication link
between Member offices and their constituents.
Application of the Franking Privilege
All Members of Congress are entitled to the franking
privilege—a certain allowance of mail to be sent to constituents at taxpayer expense. This privilege is regulated
through the Commission on Congressional Mailing Standards, and rules define to whom, for what purpose, how
much, where, and when franked mail is sent. Franking
regulations restrict the funds allocated to send mailings
and control the content of franked mail, limiting the use
of pictures, the Member’s name, and biographical information. Additionally, “the frank may not be used to solicit
money or votes, and the materials being mailed cannot
relate to political campaigns, political parties, biographical accounts, or holiday greetings.”59 These regulations are
designed to limit the abuse of franking privileges and taxpayer dollars, and to mitigate any incumbent advantage.60
While originally designed for physical mail, franking
regulations have been partially adapted to digital communication and outline rules regarding email, websites, and social media.61 However, franking regulations
cannot be easily translated to digital communications.
Issues of concern, to be discussed below, include distinguishing between solicited and unsolicited communications, messaging content, the use of taxpayer money, and incumbent advantage.
58.
59.
60.
61.
Congressional Management Foundation. “Social Congress: Perceptions and Use of Social Media on Capitol
Hill.” http://www.congressfoundation.org/storage/
documents/CMF_Pubs/cmf-social-congress.pdf (April
2012).
Matthew Glassman, “Franking Privilege: Historical
Development and Options for Change.” December
21, 2010. Congressional Research Service, RL34274.
http://assets.opencrs.com/rpts/RL34274_20101221.
pdf
Ibid.
Committee on House Administration. “Members’ Handbook.” http://cha.house.gov/handbooks/memberscongressional-handbook (April 3, 2012).
Policy Options
Training and Education
Education and training on social media usage may help
Members and staff to understand how best to allocate
time and resources for this work, and to understand
the risks, responsibilities, permanency and rapid pace
of social media. These options require identifying or
developing an internal organization that is capable of
providing training and education to all Members and
staff who will be utilizing Facebook, Twitter, or other
social media platforms. Considerations for training and
education options are outlined below.
House and Senate Committees
Designated for Social Media Training
While the House Administration Committee has the
authority to address management and human resource
issues relating to social media staffing, it also has the
ability to set House policy more broadly. Additionally,
the House Learning Center already provides education
and training classes to House Members and staff. The
House Administration Committee could compile “best
practices” for social media use. A similar publication
may be produced by the Senate Rules and Administration Committee for use by Senate Members and be enforced through current computer security training administered by the Senate Sergeant at Arms.
House Ethics Committee
Presently, ample training opportunities are available
for congressional staff, but no formal, non-partisan,
constituent-oriented training that outlines appropriate
social media use is available. If Members continue using
social media for constituent communications, outreach,
and casework, congressional administration could integrate social media education into the customary newhire trainings. The House Ethics Committee operates a
mandatory new-hire training that all staff must complete within the first 60 days of employment.62 While
addressing effectiveness or innovative methods of use
may be outside the purview of the Ethics Committee,
appropriate use of digital communication methods falls
under its authority. The Ethics Committee could add a
social media component to its trainings—specifically
addressing the intersection of campaign and official
use—that could help Members avoid ethical and social
media mistakes.
62.
House Committee on Ethics. “New Employee | House
Committee on Ethics.” http://ethics.house.gov/legislation/schedule/new-employee (April 3, 2012).
Contracting Training through
an Outside Entity
In addition to internal administrative and rulemaking
bodies within each house of Congress, the House and
Senate, jointly or as separate bodies, may choose to
contract with an outside vendor to develop social media training tools. For example, The Congressional Management Foundation (CMF) is a 501(c)3 organization
“dedicated to helping Congress and its members meet
the evolving needs and expectations of an engaged and
informed 21st century citizenry.”63 One of CMF’s primary missions is “Enhancing Citizen Engagement.” In
efforts to achieve this goal, CMF encourages Members
to improve their online communications strategies by
bestowing an annual “Gold Mouse Award” to members
with the most effective online presences. CMF also runs
the 21st Century Town Hall Research Project, which
conducts “comparative research on [the] in-person
town halls, online town halls and telephone town halls
that are now common on Capitol Hill.”64 Currently, the
Congressional Management Foundation also offers customized skills trainings for chiefs-of-staff, legislative directors, and district staff, as well as two other trainings
on effective correspondence. The CMF is just one example of a non-partisan entity that could be hired to provide training to Members and staff. A Request for Proposal (RFP) could be issued to solicit the best vendor to
offer such services. Regardless of the vendor, providing
congressional staff with respected, non-partisan social
media training to enhance constituent service could be
a viable option for enhancing educational efforts.
Offering social media training and education opportunities to Members and staff raises the question of “who
should be using social media?” Whether the Member or
his or her staff maintains the Member’s social media account, the office’s staff determines the need for social
media training. CMF notes that Facebook, Twitter, and
YouTube are widely accepted social media platforms
on Capitol Hill.65 If social media continues to grow as
63.
64.
65.
Congressional Management Foundation. “Congressional Management Foundation | About CMF.” http://
www.congressfoundation.org/about-cmf (April 3,
2012).
Congressional Management Foundation. “Congressional Management Foundation | 21st Century Town Hall
Meetings.” http://www.congressfoundation.org/projects/town-hall/term/summary (April 3, 2012).
Congressional Management Foundation. “Social Congress: Perceptions and Use of Social Media on Capitol Hill.”
http://www.congressfoundation.org/storage/documents/CMF_Pubs/cmf-social-congress.pdf (April 2012).
Congress + SOCIAL MEDIA
a versatile component of Members’ strategy, more staff
in a given office may utilize the platforms for various
tasks, which may require different skills. For example, a
legislative staff’s use of Facebook messaging to respond
to legislative inquiries is substantially different than a
district staffer’s use of Twitter to recruit town hall participants; therefore, training should reflect these varying functions.
Best Practices
A “best practices” model for social media use by Members provides guidance, training, suggestions and examples of social media usage, without requiring specific
enforcements or legislative action or regulation. Members become aware of perceived best practices and can
operate their social media communications as they see
fit. A best practices model may help mitigate problems
with setting up and managing social media accounts,
determining a social media strategy, and engaging with
constituents via social media.
Our research suggests that Members employ diverse
uses of social media. A best practices model would provide support for Members and staff regardless of their
level of experience with social media platforms. Members still would operate under their own authority and
would use social media however they prefer (within
existing ethical and congressionally-mandated rules). A
“best practices” option allows Members freedom while
still offering guidance for sound practice.
Several federal agencies have published social media
best practices guides, including the Department of
Energy,66 the Environmental Protection Agency,67 and
HowTo.Gov.68
Though Congress as an institution lacks a comprehensive
social media policy, government entities in the United
States and abroad use a variety of methods to encourage,
regulate, and otherwise govern social media use.69
66.
67.
68.
69.
22
Department of Energy. “Social Media | Department of
Energy.” http://energy.gov/about-us/web-policies/
social-media (April 2, 2012).
Office of Environmental Information: EPA Information Procedures. “Representing EPA Online Using Social
Media.” www.epa.gov/irmpoli8/policies/representing.
pdf (April 3, 2012).
HowTo.gov | Helping agencies deliver a great customer
experience. “Social Media | HowTo.gov.” http://www.
howto.gov/social-media, (April 2, 2012).
A list of several existing policy documents for states,
federal agencies, and countries abroad can be found in
Appendix F of this report.
A crucial concern for many federal agencies engaging in
social media use is security of users and of sensitive agency information. As with federal agencies, congressional
use of social media also can place Members and sensitive
information at risk. “In February 2009, then-House Intelligence Chairman Pete Hoekstra live-tweeted a CODEL’s
travels through Iraq.”70 Additionally, in January 2012, a
top House Republican aide posted photos to his Twitter
account of a government plane with a visible tail number
and an image of a flight route from Istanbul to Doha, Qatar.71 To address these concerns for other federal agencies, the Federal Chief Information Officers (CIO) Council
developed a policy for secure use of social media by all
federal departments and agencies. Ten federal agencies
participated in the process, and one key recommendation
was that the federal government consider creating its own
URL formats with appropriate logging and security for
federal use on social media websites.72
While not all federal agencies have explicit social media
policies, those that exist offer varying focal points for
regulation and best practices. For example, the Department of Commerce makes specific efforts to depoliticize
the use of social media within the agency. It states that
“operating units using social media/Web 2.0 technologies must prevent the posting or immediately delete
postings that contain: comments regarding a political
party or a candidate in a partisan political campaign
(which is a campaign in which candidates are identified
by political party) and requests to contact a Member of
Congress or official of any government, to favor or oppose any legislation, law, or appropriation.”73
To ensure accountability on social media platforms, the
Department of Justice in Australia requires that employees be authorized as representatives of the department to comment on online communications.74 Autho70.
Roll Call. “Members Tweeting at their Own Risk.” (January 18, 2012).
72.
Federal Chief Information Officers Council. “Guidelines
for Secure Use of Social Media by Federal Departments
and Agencies.” http://www.cio.gov/documents/guidelines_for_secure_use_social_media_v01-0.pdf. (April 9,
2012).
71.
73.
74.
Ibid.
U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of the Chief
Information Officer. “Policy on the Approval and Use
of Social Media and Web 2.0 (SM/W2.0)” http://ocio.
os.doc.gov/ITPolicyandPrograms/Policy___Standards/
PROD01_009476 (April 9, 2012).
Department of Justice, Victoria, Australia. “Department of Justice Social Media Policy for Employees.”
http://www.justice.vic.gov.au/home/about+us/
our+values+and+behaviours/social+media+policy/
(April 9, 2012).
Congress + SOCIAL MEDIA
rization is attained after receiving the approval of two
supervisors and undergoing a trial usage period.75 The
U.S. Navy, on the other hand, highlights the importance
of a team-based management approach to social media
use and emphasizes the need to identify a team to manage social media presence. A diverse team managing
the page will be more effective than a single person. A
single manager is a single point of failure.76
The Department of Health and Human Services devotes
an entire micro-site to new media policies, regulations,
and suggestions for more effective use. The department
hosts a webinar series on new media projects for information sharing, and also maintains a database of
departmental social media accounts on Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, and Flickr. The public also may access the
department’s list of blogs and podcasts.77 HHS policies
and procedures highlight the importance of avoiding
the solicitation of feedback and commentary on policies or regulations via social media.
Under a best practices model, Members and staff would
become aware of best practices via workshops or trainings. These sessions could be hosted by the agency
charged with creating best practices, by an outside
nonpartisan entity, or by outside affiliates, such as Facebook and Twitter. Regardless, these sessions should be
recommended for all Members and any staff who have
access to the Member’s social media accounts.
Dissemination of Best Practices
Best Practice guides could be disseminated through
one of several channels, including those addressed previously under training and education, with the overseeing body taking responsibility for designating the
appropriate uses of social media by Congress. Other
bodies that might consider taking ownership of a Best
Practices model may include:
Independent House and Senate Committees
Each chamber could independently write a best
practice guide suitable to its respective legislative body. This approach allows for bipartisan
cooperation from each Rules Committee’s staff
and development by the committees that have the
most power over the order of operations and procedures in the respective chambers. These guides,
75.
76.
77.
Ibid.
United States Navy. “Navy Command Social Media
Handbook.” http://www.nmcphc.med.navy.mil/downloads/ep/risk_com_documents/Appendix_F_NavyCommandSocialMediaHandbook.pdf. (April 9, 2012)
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. “HHS
on Facebook.” http://newmedia.hhs.gov/tools/facebook.html (April 9, 2012).
since they are not voted on, could be amended as
necessary, providing useful, up-to-date guidance
for Members’ communications staff.
Party and Chamber Leadership
Party or chamber leadership may choose to develop and distribute their own guidelines, as they
are more aware of the needs and proclivities of
their Members. This allows best practices to be
adapted as leadership and technology change.
Nonpartisan Office
A nonpartisan office such as Congress’s Information Technology department might also undertake this task.
Creating a Best Practices Guide
HowTo.Gov provides examples of how federal agencies
are using social media and other web interfaces in compliance with current laws.78 It could provide illustrations for a Best Practices guide for Congress. The social
media policies for other federal agencies or governments also could serve as a source for best practices.
A Best Practices guide could address the following:
•Which individuals in each office have access to
social media sites
•How to set up, sign in, and use the commonly
used social media sites
•What types of messages are recommended for
social media sites
•How to manage official records
Managing Access to Social Media
in a Congressional Office
Members of Congress have different needs and intentions for social media use than do federal agencies.
Members have a personal stake in their social media
practices to provide information to their constituents
and followers. The messages sent from a Member’s
account, including messages created by staff, reflect
upon the individual Member, rather than an agency as a
whole. To mitigate the risk of staff posting for a Member,
any of the following practices could be undertaken.
Identifying tags can be used to identify the staffer responsible for a given message. If a staffer posted on a
given social media site, he or she would use a particular
tag (ex. “^ab”) to note who is posting on behalf of the
Member. The Member, if posting personally, would not
78.
HowTo.gov | Helping agencies deliver a great customer
experience. “Implementing Federal Web Requirements
– Examples | HowTo.gov.” http://www.howto.gov/webcontent/requirements-and-best-practices/laws-andregulations/agency-examples (April 2, 2012).
23
Congress + SOCIAL MEDIA
need this demarcation. This provides greater accountability for posts that might spark public debate and informs followers that messages are not coming directly
from an elected official. Drawbacks of this practice include diminishing the personal connection provided by
social media, increasing needed training, and reducing
the availability of characters on microblogging platforms such as Twitter.
Representative Mike McCaul (R-TX),79 has placed a disclaimer on his social media accounts, clarifying that his
account (@mikemccaulpressshop) is being managed
by his press team. While this is clear to those following
Rep. McCaul, the personalization of social media here
is somewhat diminished. Other Members’ Twitter feeds
note in the bio line that both the Members and their
staffs have access to the platform and posts may come
from either. This simple notation, which could be a best
practice, alerts followers that not all messages are coming directly from the Member but that all posts, unless
otherwise specified by the Member, are communicated
on the Member’s behalf. This is very similar to Member
email messages, which are often drafted by staff and
sent out with a Member’s approval.
Allowing staff to communicate directly with individual
followers by acknowledging posts and comments and
directing users to a formal communication method,
such as a written letter, standard email, or official website form, facilitates engagement via social media. This
method also helps Members and their staffs keep track
of constituent needs and requests by directing them to
contact their offices through other channels.
Options for Setting Up and
Managing Social Media Sites
Members and their staffs have varied experience with social media use; therefore, a best practices guide and training should include very basic instructions and user support for setting up and maintaining official accounts with
the most commonly used social media sites. Currently,
Facebook and Twitter have working relationships with
Congress and aid in establishing official accounts and encouraging use of the platforms by Members of Congress.
Official accounts, unlike all other Facebook accounts, are
not subject to advertising, and Members are allowed to
purchase ads targeted at zip codes within their district.80
Residents of a Member’s district or state might see an advertisement for the opportunity to “like” a Member’s page
or sign up for updates.
79.
80.
24
Twitter. “Michael McCaul. https://twitter.com/#!/mccaulpressshop (accessed April 3, 2012).
Daniel Newhauser. “Franking on Facebook May Run
Afoul of Founders.” Roll Call. 2 May 2011. http://www.
rollcall.com/issues/56_114/Franking-on-FacebookMay-Run-Afoul-of-Founders-205207-1.html.
Including information in a best practices guide on how
to set up the various platforms and their benefits gives
Members greater independence in developing their
social media strategy and an unbiased view of which
strategies work best.
Message Guidelines
Best practices guidelines for message content are an
opportunity to provide information on which subjects
may or may not be acceptable for use on social media
platforms, in addition to already existing regulations
(e.g. FEC rules). Guidelines would provide direction for
Members on subject matter that may be appropriately
used in an office’s social media strategy. Suggestions for
acceptable content, such as encouraging posts publicizing opportunities for constituent engagement and education, would provide a guideline for appropriate use.
Suggestions also might encourage more frequent use by
Members not currently actively engaging with constituents through social media.
Records Management
Congress Members may decide how or if to preserve
papers and other records from their time serving Files
created by a Member and his or her staff during the
Member’s time in office are the Member’s property. In
2008, the House passed Concurrent Resolution 307,
“declaring that Members’ papers are ‘crucial to the public’s understanding on the role of Congress in the making of the Nation’s laws,’ and ‘each Member of Congress
should take all necessary measures to manage and preserve the Member’s own congressional papers.’”81 Best
practices should reiterate the intent of this resolution
and consider whether social media records should be
preserved in the same manner as other records. If so, a
best practices guide might detail how to save records in
a way that is accessible in the future.
Regulation and Legislation
Regulations and legislation, as opposed to best practices, require Members to use social media within given
parameters. Some regulations are already in place and
appear to work well. For example, social media accounts
may not be used to raise money for or post content related to campaigning. Other regulations, enforceable
by penalties for noncompliance, might work for social
media use. Additionally, no regulation should be undertaken without a full understanding of potential benefits
and costs. Based on this report’s findings, some of the
following regulations could be considered.
81.
Office of the Clerk of the U.S. House of Representatives Art & History—Art & History Home. “Office of
the Clerk of the U.S. House of Representatives Art &
History—Overview.” http://artandhistory.house.gov/
house_history/archival-research/ (April 2, 2012).
Congress + SOCIAL MEDIA
Develop an Enforcement Body for
Monitoring Social Media Use
Congress could use its authority to appoint a committee or regulatory body, or delegate to the respective
Ethics Committees the responsibilities of monitoring
social media communications by Members of Congress.
Responsibilities could include: developing a section
of the ethics manual to detail the rules and penalties
regarding social media; create a mechanism for filing
complaints regarding social media abuse by Members
in each chamber; updating and revising any regulations
to apply to social media platforms and uses.
Determine the Role of Franking
Regulations Relating to Social Media Use
Social media may or may not fall within the scope of
franking regulations. While it is challenging to determine which aspects of social media should be governed
by franking rules, policymakers may want to consider
social media in the context of the franking issues outlined below.
Solicited and Unsolicited Messages
Franking regulations currently govern the message, timing, recipients, and volume of communication, with different sets of rules for solicited and
unsolicited communications.82 Solicited communications include messages sent to mailing lists and
email lists as well as situations where constituents
have willingly subscribed and have the option to
unsubscribe. Individuals using social media platforms such as Facebook, Twitter, or YouTube can
easily decide to opt in or opt out of receiving communications. In theory, Members’ social media accounts are subject to the same messaging regulations as a subscribed mailing list, and therefore,
are not subject to rules that limit communications
up to 90 days prior to an election83 or restrictions
on mass mailings.84 Members who violate messaging rules for any communication are subject
to a rule that requires them to repay the postage
cost for those mailings, and repeat offences could
result in the loss of all franked mail privileges.85
However, this rule is unenforceable on the social
media level, since the cost of social media is almost non-existent for any single communication.
82.
83.
84.
85.
Matthew Glassman, “Franking Privilege: Historical Development and Options for Change.” December 21, 2010.
Congressional Research Service, RL34274. http://assets.
opencrs.com/rpts/RL34274_20101221.pdf
Ibid.
Committee on House Administration. “Members’ Handbook.” http://cha.house.gov/handbooks/memberscongressional-handbook (April 3, 2012).
Ibid.
Rules on Franking Content,
Timing, Audience, and Quantity
Message regulations for both solicited and unsolicited communication include prohibitions
against soliciting money or votes—specifically for
themselves, other candidates, or for their political
party—as well as issuing holiday greetings, and
biographic information.86 Regulations also limit a
Member’s right to send unsolicited mass mailings
outside of his or her district.87
In Members’ use of social media, the prohibition
against mentioning political campaigns and soliciting for money and votes is largely self-enforced,
as evidenced by this study’s data. However, there
are three areas where social media use by Members of Congress does not follow franking regulations and demonstrate franking’s limited use for
governing digital communications. First, Members communicate both biographical information—standard in Facebook profiles—and holiday greetings through their social media accounts.
Second, Members often mention political parties,
but this serves to reference collective legislative
or agenda setting—which is within the generally
accepted practices of congressional communication—or to denote an association with their party.
Third, out-of-district communications are difficult to apply to social media. Through social media sites, Members distribute messages to a wide
audience, including individuals outside their own
districts. Determining a follower or fan’s location
via social media is often impossible, and Members
currently do not have the responsibility or ability
to limit their followers to constituents.
Costs of Social Media
Franking regulations allocate a specific amount of
money to each office for sending franked postal
mail.88 When considering the costs of social media, however, it is difficult to apply the franking
regulations for several reasons. The cost of social
media use is difficult to measure—though setting
up an account on Facebook, YouTube, or Twitter is free, the cost of office equipment, utilities,
86.
87.
88.
Matthew Glassman, “Franking Privilege: Historical
Development and Options for Change.” December
21, 2010. Congressional Research Service, RL34274.
http://assets.opencrs.com/rpts/RL34274_20101221.
pdf
Committee on House Administration. “Members’ Handbook.” http://cha.house.gov/handbooks/memberscongressional-handbook (April 3, 2012).
M. Glassman and Library of Congress. Congressional
Research Service, “Franking Privilege: Historical Development and Options for Change”, 2007.
25
Congress + SOCIAL MEDIA
and staff used to operate social media accounts is
reimbursed by taxpayer dollars.89 Additional expenses, such as targeted paid advertising on Facebook, can be utilized as a tool to attract more
followers.
Social Media’s Influence on Incumbent Advantage
The role that official congressional social media
accounts play in incumbency warrants further
study. Per franking regulations, unsolicited mail
privileges are suspended 60 or 90 days prior to
primary elections for sitting candidates to mitigate incumbent advantages.90 Since social media
is primarily categorized as solicited, this restriction does not apply. Members may continue to
communicate with their followers—constituents
or not—throughout the year. Social media sites
also provide Members with a number of built-in
advantages. Members can take advantage of userprovided demographic information and platformgenerated insights into the preferences of the
Members’ followers. Members also can provide
links to and from their social media pages and official websites—a resource not available to challengers running for seats held by incumbents. Established social media accounts also may receive
higher rankings in internet search engines,91 providing an additional advantage to incumbents.
The current structure of popular social media
sites may mitigate some of this incumbent advantage by providing a low-cost service to political
challengers and opt-in follower policies where
users must establish their own followers. Nonetheless, a Member’s official social media account
may provide an incumbent advantage, and future
policies should ensure such advantages are fully
understood and addressed.
Require Electronic Communication
Policies for Each Office
This regulation would require each office to formulate
and adopt an electronic communication policy including how the Member and his or her staff will use social
media. This option provides flexibility for individual
Members and their offices to use social media as they
see fit, but allows each Member to have enforceable,
specific guidelines that states how he or she wishes to
engage through social media.
89.
90.
91.
26
Committee on House Administration. “Members’ Handbook.” http://cha.house.gov/handbooks/memberscongressional-handbook (April 3, 2012).
Ibid.
Google Help. “Google Basics—Webmaster Tools Help.”
http://support.google.com/webmasters/bin/answer.
py?hl=en&answer=70897 (April 3, 2012).
Creating and making this official document available on
the respective Member’s official website would provide
the public with information on how and why a Member
is using social media and other electronic communication. A policy could assist, for example, in mitigating
complaints from citizens who might feel that their messages to the Member have not been addressed. While
the establishment and maintenance of a communication policy would require some time and costs, the
value of the document may provide long-term value in
providing a clear understanding of each office’s policies
and practices.
Link Social Media Sites to
A Member’s Official Website
Based on our research, many Members provide a link
from their social media sites to their official congressional website. Requiring Members to provide such
a link would ensure that visitors to their social media
sites would have access to official information on how
to access the Member’s office. Likewise, many Members
also provide links from their official websites to their
official social media accounts, providing the public with
an easy way to locate and follow those accounts.
Disclaimers on All Members’
Social Media Sites
In our research, Members displayed a variety of disclaimers—most often on their Facebook pages. A regulation on disclaimers could require that all Members
post a standardized message on their social media sites,
detailing policies regarding the use of the site. Members
who currently post disclaimers use the text to explain
who is posting (staff, the Member, or both), outline appropriate use and behavior by visitors to the page, and
some reserve the right to remove content that they find
offensive or ban users from their social media page.
One example is Congressman Mario Diaz-Balart’s (R-FL
21st) Facebook page. In his “About Me” section, Congressman Diaz-Balart includes a disclaimer that outlines what
his office expects in terms of posts and communication.
He specifically states that a comment will be deleted if
it contains: “hate speech, profanity, obscenity, or vulgarity, defamation to a person or people, name calling and/
or personal attacks, comments to sell a product, spam, or
other comments that the press team deems inappropriate.” Members also may want to distance themselves from
sensitive issues or inappropriate comments. Congressman
Diaz-Balart includes in his disclaimer that “comments and
images posted do not necessarily represent the views of
Congressman Diaz-Balart.”
Several Members also reference regulations, outlining
that to comply with federal law they must follow two
specific rules: do not post anything obscene or related
to elections. The following are examples of such posts:
Congress + SOCIAL MEDIA
•“Posts by users do not necessarily reflect those
of Rep. Larry Bucshon. Any harassing or intimidating comments, as well as comments regarding campaigns, will be removed by page administrators.” (Rep. Larry Buschon)
•“In order to follow federal law, this page has two
rules for comments. Please: Don’t say anything
obscene & please don’t talk about elections.
Thank you for your cooperation!” (Rep. David
Cicilline)
Restrict Social Media Access
in Certain Environments
•“This is Congressman Buerkle’s Facebook fan
page. Comments are a place for our users to present ideas, issues, and views. The comments posted by users do not necessarily reflect the views
of the Member or her Congressional office. We
reserve the right to delete user comments that
include profanity, name-calling, threats, personal attacks, or other inappropriate comments or
material. . . . By posting a comment on this site,
you are agreeing to allow the Office of Rep. Ann
Marie Buerkle (NY-25) to reprint your comment
in all forms of media at any time.” (Rep. Ann Marie Buerkle)
•“Congressman Jerry Costello’s official Facebook
page operates under these guidelines:
—Anyone may participate.
—Comments represent the opinion of the person posting them.
—Offensive/inflammatory material and external links will be deleted.” (Rep. Jerry
Costello)
•“Any posts that contain offensive language, spam
or are campaign related will be removed.” (Rep.
Scott DesJarlais)
•“Welcome to my Facebook page. Participation is
encouraged, but my office reserves the right to
remove inappropriate content. If you would like
to receive a response to posts, please call my office at 817.335.7652 or email kaygranger.house.
gov/contactme.” (Rep. Kay Granger)
•“Comments posted by users do not necessarily reflect the views of Congressman Hanna or
the Congressional office. We reserve the right
to delete user comments that include profanity,
name-calling, threats, personal attacks, spam
or other inappropriate comments or material
at our discretion. So, please be civil and keep it
clean.” (Rep. Richard Hanna)
•“Pursuant to federal law this page has two rules
for comments. 1) Don’t say anything obscene.
2) Don’t talk about elections. For more information about our official office policy please
visit http://on.fb.me/iosyMF. Thanks!” (Rep. Jan
Schakowsky)
Ownership of Followers
A few additional examples include:
Congress may choose to regulate when and where Members access social media. Use of social media, for example,
could be forbidden on the Senate and House floor. Prohibiting social media use on the floor would appear to be in
line with current congressional policy. Advocates of allowing social media use on the floor cite transparency issues,
while opponents argue that social media is trivial, and
that Members have adequate tools before and after official
floor action to express their opinion on a vote or other official congressional activity.
Concerted strategies, both on the campaign trail and in
a Member’s office, exist for building social media followers and utilizing social media platforms to send out
messages. With social media use, the ownership of followers presents challenges in determining the proper
rules and procedures for addressing and deciding who
is entitled to certain social media fans and followers.
For example, under current rules, campaign and official
Member social media accounts must be kept separate.
On social media sites, each account has its own website
address and set of fans or followers. When followers are
accumulated during a successful campaign and a new
Member creates an official social media site, should and
can followers on the campaign page be transferred to
the official page? If not, a Member would need to rebuild his or her follower base from scratch.
Further questions regarding social media ownership
include:
•Do the followers belong to the Member or do they
belong to the seat? The public may decide to follow a public official on social media for a variety
of reasons: to obtain updates on what is happening in their district, to get to know a Member’s
views or personality, to find out other information about the Member, etc. However, it is likely
that followers choose to follow Members for
reasons beyond the seat itself. If the individual
holding a seat were to change, some individuals
may no longer wish to follow the new Member. If
followers belong to the seat, it would effectively
connect a user’s account to that seat’s social media site, regardless of who holds it.
•Could campaign accounts be transitioned into official accounts? If so, Members would have to appropriately edit the account’s information to reflect the Member’s official email, title, and other
details. This would mitigate the problem of having
to transfer followers or build brand new lists, but
it also confuses the clear lines demarcating campaigning and official business by Members.
27
Congress + SOCIAL MEDIA
•Should new Members be required to build their
own social media accounts upon election? This
mirrors current behavior among Members and
preserves the separation between official and
campaign accounts.
•Should a Member’s followers be transferred if a
Member is elected to a new seat or a different congressional chamber?
Any regulations put in place regarding social media accounts could consider existing rules or regulations that
address email distribution lists or other databases for
electronic communication.
Staff Time and Size of Staff
As social media becomes a routine part of Members’
communication strategies, a shift in rules and regulations regarding staff resources may be warranted. As
noted in the Congressional Management Foundation’s
report on communication, constituent communications
is a high priority in congressional offices. Furthermore,
offices report that they have shifted staff resources to
communication “in order to manage the increase in
volume.”92 As previously noted, Congress has not increased Members’ office staff size since 197993 despite
the significant workload increase related to constituent
communications, the increase in access and transparency for Members’ offices, and a shift in the way that
constituencies interact with their representatives.
Policy changes could encompass a variety of options
and considerations, and must address both the need
for additional resources with increased pressure to
reduce the federal budget. To best allocate existing resources, Members could be required to have at least
one person in their offices dedicated to social media
communication. This person could either work directly
with the Member—should the Member prefer to do the
posting—or within the current rules and regulations to
update social media sites in accordance with the Member’s communication strategy.
92.
Congressional Management Foundation. “Communicating with Congress: How Citizen Advocacy Is Changing
Mail Operations on the Hill.”
93.
Ibid.
28
Social media is rapidly becoming an integral part of constituent outreach for Members; therefore, having the resources to hire trained staff who can help facilitate and
monitor social media may prove as important as hiring an
experienced legislative aide or a press assistant. ­­­
On the House side, the Committee on House Administration is tasked “to implement new services for member
offices, and to set human resources and management
policies for staff and service personnel on the House
side of Capitol Hill.”94 The Senate Rules and Administration Committee serves the same function, setting internal policy via legislation. Both committees could play a
role in setting new staff policies with the intent of addressing the increase in offices’ communication needs.
One policy option is to increase each Member’s staff allotment. Presently, House Members are permitted 18
full-time-equivalent staff and 4 part-time staff. Senate
staffs are allocated by state size. Members choose to
allocate staff responsibilities however they prefer, but
rarely is a staff person assigned to social media work
exclusively. Increasing staff budget allotments and
developing job descriptions for “social media directors” or similar positions—whether communications
or constituent service-focused—could be an option to
improve a Member’s use of resources and engagement
with constituents via social media. However, the feasibility would need to be carefully considered, given the
limitations posed by the current political and fiscal environments.
If staff size expansions were considered, the amount of
space allocated to each Member also would need to be
addressed. House Members presently have three-room
office suites in the Capitol, one of which is reserved for
the Members’ personal office. Limits on available space
would prevent sizeable expansions of staff without
building an additional House office building. Currently,
there is little political will in Congress to finance a large
capital project.
94.
Committee on House Administration. “History and
Jurisdiction | Committee on House Administration.”
http://cha.house.gov/about/history-jurisdiction
(April 3, 2012).
Future Research
Analysis and observations from this study point to future
research areas on social media use by Congress. As previously mentioned, future studies could develop an index
for calculating a Member’s social media popularity. Why
do particular Members have more followers on Facebook,
Twitter, and YouTube—have they run for President or
are they in major leadership positions on congressional
committees? Follow-up research also could be conducted
to determine if changes in party power in Congress alter
social media usage trends. When Republicans have a majority in the Senate, do the types and tone of their messages change? What about when a Republican is elected
President—will the Democrats in Congress have greater
message discipline if they are in the minority?
Throughout the data collection and coding phase of
the project, we observed several trends in the content of the Facebook posts and tweets. Because this
report focused on the types of messages Members
of Congress send via social media—not on content
analysis of these postings—these trends were not explained in detail in the findings section of the project.
Four observations stood out as important topics for
future research:
1. Evidence of conversations—sometimes exten-
sive—existed between Members of Congress
and their followers.
2. Many posts could be characterized as negative
or even vitriolic, particularly from Republican
Members directed toward the President.
3. In contrast to Democrats, Republicans seem to
have greater message cohesion.
4. Distilling a message to 140 characters seems
to be difficult for some Members.
Other avenues for future research include the effect
of social media on the institution of the United States
Congress. For example, is Congress changing because of
social media? Also, will congressional committees use
social media in the future to inform the public on policy
issues? Is social media opening the legislative process
to the public, versus the current system of involvement
by lobbyists and special interest groups? Does the use of
social media by Members of Congress place Members at
additional risk of violating open meeting regulations?
Another approach to this study is the effect of advocacy
on social media—does social media crowdsourcing direct policymakers and help them reach compromise on
difficult policy issues? The findings of this report can
be useful for future studies on these related subjects.
Conclusion
The increased adoption of social media by Members of
Congress in recent years creates a dynamic where prolific
use remains mostly unregulated. Furthermore, the constant introduction of new features within current social
media platforms, as well as the creation of new platforms,
contributes to an ever-evolving world of political communications. Consequently, questions arise regarding the
purpose of social media in Congress and the policy implications of Members’ various uses of these platforms. Given the rapid change in social media, flexible poli-
cies could be established that cover the broad range of
platforms while remaining effective and enforceable.
Conversely, social media use in Congress could be completely deregulated where no violations or penalties exist. Other options include a guide of best practices, as
well as social media training and education for all Members of Congress and their staffs. Various options exist
for how to manage social media and its use in Congress.
The ephemeral nature of social media necessitates both
discussion and decisions to address social media and
its connection to Congress.
Bibliography
Associated Press. “Google buys YouTube for $1.65 billion
—Business—US business —msnbc.com.” U.S. Business.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15196982/ns/business-us_business/t/google-buys-youtube-billion/#.
T3ihp79bX7A (accessed March 21, 2012).
Committee on House Administration. “History and Jurisdiction | Committee on House Administration.” http://
cha.house.gov/about/history-jurisdiction (April 3,
2012).
Committee on House Administration. “Members’ Handbook.”
http://cha.house.gov/handbooks/members-congressional-handbook (April 3, 2012).
Congressional Management Foundation. “Communicating
with Congress: How
Citizen Advocacy Is Changing Mail Operations on the Hill.”
http://www.congressfoundation.org/storage/documents/CMF_Pubs/cwc-mail-operations.pdf (April
2012).
Congressional Management Foundation. “Congressional
Management Foundation | About CMF.” http://www.
congressfoundation.org/about-cmf (April 3, 2012).
Congressional Management Foundation. “Congressional
Management
Foundation | 21st Century Town Hall Meetings.” http://www.
congressfoundation.org/projects/town-hall/term/
summary (April 3, 2012).
Congressional Management Foundation. “Social Congress:
Perceptions and Use of Social Media on Capitol Hill.”
http://www.congressfoundation.org/storage/documents/CMF_Pubs/cmf-social-congress.pdf (April
2012).
“Days in Session Calendars 112th Congress 2nd Session,”
THOMAS, Library of Congress, http://thomas.loc.gov/
home/ds/h1122.html, (accessed April 2, 2012).
“Days in Session Calendars U.S. Senate —112th Congress 2nd
Session,” THOMAS,
Library of Congress, http://thomas.loc.gov/home/ds/s1122.
html, (accessed April 2, 2012).
Department of Energy. “Social Media | Department of
Energy.” http://energy.gov/about-us/web-policies/
social-media (April 2, 2012).
Department of Justice, Victoria, Australia. “Department
of Justice Social Media Policy for Employees.”
http://www.justice.vic.gov.au/home/about+us/
our+values+and+behaviours/social+media+policy/
(April 9, 2012). “Facebook Glossary.” Facebook.
http://www.facebook.com/help/glossary. (accessed April 29, 2012).
“Facebook Pages: Mission control for your business on
Facebook,” Facebook. http://ads.ak.facebook.com/
ads/FacebookAds/Pages_Product_Guide_022812.pdf
(accessed March 21, 2012).“FAQs about Verified Accounts.” Twitter Help Center. http://support.twitter.
com/groups/31-twitter-basics/topics/111-features/articles/119135-about-verified-accounts.
(accessed March 21, 2012).
Federal Chief Information Officers Council. “Guidelines for
Secure Use of Social Media by Federal Departments
and Agencies.” http://www.cio.gov/documents/guidelines_for_secure_use_social_media_v01-0.pdf. (April
9, 2012).Glassman, Matthew, “Franking Privilege:
Historical Development and Options for
Change.” December 21, 2010. Congressional Research
Service, RL34274. http://assets.opencrs.com/rpts/
RL34274_20101221.pdf
Glassman, Matthew, Jacob Straus, and Colleen Shogan,
“Social Networking and Constituent Communications:
Member Use of Twitter During a Two-Month Period in
Congress.” February 3, 2010. Congressional Research
Service, R41066.
Goldschmidt, Kathy and Leslie Ochreiter, “Communicating
with Congress: How the Internet Has Changed Citizen
Engagement.” 2008. Congressional Management Foundation. http://www.congressfoundation.org/projects/
communicating-with-congress/how-the-internet-haschanged-citizen-engagement.
Google Help. “Google Basics —Webmaster Tools Help.”
http://support.google.com/webmasters/bin/answer.
py?hl=en&answer=70897 (April 3, 2012).
Government Accountability Office. “Information Management: Challenges in Federal Agencies’ Use of Web 2.0
Technologies.” www.gao.gov/new.items/d10872t.pdf
(April 3, 2012).
“Government Online.” Pew Research Center, Internet and
American Life Project.http://www.pewinternet.org/
Reports/2010/Government-Online.aspx (accessed
April 17, 2012).
Hopkins, Jim. “Surprise! There’s a third YouTube co-founder
—USATODAY.com.” News, Travel, Weather, Entertainment, Sports, Technology, U.S. & World. http://www.
usatoday.com/tech/news/2006-10-11-youtubekarim_x.htm (accessed March 21, 2012).
House Committee on Ethics. “New Employee | House Committee on Ethics.” http://ethics.house.gov/legislation/
schedule/new-employee (April 3, 2012).
HowTo.gov | Helping agencies deliver a great customer
experience.
“Implementing Federal Web Requirements – Examples |
HowTo.gov.” http://www.howto.gov/web-content/requirements-and-best-practices/laws-and-regulations/
agency-examples (April 2, 2012).
Congress + SOCIAL MEDIA
HowTo.gov | Helping agencies deliver a great customer
experience. “Social Media | HowTo.gov.” http://www.
howto.gov/social-media, (April 2, 2012).Lawrence, Jill.
“Congress Launches Official Channels on YouTube.” On
Politics.
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/onpolitics/
post/2009/01/61236496/1 (accessed March 21,
2012).Lazer, David, et. al., “Online Town Hall Meetings: Exploring Democracy in the 21st Century.” 2009.
Congressional Management Foundation. http://www.
congressfoundation.org/index.php?option=com_
content&task=view&id=294.
Newhauser, Daniel. “Franking on Facebook May Run Afoul of
Founders.” Roll Call. 2 May 2011. http://www.rollcall.
com/issues/56_114/Franking-on-Facebook-May-RunAfoul-of-Founders-205207-1.html
Office of Environmental Information: EPA Information Procedures. “Representing EPA Online Using Social Media.”
www.epa.gov/irmpoli8/policies/representing.pdf
(April 3, 2012).
Office of the Clerk of the U.S. House of Representatives Art
& History—Art & History Home. “Office of the Clerk
of the U.S. House of Representatives Art & History
—Overview.” http://artandhistory.house.gov/house_
history/archival-research/ (April 2, 2012) “Pages
Overview.” Facebook. ads.ak.facebook.com/ads/FacebookAds/Pages_Overview.pdf (accessed March 21,
2012).
Protalinski, Emil. “Facebook has over 845 million users.”
Technology News, Analysis, Comments and Product
Reviews for IT Professionals. http://www.zdnet.
com/blog/facebook/facebook-has-over-845-millionusers/8332 (accessed March 21, 2012). Roll Call.
“Members Tweeting at their Own Risk.” (January 18,
2012).
“#Social Congress: Perceptions and Use of Social Media on
Capitol Hill.” 2011. Congressional Management Foundation. http://www.congressfoundation.org/storage/
documents/CMF_Pubs/cmf-social-congress.pdf
34
Taylor, Chris. “Social Networking ‘Utopia’ isn’t Coming.” Featured Articles. http://articles.cnn.com/2011-06-27/
tech/limits.social.networking.taylor_1_twitter-usersfacebook-friends-connections?_s=PM:TECH (accessed
March 21, 2012).
“Terms of Service.” YouTube. http://www.youtube.com/t/
terms, (accessed March 21, 2012).
The Christian Science Monitor —CSMonitor.com. “Social
media: The Wild West of marketing—CSMonitor.com.”
http://www.csmonitor.com/Business/The-Entrepreneurial-Mind/2011/0217/Social-media-The-WildWest-of-marketing (April 2, 2012).
Twitter. “Michael McCaul. https://twitter.com/#!/mccaulpressshop (accessed April 3, 2012).
“Twitter 101: How should I get started using Twitter?.” Twitter. http://support.twitter.com/groups/31-twitterbasics/topics/104-welcome-to-twitter-support/
articles/215585-twitter-101-how-should-i-get-started-using-twitter (accessed March 21, 2012).
U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of the Chief Information Officer. “Policy on the Approval and Use of Social
Media and Web 2.0 (SM/W2.0)” http://ocio.os.doc.
gov/ITPolicyandPrograms/Policy___Standards/
PROD01_009476 (April 9, 2012)
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. “HHS on
Facebook.”
http://newmedia.hhs.gov/tools/facebook.html (April
9, 2012).
United States Navy. “Navy Command Social Media Handbook.” http://www.nmcphc.med.navy.mil/downloads/
ep/risk_com_documents/Appendix_F_NavyCommandSocialMediaHandbook.pdf. (April 9, 2012)
“Use of Social Media by Members of Congress.” LBJ School of
Public Affairs. August 25, 2011 to October 25, 2011.
“YouTube Essentials.” YouTube. http://www.youtube.com/t/
about_essentials (accessed March 21, 2012
Appendix A: Glossary of Terms
Facebook Terms
Like: “Clicking Like is a way to give positive feedback
and connect with things you care about.”95
Page: “Pages allow businesses, brands, and celebrities
to connect with people on Facebook. Admins can post
information and News Feed updates to people who like
their pages.”96
Post: “Facebook is a social networking website that
was originally designed for college students, but is now
open to anyone 13 years of age or older. Facebook users
can create and customize their own profiles with photos, videos, and information about themselves. Each
Facebook profile has a “wall,” where [people] can post
comments.”97
Profile: “Your profile (timeline) is a complete picture of
yourself on Facebook.”98
Profile picture: “Your profile picture is the main photo
of you on your profile (timeline). Your profile picture
appears as a thumbnail next to your comments and
other activity around Facebook.”99
Subscribe: “Subscribe is a way to hear from people
you’re interested in, even if you’re not friends. The Subscribe button is also a way to fine-tune your News Feed
to get the types of updates you want to see.”100
Wall: “Your Wall is the space on your profile where you
and friends can post and share.”101
Twitter Terms
Follow: “[S]ubscribing to [someone’s] Tweets as a
follower.”102
95.
“Facebook Glossary.” Facebook. http://www.facebook.
com/help/glossary.
97.
“Facebook.” Definition. 14 Jan. 2008. http://www.
techterms.com/definition/facebook>.
96.
98.
99.
Ibid.
Facebook Glossary.” Facebook. http://www.facebook.
com/help/glossary.
Ibid.
100. Ibid.
101. Ibid.
102. “FAQs About Following.” Twitter. http://support.twitter.com/articles/14019-what-is-following.
Follower: “People who receive your tweets.”103
Hashtag: “A tag embedded in a tweet using the #
symbol that identifies the keyword or topic of a tweet
and makes a tweet searchable as part of a larger
conversation.”104
Mention: “Any tweet that contains the Twitter handle
of the user in question. ‘Mention’ is an umbrella term
that includes replies, retweets and static tweets.”105
Reply: “A tweet that begins with the @ symbol. These
are only visible to users who follow both users – the
user mentioned, and the user tweeting.”106
Retweet: “A tweet that repeats the message of another user.
Retweets are denoted with the phrases ‘RT @username’ or
‘via @username.’ They are visible to all of a user’s followers and can also be posted via Twitter’s retweet button.”107
Tweet: A message that is 140 characters or less, using
the social network Twitter.
Twitter Town Hall: An online “meeting” where constituents pose questions to the Member and the Member
responds, through the Twitter medium.
Unfollow: Unsubscribing to a person’s tweets.
Other Terms
Application Program Interface (API): “A language
and message format used by an application program to
communicate with the operating system or some other
control program such as a database management system (DBMS) or communications protocol.”108
103. Ibid.
104. Edelman Digital. “Capitol Tweets: Yeas and Nays of the
Congressional Twitterverse.” http://www.edelmandigital.com/2012/03/21/capitol-tweets-yeas-and-naysof-the-congressional-twitterverse/ (April 2012).
105. Ibid
106. Ibid
107. Ibid
108. “Definition of API.” PC Mag. Web. <http://www.pcmag.
com/encyclopedia_term/0,2542,t=application+progra
mming+interface&i=37856,00.asp>.
Appendix B: Sources for Existing Social Media Policies
Agency/Source
Title of Document
Link
Chief Information Officers (CIO) Council
“Guidelines for Secure Use of Social Media
by Federal Departments and Agencies”
http://www.cio.gov/Documents/
Guidelines_for_Secure_Use_Social_
Media_v01-0.pdf
Department of Justice, Victoria, Australia
“Department of Justice Social Media Policy
for Employees”
http://www.justice.vic.gov.au/socialmedia
Environmental Protection Agency
“Internal Usage”
http://www.epa.gov/irmpoli8/policies/
comm_internal.pdf
State of Californa
“Social Media Standard”
http://www.cio.ca.gov/Government/
IT_Policy/pdf/SIMM_66B.pdf
Texas State Employees
“Texas Social Media Policy”
http://www.texas.gov/en/about/Pages/
social-media-policy.aspx
UK Parliament
“Social Meda Policy”
http://www.parliament.uk/documents/foi/
FOI-2011-parliament-social-media-policyF11-284.pdf
US Army Corps of Engineers­—
Jacksonville District
“Social Media User Guidlines”
http://www.saj.usace.army.mil/Documents/
JaxDistrictSocialMediaUserGuidlines.pdf
US Department of Commerce
“Use of Social Media/Web 2.0 in the
Department of Commerce”
http://www.osec.doc.gov/webresources/
socialmedia
US Department of Defense
“Memorandum for See Distribution”
http://www.defense.gov/news/dtm%20
09-026.pdf
US Department of Energy
“Social Media Web Guidelines”
http://energy.gov/about-us/web-policies/
social-media
US Department of State
“Social Media Policy”
http://www.state.gov/documents/
organization/144186.pdf
US Department of Transportation
“FHWA Social Media/Web 2.0
Management”
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/legsregs/
directives/orders/137014.htm
US Health and Human Services
“HHS-OCD Policy for Social Media
Technologies”
http://www.hhs.gov/ocio/policy/
policy_2010-0003.1_-_ocio.html
US Navy
“Loose Tweet, Sink Fleets”
http://www.slideshare.net/
USNavySocialMedia/navy-commandsocial-media-handbook-web
White House
“Social Media, Web-Based Interactive
Technologies, and the Paperwork
Reduciton Act”
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/
default/files/omb/assets/inforeg/
SocialMediaGuidance_04072010.pdf