Do Not Mail Initiatives and Their Potential Effects: Possible Issues for Congress

Do Not Mail Initiatives and Their Potential Effects:
Possible Issues for Congress
Updated September 24, 2008
Wendy Ginsberg
Analyst in American National Government
Government and Finance Division



Do Not Mail Initiatives and Their Potential Effects:
Possible Issues for Congress
Summary
Since 2007, at least 19 state legislatures have introduced legislation that would
require the creation of state Do Not Mail (DNM) registries. In 2008, 12 states had
pending DNM legislation. Although each state’s DNM initiative is unique, all
attempt to curb the delivery of unsolicited advertising mail — often referred to as
“junk mail or “direct mail marketing.” Each state’s bill would permit a resident to
submit his or her name and address to a state agency or department, which would
compile all the names and addresses into a registry that would then be distributed to
direct mail marketers. Marketers who knowingly ignored the registry and sent
unsolicited direct mail advertisements to individuals on a state’s registry could be
charged a fine for each infraction. While no federal DNM legislation is currently
pending, some Members have expressed an interest in the subject, and constituents
regularly request information about junk mail.
Proponents of DNM policies have claimed that advertising mail harms the
environment, renders recipients more susceptible to identity theft and consumer
fraud, and is a time-wasting nuisance. The United States Postal Service (USPS) and
direct mail marketers, however, argue that the environmental impact from advertising
is minimal, fraud or identity theft linked to mailings is rare, and “time-wasting” is in
the eye of the beholder. While environmental and consumer protection groups have
advocated the creation of the DNM registries, direct mail marketers and the USPS
have offered alternative solutions to legislation, including Do Not Mail initiatives
managed by direct mail marketers themselves.
Estimates suggest $60 billion — or 21% of all advertising dollars in the United
States — is spent on advertising mail. In 2007, USPS generated more than a quarter
of its revenue — $20.7 billion — from Standard Mail, the service’s categorization
for most advertising mail. The Direct Marketing Association estimates that nearly
460,000 people were directly employed by direct mail marketing — including
printers, graphic designers, and catalog creators in 2007. An additional 3.1 million
people were indirectly employed in jobs affected by direct mail marketing —
including manufacturers, customer service employees, mail deliverers, and
warehouse workers. USPS estimates it could lose between $4 billion and $10 billion
in revenue if all states passed a DNM registry and all consumers registered for it.
This report examines the state level initiatives to create Do Not Mail registries,
and analyzes their potential effects on the environment and the economy should they
be implemented. It also notes, but does not exhaustively analyze, possible
constitutional impediments to state DNM registries. In addition, the report reviews
existing methods to reduce or eliminate the delivery of unsolicited advertising mail.
This report concludes with federal legislative options that could affect direct mail
marketing. This report will be updated when events warrant.



Contents
In troduction ......................................................1th
The 110 Congress.............................................3
Controversial Numbers.........................................4
Advertising Mail and the U.S. Postal Service............................7
Data ........................................................7
Standard and First Class Mail................................7
Direct Mail Marketing and Employment.......................13
State Legislative Efforts to Reduce Unsolicited Advertising Mail...........14
Do Not Mail Registries........................................14
Competing Priorities of Commerce and Environmentalism ...........19
“Junk” Mail and Public Opinion.....................................20
Options for Consumers Wishing to Reduce the Receipt of
Advertising Mail .........................................20
Private Do Not Mail Registries..............................20
Direct Contact...........................................22
Refuse Receipt...........................................23
Other Options............................................23
Private Sector and USPS Efforts to Reduce Paper Waste..................23
Concluding Observations ..........................................25
List of Figures
Figure 1. Composition of Mail by Class, 2002-2007.......................8
Figure 2. USPS Revenue by Mail Class, 2002-2007.......................9
Figure 3. Composition of Mail by Class, 2007...........................9
Figure 4. USPS Revenue Percentages by Mail Class, 2007................10
List of Tables
Table 1. States That Have Introduced Do-Not-Mail Legislation
in 2007 or 2008...............................................2
Table 2. Operating Costs and Revenue by Mail Class for USPS, 2002 - 2007..11
Table 3. Advertising-Mail-Related Employment.........................13
Table 4. State Legislative Initiatives to Create a Do-Not-Mail Registry.......15



Do Not Mail Initiatives and Their Potential
Effects: Possible Issues for Congress
Introduction
Since 2007, at least 19 state legislatures have introduced bills that would require
the creation of state Do Not Mail (DNM) registries. Although each state’s bill is
unique, all the bills attempt to curb the delivery of unsolicited advertising mail —
often referred to as “junk mail” or “direct mail marketing.” Each bill would permit
a resident to submit his or her name and address to a state agency or department,
which would compile all the names and addresses into a registry that would then be
distributed to direct mail marketers. Marketers who knowingly ignored the registry
and sent unsolicited direct mail advertisements to individuals on a state’s registry
could be charged a fine for each infraction. This report focuses on the environmental
and economic issues associated with state DNM statutes, recognizing that there may1


be constitutional impediments to their full implementation should they be enacted.
1 A full analysis of possible constitutional issues related to state DNM statutes is beyond
the scope of this report and, in any event, may be somewhat speculative given the apparent
lack of direct judicial precedent and the absence of specific statutory language.
Nonetheless, at least three constitutional principles may pertain: free speech rights, the
power to regulate interstate and foreign commerce, and the express authority of Congress
to establish post offices and postal roads. Precedent on state and federal “do not call”
registries appears to indicate that DNM statutes could be crafted to comply with free speech
principles. See, for example, Mainstream Mktg. Servs. v. FTC, 358 F.3d 1228 (10th Cir.

2004) (federal registry) and Nat’l. Coalition of Prayer, Inc. v. Carter, 455 F.3d 783 (7th Cir.


2006) (Indiana statute). See also, Rowan v. Post Office Department, 397 U.S. 728 (1970),


in which the Supreme Court rejected an argument that a federal statute which allows
addressees to request that postmasters issue orders prohibiting delivery of matter addressees
in their discretion find offensive does not violate the First Amendment and observed
generally that addressees have a right to control the kinds of mail that they wish to have
delivered.
The implications under the Constitution’s Commerce Clause may be more difficult to
assess: Unlike the case of “do not call” registries, there is neither a federal statute that
broadly regulates unsolicited mail through registries nor a federal statute that explicitly
allows states to establish their own do not mail registries.
Perhaps the most formidable obstacle to state DNM statutes is the constitutional power
granted to Congress to establish post offices and postal roads. Judicial interpretation of this
congressional power is relatively sparse, but the authority that does exist (some of it quite
old) suggests that the postal power embraces the regulation of the entire postal system and
that a state statute which significantly interferes with the performance of this federal
function by impeding the delivery of matter that may be mailed and how it may be mailed
(continued...)

Table 1 includes states that have introduced do-not-mail legislation in 2007 and

2008.


Table 1. States That Have Introduced Do-Not-Mail
Legislation in 2007 or 2008
2007
Arkansas
Colorado
Connecticut
Hawaii (carried over to 2008)
Maryland
Michigan (carried over to 2008)
Missouri
Montana
New Jersey
New York (carried over to 2008)
North Carolina (carried over to 2008)
Rhode Island (carried over to 2008)
Texas
Vermont (carried over to 2008)
Washington (carried over to 2008)
2008
Illinois
Maryland (new bill introduced)
New Hampshire
Pennsylvania
Tennessee
Source: Direct Marketing Association,State Do Not Mail Registry Bills — 2007,” available at
[http://www.the-dma.org/donotmail/2007legislation.shtml], visited September 3, 2008; Direct
Marketing Association,State Do Not Mail Registry Bills — 2008,” available at
[http://www.the-dma.org/donotmail/2008legislation.shtml], visited September 3, 2008. List also
compiled using individual states’ bills.


1 (...continued)
may be constitutionally suspect. See, for example, Congressional Research Service, The
Constitution of the United States of America: Analysis and Interpretation, S. Doc. No. 108-
17, at 311-312 (2002). For further analysis of constitutional and legal issues regarding state
DNM statutes, contact Thomas J. Nicola, Legislative Attorney, American Law Division.

Environmental groups, including Greendimes, ProQuo, ForestEthics, and The
New American Dream, state that unsolicited mail creates large amounts of paper
waste, invades individuals’ privacy, renders individuals more susceptible to identity
theft and mail fraud, and is a nuisance.2 Direct mail marketers and the United States
Postal Service (USPS), however, state that advertising mail is an extremely
successful means for businesses and not-for-profit organizations to communicate
with potential customers and donors that causes minimal environmental impact,
creates jobs, and adds billions of dollars to the domestic and global economies.3
USPS estimates that it could lose between $4 billion and $10 billion in annual
revenue if every state created a Do Not Mail Registry and every consumer placed his
or her name on it.
The 110th Congress
Currently, no federal legislation to create a Do Not Mail registry has been
introduced in the 110th Congress.4 Advertising mail, however, has been an issue of
interest at congressional oversight hearings. At a March 5, 2008, hearing before the
Senate Subcommittee on Federal Financial Management, Government Information,
Federal Services, and International Security, for example, Postmaster General John
Potter stated that DNM initiatives
not only threaten the viability of the mail in and among the affected states; they
also undermine our ability to support a national network, one capable of serving
every resident of every state, territory, and possession — affordably, effectively,
and efficiently. We believe the success of these initiatives will also come at the
expense of jobs, the viability of local businesses, and the reduction in municipal,


2 ForestEthics, “Do Not Mail: The Facts,” available at [http://www.donotmail.org/
article.php?list=type&type=3], viewed May 20, 2008. ForestEthics currently operates an
online petition that seeks to create a national Do Not Mail Registry. As of June 4, 2008, the
petition included nearly 45,000 signatures.
3 U.S. Postal Service, “Valuing the Mail,” a handout from USPS, available from the author
of the report.
4 18 U.S.C. § 1461 prohibits the mailing of obscene or crime-inciting matter, but no statute
or pending legislation would limit or curb advertising mail delivery. Advertising mail is
also discussed in pending legislation related to consumer protection. Representative Gary
L. Ackerman and others introduced H.R. 5895 on April 24, 2008. If passed, the legislation
would require direct mail marketers to place a “large, clear, and bold typeface” notice “in
a clear and conspicuous location on the outside envelope” of unsolicited advertising mail
that reads “‘This Is an Unsolicited Commercial Offer From’ followed by the name of the
person or company making such offer.” The bill was referred to the House Committee on
Financial Services on April 24, 2008. H.R. 5895 aims to reduce the number of American
consumers who “are induced into falsely believing” that certain pieces of mail are “from a
government entity or an institution with which they are currently doing business.” Although
the bill does not call for the creation of a Do Not Mail registry, it does have goals that are
similar to some state level DNM efforts: eliminating the alleged nuisance and confusion that
may be caused by direct mail marketing. The bill may not directly affect postal sales, but
could cost direct mail marketers additional fees because they may have to redesign mailings.

county, and state revenue. We cannot afford these results during the best of5
times; they are unthinkable when the economy is faltering.
Additionally, at the April 1, 2008, annual meeting of the National Postal
Supervisors Association Meeting in Washington, D.C., Senator Susan M. Collins, the
ranking member of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs
Committee, discussed existing state DNM initiatives.
The entire postal community is very concerned about proposed “Do Not Mail”
legislation. This sounds good to a lot of legislators, who mistakenly equate this
ill-conceived proposal with the “Do Not Call” registry. In fact, it would have
devastating consequences. Direct mail is an essential part of the Postal Service’s
mail volume. “Do Not Mail” legislation would curb this growth and place a
heavier burden on other classes of mail to cover the fixed costs of providing
postal service, and thus raise its costs and jeopardize universal, affordable
service.
Direct mail is in no way comparable to the unsolicited and invasive telephone
calls that are curbed by the “Do Not Call” registry. Direct mail imposes no
burden on the public, it causes no interruptions, and I, for one, look forward to
the Bed, Bath, and Beyond coupons I get in the mail. A “Do Not Mail” registry
would attempt to solve a problem that does not exist and would have devastating
consequences for every home, community, and business that relies upon our6
Postal Service.
Controversial Numbers
The proposed reduction or elimination of advertising mail is a controversial
issue. USPS states that 100 billion pieces of advertising mail were delivered to
households in the United States in 2007 — about 16.7 pieces of advertising mail to
each household per week.7 In 2007, advertising mail represented 60% of all
household mail delivered in the United States.8 In 2006, advertising mail accounted
for roughly 2.3% of all municipal waste.9 According to the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA), Standard Mail generated nearly 5.9 million tons of municipal solid


5 U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs,
Subcommittee on Federal Financial Management, Government Information, Federal
Services, and International Security, Postal Accountability Enhancement Act, hearing on thethnd
implementation of P.L. 109-435, 110 Cong., 2 sess., Mar. 5, 2008.
6 Sen. Susan Collins, “Senator Collins Addresses National Postal Supervisors,” available at
[http://collins.senat e .gov/ public/continue.cfm?FuseAction=PressRoom.PressReleases&C
ontentRecord_id=0b1c1c67-802a-23ad-4dd2-e8615ecdb750].1], viewed June 9, 2008.
7 U.S. Postal Service, The Household Diary Study: Mail Use and Attitudes in FY2007
(Washington: USPS 2008), p. 38, available at [http://www.usps.com/householddiary/_pdf/
USPS_HDS_FY07_web.pdf], viewed Sept. 22, 2008.
8 Ibid.
9 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “Municipal Solid Waste Tables and Figures,

2007,” available at [http://www.epa.gov/garbage/pubs/06data.pdf], viewed June 3, 2008.


The latest year for which municipal waste information is available is 2006.

waste in 2006.10 Nearly 2.3 million tons (38.7%) of that waste was recovered.11
Groups seeking to reduce or eliminate advertising mail assert that it inflicts costs
upon the environment and the public. Advocates of curbing advertising mail state
that nearly half of it is brought to landfills unopened.12 According to the New
American Dream, a Takoma Park, Maryland-based nonprofit organization, “more
than 100 million trees’ worth of bulk mail arrive in American mail boxes each year
... the equivalent of deforesting the entire Rocky Mountain National Park every four
months.”13 Forest Ethics calculates that it “would take the equivalent of over
500,000 garbage truck loads to dump all junk mail into landfills and incinerators each
year.”14 In addition, ProQuo — a San Diego-based company that helps consumers
control which organizations receive their names, addresses, and other personal
information — advocates for the reduction of unsolicited advertising mail. ProQuo
claims that such mailings could lead to identity theft because direct mail marketers,
credit bureaus, and data brokers often trade and sell consumer information, making
it more accessible to thieves and computer hackers.15
The Direct Marketing Association (DMA) does not dispute the New American
Dream’s statistics or calculations, but points out that the numbers do not include
important details. According to DMA, for example, many of the trees cut down to
make paper for advertising mail were grown carefully and specifically for the purpose
of being harvested for paper.16 According to a USPS study, 48% of recipients read
their unsolicited advertising mail; an additional 33% glance at it, leaving 19% of
people who do not read their advertising mail.17 According to USPS’s Household


10 Ibid.
11 The EPA defines “recovered materials” as “waste materials and by-products recovered or
diverted from solid waste, excluding those materials and by-products generated from, and
commonly reused within, an original manufacturing process”; see E.O. 13101, Sec. 205,
“Greening the Government Through Waste Prevention, Recycling, and Federal
Acquisition”; see also 63 Federal Register 49644, Sept. 14, 1998.
12 ForestEthics, “Do Not Mail: The Facts,” available at [http://www.donotmail.org/
article.php?list=type&type=3], viewed May 20, 2008.
13 The New American Dream calculated the number of trees using data from Conservatree,
a San Francisco, California-based nonprofit that advocates for sustainable paper use, and the
U.S. Forest Service; see [http://www.newdream.org/Junkmail/facts.php], viewed May 20,

2008.


14 ForestEthics, “Do Not Mail: The Facts,” available at [http://www.donotmail.org/
article.php?list=type&type=3], viewed May 20, 2008. ForestEthics used data from the USPS
Household Diary Study and the Environmental Defense Paper Calculator; see
[http://www.donotmail.org/article.php?id=46], viewed May 22, 2008.
15 ProQuo, “FAQ,” available at [http://www.proquo.com/faq/#2], viewed May 22, 2008.
16 U.S. Department of Agriculture, “Forest Service, U.S. Forest Facts and Historical
Trends,” available at [http://fia.fs.fed.us/library/briefings-summaries-overviews/docs/
ForestFactsMetric.pdf], viewed June 4, 2008.
17 U.S. Postal Service, The Household Diary Study, Demand Forecasting and Economic
Analysis, Finance Division, Mar. 2007, p. 42, available at
[http://www.usps.com/householddiary/_pdf/USPS_HDS_FY07_web.pdf], viewed Sept. 22,
(continued...)

Diary Study, an average of 1 in 10 pieces of advertising mail elicited a consumer
response.18 A 2007 USPS Environmental Impact of Mail study found “that
advertising mail, through the elimination of shopping trips, harmful emissions, and
traffic accidents, results in an annual $553 million net benefit to the American
economy. ”19
Additionally, USPS, the Direct Marketing Association, Valassis20, and other
direct mail marketers contend that advertising mail is constitutionally protected
commercial speech, and provides very little opportunity for identity theft. According
to the Federal Trade Commission 2006 Identity Theft Survey Report, in 2005 2% of
8.3 million identity theft victims believe their personal information was acquired
through postal mail items.21
Finally, these organizations stress advertising mail’s importance to the economy.
Estimates suggest that advertisers spent $60 billion on direct mail marketing in 2006.
One out of every five dollars spent on advertising in the United States is spent on
mail.22 In addition to USPS’s 786,000 part-time and full-time employees, DMA
estimates that nearly 460,000 people have jobs linked directly to advertising mail.23
Those who hold jobs include delivery employees, graphic artists, catalog designers
for companies like L.L. Bean, employees of tree-growing companies, and paper
company employees. An additional 3.1 million people are employed in jobs indirectly
linked to direct mail marketing, including warehouse workers, package deliverers,
and customer service representatives.24


17 (...continued)

2008.


18 Ibid., p. 43.
19 U.S. Postal Service, “2007 Comprehensive Statement on Postal Operations, Chapter 4:
Our Operations,” available at [http://www.usps.com/strategicplanning/cs07/chpt4_017.htm],
viewed May 20, 2008.
20 Valassis, a Livonia, Michigan-based company and one of the United States’ largest
coupon distributors, claims to reach more than 100 million consumers weekly. For more
information see the Valassis homepage at [http://www.valassis.com/1024/Home/

10home.aspx?val=true], viewed Sept. 22, 2008.


21 According to the survey, 43% of victims do not know how their information was stolen,
which raises the possibility that additional victims’ identities were obtained via postal mail
items. For more information, see Federal Trade Commission — 2006 Identity Theft Survey
Report, Nov. 2007, p. 30, available at [http://www.ftc.gov/os/2007/11/
SynovateFinalReportIDTheft2006.pdf], viewed Sept. 22, 2008.
22 Mail Moves America, Direct Mail National Fact Sheet, available at
[http://www.mailmovesamerica.org/national.php], viewed Sept. 22, 2008.
23 Ibid.
24 Ibid.

Advertising Mail and the U.S. Postal Service
Data
The U.S. Postal Service generates nearly all of its funding — about $74.8 billion
annually — by charging users of the mail for the costs of its services.25 Congress
does provide an annual appropriation of approximately $100 million to compensate
USPS for revenue it forgoes in providing free mailing privileges to the blind and
overseas voters, and for other purposes.26 The largest product profit margin is created
by First Class Mail sales, which have been in decline since 2000. USPS has,
therefore, had to change its business model to rely more heavily on Standard Mail
sales, which is comprised mainly of advertising mail.
Standard and First Class Mail. Most advertising mail (83%) in 2007 was
sent as Standard Mail, a USPS classification for specialized items that weigh fewer
than 16 ounces. Items that can be sent as Standard Mail include printed matter,27
flyers, circulars, advertising, newsletters, bulletins, catalogs and small parcels. The
remaining 17% of advertising mail was sent as First Class.28 Any item can be sent
as First Class Mail, which is more expensive than Standard Mail. Certain items,
however, must be mailed First Class — including handwritten or typewritten
material, bills, statements of account or invoices, credit cards, personal
correspondence, personalized business correspondence, and all matter sealed against29
inspection.
Over the past eight years, USPS has experienced a significant shift in the
composition of its mail volume. Since 2000, the volume of USPS First Class Mail
has steadily declined. In 2005, for the first time, the volume of Standard Mail
exceeded the volume of First Class Mail delivered by USPS (Figure 1). Because it
is sold at a higher price and costs roughly the same for USPS to deliver,30 First Class
Mail provides the Postal Service with a higher profit per mail piece. Although USPS
anticipates that Standard Mail sales and revenue will continue to grow,31 a significant
reduction in Standard Mail volume — for example, volume losses prompted by the


25 United States Postal Service Annual Report 2007 (Washington: USPS, 2007), p. 3.
26 See CRS Report RL34523, Financial Services and General Government (FSGG): FY2009
Appropriations, Garrett Hatch, Coordinator, pp. 39-40.
27 U.S. Postal Service, “Business Mail 101, Classes of Mail: Standard Mail,” available at
[http://www.usps.com/businessmail101/classes/standard.htm], viewed May 29, 2008.
28 According to USPS, 0.5% of advertising mail is bound printed matter like telephone
books, which is not classified as First Class or Standard Mail.
29 USPS, Domestic Mail Manual, 133 Prices and Eligibility, Section 3.0, available at
[http://pe.usps.gov/text/dmm300/133.htm], viewed August 25, 2008.
30 First Class Mail can cost more to deliver if USPS must forward the mail to a different
address if, for example, a resident has moved.
31 U.S. Government Accountability Office, U.S. Postal Service: Mail-Related Recycling
Initiatives and Possible Opportunities for Improvement, GAO Report GAO-08-599, June

2008.



enactment of Do Not Mail initiatives — could lead to large revenue losses for
USPS.32
Figure 1. Composition of Mail by Class, 2002-2007



60 Mail
50SPSFirst Class Mail
40tal Ue
30f TolumStandard Mail
20ge oVo
10enta
cOther Mail
0Per
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
Year
Source: CRS calculations using data from U.S. Postal Service, Annual Report of the U.S. Postal
Service (Washington: USPS, 2004 — 2007).
Notes:Other Mail” includes additional USPS mail categories, including Priority Mail, Express Mail,
international mail, and package services.
As the volume of First Class Mail dropped, USPS increased the postage rate to
send it. However, as Figure 2 shows, revenue for First Class Mail has remained
stagnant. Meanwhile USPS’s annual operating costs have increased. Standard Mail
revenue, on the other hand, has grown from more than $15.8 billion in FY2002 to
nearly $20.8 billion in FY2007.
32 According to congressional testimony by USPS Postmaster General John E. Potter, the
current economic slump in the global and national economies has “made [USPS] far more
sensitive to downturns in the economic cycle, as advertising spending is extremely
vulnerable to periods of retrenchment.” U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Homeland
Security and Governmental Affairs, Subcommittee on Federal Financial Management,
Government Information, Federal Services, and International Security, Postal Accountabilitythnd
and Enhancement Act, hearing on the implementation of P.L. 109-435, 110 Cong., 2 sess.,
Mar. 5, 2008. Assistance locating this testimony was provided by Jerry Mansfield, CRS
Information Research Specialist.

Figure 2. USPS Revenue by Mail Class, 2002-2007
40r s )
35l a
30of dol
25ns First Class Mail
20llioStandard Mail
15n biOther
10e (i
5e nu
0R e v
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
Ye a r
Source: CRS calculations using data from U.S. Postal Service, Annual Report of the U.S. Postal
Service (Washington: USPS, 2004 - 2007).
Notes:Other” includes USPS revenue garnered from the sales of Priority Mail, Express Mail,
international mail, and package services.
In 2007, Standard Mail generated 28% ($20.8 billion) of USPS’s total revenue
(Figure 3), and made up 49% of the 212 billion mail pieces delivered (Figure 4).
Figure 3. Composition of Mail by Class, 2007


Other
6%Standard
Mail

49%


First Class
Mail

45%


Source: Annual Report of the U.S. Postal Service (Washington, USPS, 2007).

Figure 4. USPS Revenue Percentages by Mail Class, 2007


Standard Other
Mail22%

28%


First Class
Mail

50%


Source: Annual Report of the U.S. Postal Service (Washington, USPS, 2007).
According to Postmaster General John Potter, First Class Mail and Standard
Mail have been declining in volume in 2007.
First-Class Mail, our largest revenue producer, fell by almost 1 billion pieces,
some 4 percent below the same period last year. Standard Mail, which eclipsed
First-Class Mail as our largest volume product in 2005, declined by almost 750
million pieces, 2.6 percent less than the first quarter of 2007. There are no33
current signs of improvement for quarter 2.
According to The Washington Post, recent economic conditions have also
affected USPS, which anticipates a $1 billion budget shortfall in 2008.
Troubled banks are mailing fewer credit card offers. Declining new-home sales
mean vacant houses sitting with empty mailboxes. And as consumers switch to34
paying bills online, first-class mailings are drying up.
As USPS operating costs have increased steadily, revenue has not kept pace
(Table 2). In 2007, USPS generated a $5.4 billion revenue loss.
33 Ibid.
34 Lindsay, Layton, “Postal Service Feels the Weight of ‘Junk Mail,’” Washington Post,
Mar. 6, 2008, p. A02.

Table 2. Operating Costs and Revenue by Mail Class
for USPS, 2002 - 2007
(in millions)
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
First Class$36,483$37,048$36,377$36,062$37,039$37,564
Mail
Standard $15,819 $17,231 $18,123 $18,953 $19,877 $20,779
Mail
Other $14,161 $14,250 $14,496 $14,892 $15,734 $16,435
Reve nue $66,463 $68,529 $68,996 $69,907 $72,650 $74,778
Operating $65,234 $63,902 $65,851 $68,281 $71,681 $80,105
Costs
(Loss) $1,229 $4,627 $3,145 $1,626 $969 ($5,327)
Income
from
Operations
Source: Annual Report of the U.S. Postal Service, (Washington: USPS 2004 - 2007)
Notes: Other includes USPS revenue related to Priority Mail, Express Mail, international mail, and
package services.
A June 3, 2008, GAO report found USPS’s $5 billion shortfall in FY2007 was35
largely caused by advance payments of retiree health benefits. At a March 5, 2008,
congressional oversight hearing, USPS Postmaster General John Potter stated that the
service was already attempting to cut costs by reducing “expenditures for supplies,
services and other non-personnel expenses.”36 USPS employees are not receiving
as much overtime pay, and the service is, instead, making heavier use of less-
expensive seasonal employees.37 The additional loss of revenue has USPS
administrators seeking new ways to earn money — including the possibility of
renting space in the service’s existing 37,000 post offices to private companies, such


35 U.S. Government Accountability Office, U.S. Postal Service: Mail-Related Recycling
Initiatives and Possible Opportunities for Improvement, GAO Report GAO-08-599, June

2008, p. 1.


36 U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs,
Subcommittee on Federal Financial Management, Government Information, Federal
Services, and International Security, Postal Accountability Enhancement Act, hearing on thethnd
implementation of P.L. 109-435, 110 Cong, 2 sess., Mar. 5, 2008. According to media
reports, USPS is offering early retirement to employees who are over 50 years old and have
at least 20 years of service or any USPS employee with at least 25 years of service. See
Randolph E. Schmid, “Post Office Offering Early Retirements,” The Associated Press, Aug.

20, 2008, available at [http://money.cnn.com/2008/08/20/news/economy/


postal_retirement.ap/index.htm], viewed Aug. 25, 2008.
37 Ibid.

as banks or coffee shops.38 “[W]hen you look at the posts around the world, many
of them are using their retail outlets as banks.... That type of flexibility is something,
I think, that we need to explore because we do have the assets,” Potter said.39
Statutes that restrict uses of federal property, however, could prevent such an
activity.40
According to USPS estimates, if Do Not Mail legislation were passed in every
state — or if Congress passed a federal statute creating a DNM registry — the postal
service could lose between $4 billion and $10 billion annually in sales revenue.41
These estimates do not include secondary effects, including revenue from business
reply mail or future revenue from the creation of business relationships through
advertising mail. “We would have to cut costs and make a lot of adjustments,” said
Michael Kubayanda, a USPS congressional liaison.42
According to media reports, private organizations that keep track of USPS sales
as well as postal unions believe that the decrease in First Class Mail has made direct
mail advertising critical to the Postal Service’s financial success.43 In addition, these
groups fear that continued loss in First Class Mail revenue could lead to severe
financial troubles for USPS in the future.44


38 Ibid.
39 Ibid. See also Lyndsey Layton, “Postal Service Feels the Weight of ‘Junk Mail,’”
Washington Post.
40 Generally, federal property laws do not apply to USPS property (39 U.S.C. § 410(a)).
Other federal properties, however, would be subject to certain restrictions (40 U.S.C. §§

3306, 3312, 3314).


41 Estimates are based on FY2007. USPS used information from the FY2007 Household
Diary Study to determine the amount of advertising mail that would be affected by such
legislation. The $4 billion loss assumes that only 50% of consumers would sign up for a
DNM registry. The $10 billion assumption posits 100% of consumers would register.
USPS’s third estimate, which assumes that the same number of consumers who signed the
Do Not Call Registry (72%) would sign the Do Not Mail Registry, concludes the postal
service could lose $6 billion if DNM registries were created in each state or created on a
federal level. USPS calculations and methodology are available from the author. The
revenue losses do not account for reductions in costs for USPS. The fewer mail pieces that
must be processed by USPS, the less variable costs the service will incur. On average for
FY2007, attributable costs were 59.8% of the price paid for service. If USPS estimates a
$6 billion gross revenue loss, therefore, total estimated net losses to the service would be
$2.41 billion. If USPS estimates gross revenue losses at $10 billion, total net estimated
losses to the service would be $4.02 billion. See U.S. Postal Service, “Cost Segments and
Components Fiscal Year 2007, Revised March 20, 2008.
42 Information provided to author at an interview at USPS Headquarters, 475 L’Enfant Plaza
SW, Washington, D.C., on June 30, 2008.
43 “A First-Class Crisis in the Making?” Business Week, Apr. 11, 2005, available at
[http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content / 05_15/ b3928015.htm?campaign_id=
rss_magzn], viewed June 17, 2008.
44 Ibid. See also, Know Your Facts: Mail Moves America, Mail Handler Update, from the
National Postal Mail Handlers Union, March 2008. Available from author. Additional
(continued...)

Direct Mail Marketing and Employment. USPS and direct mail marketing
organizations assert that DNM legislation would heavily affect sales revenue and
potentially — in the longer term — employment at both the state and national levels.
In the United States in 2007, 459,500 people were employed in businesses directly
linked to advertising mail. Roughly 3.1 million people were employed in jobs that
were indirectly linked to advertising mail. Table 3 lists the number of employees
directly and indirectly linked to direct mail marketing — as well as the number of
USPS employees — in each state that has pending DNM legislation in 2008.
Table 3. Advertising-Mail-Related Employment
Employees DirectlyEmployeesIndirectly LinkedUSPS
StateLinked to Directto Direct MailEmployees
Mail MarketingMarketing
Hawaii 2,000 15,000 3,000
Illinois 21,300 142,500 35,000
Maryland 8,000 59,000 15,000
Michigan 19,000 107,000 24,000
North Carolina13,50091,00018,000
New Hampshire2,50016,8003,500
New York28,000204,00053,000
Pennsyl va nia 19,500 139,126 32,000
Rhode Island1,60012,0003,000
T e nnessee 10,600 64,500 13,000
V e rmont 1,000 7,200 1,600
Washington 9,000 63,000 13,000
Source: Direct mail marketing employee counts come from Mail Moves America, “Advertising Mail
Facts and Figures, available at [http://www.mailmovesamerica.org/national.php], viewed on July 25,
2008. Postal Service employee counts come from USPS.
Notes: All direct mail marketing employee counts are for 2006. USPS employee counts are for 2007,
and are rounded to the nearest thousand. Jobs directly related to direct mail advertising include
graphic designers, catalog designers, marketing companies, and others involved in the creation of the
advertisements. Employees indirectly linked to direct mail advertising including delivery men and
women for private companies, customer service representatives and warehouse workers for catalog
companies, and those who provide paper and printing services.


44 (...continued)
information on Mail Moves America is available at [http://www.mailmovesamerica.org],
viewed June 2, 2008.

State Legislative Efforts to Reduce Unsolicited
Advertising Mail
Do Not Mail Registries
In 2008, at least 12 states have pending legislation at the state level that, if
passed, require the creation of a Do Not Mail registry.45 The lists are similar to the
National Do Not Call Registry, which imposes fines on telemarketers who call phone
numbers that are on the list. Unlike the National Do Not Call Registry, however, the46
Do Not Mail registries would be state run. Some state proposals include very high
penalties for organizations that ignore the registry. Two states’ DNM bills —
Tennessee’s and Pennsylvania’s — do not explicitly create penalty exemptions for
nonprofit organizations.47 Other states exempt political mail, small businesses, and
existing business relationships from penalty — in addition to exemptions for non-
profit entities. Some states’ bills would require the state attorney general to manage
the list, while others would require the state’s division of consumer protection to
perform those duties. Still other states allow the registry to be contracted out to a
private vendor. Table 4 shows each state’s bill, its status, and summary details on
its design and content.


45 In 2007, 15 states had legislation pending that would create a Do Not Mail registry. None
of the bills became law. States that had DNM legislation pending in 2007 and did not
reintroduce or carry over similar legislation in 2008 are Arkansas, Colorado, Connecticut,
Missouri, Montana, New Jersey, and Texas. In the Maryland legislature, DNM bills were
introduced in both 2007 and 2008. CRS recognizes that any of these pieces of legislation
may raise constitutional questions of interstate commerce and state jurisdiction, but those
issues are beyond the scope of this report, and will, therefore, not be addressed.
46 The Federal Trade Commission manages the National Do Not Call Registry.
47 Pennsylvania’s legislation is the only DNM legislation that offers no exemptions.
Tennessee’s draft bill would cede the authority to determine DNM exemptions to the
Commissioner of Commerce and Insurance.

CRS-15
Table 4. State Legislative Initiatives to Create a Do-Not-Mail Registry
State AgencyFees Required
StateBill(s)StatusCharged withMaintenance ofFrom Direct MailPenalty for InfractionExemptions From Fine or Penaltyfor Violating Do Not Mail law
Re gi s t r y Marketers
waiiSB908Both bills are inDepartment ofNo fee mentioned,Up to $10,000 fine forPrior permission, business contact
andcommitteeCommerce andbut funding toeach infraction or actualwithin 180 days, 501(c)(3)s, agencies
HB2592Consumermanage registrymonetary damagewith federal regulatory authority
Affairswould be
iki/CRS-RL34643appropriated by the
g/w state
s.or
leakSB2115In committeeAttorney General$500 annualSliding scale with largerEstablished business relationship,
or contractorregistration feeorganizations payingprior permission, small businesses
://wikistiffer fines(fewer than five employees),
http501(c)(3)s, political mail
landHB 53Withdrawn as ofDivision ofDivision ofUp to $5,000 fine andExpressed request from consumer,
February 12, 2008ConsumerConsumerup to $5,000 in damagesexisting customer, existing business
Protection withinProtection toif civil action filed byrelationship, existing debt, 501(c)(3),
the Attorneydetermine feeconsumerfrom a person or agency over which
General’s Officea federal agency has authority



CRS-16
State AgencyFees Required
StateBill(s)StatusCharged withMaintenance ofFrom Direct MailPenalty for InfractionExemptions From Fine or Penaltyfor Violating Do Not Mail law
Re gi s t r y Marketers
anHB 4199In committeePublic Service Public ServiceUp to six months inExisting customer, governmental
Commission orCommission toprison, up to $500 fineentity, prior permission, Section 527
contractordetermine feeper violation, or both. of the Internal Revenue Code,
Consumers may seek tocharitable organizations, public
recover damages orsafety solicitation
$250, whichever is
iki/CRS-RL34643greater, in a civil suit
g/wwHB1506Reported fromThe ConsumerFee paid to theUp to $500 fine perExpressed permission, established
s.or
leakmpshiretwo committees;Protection andConsumerviolation, and up tobusiness relationship, referral,
one committee’sAntitrust BureauProtection and$500 for damages per501(c)(3), Section 527 of the Internal
://wikimajority foundof theAntitrust BureauviolationRevenue Code, political mail,
httpthe billDepartment ofthat may not exceedbusinesses with fewer than 20
“inexpedient toJusticethe costs ofemployees
legislate.” Themanaging the
other committeeregistry
reported the bill
“ought to pass”
A02520The AssemblyConsumerConsumerUp to $2,000 fine perExpressed consent from customer,
andwas withdrawn byProtection BoardProtection Board toviolation501(c)(3), political mail, expressed
S01403the sponsor, thedetermine feerequest, established business
Senate bill is inrelationship, exiting customer


committee

CRS-17
State AgencyFees Required
StateBill(s)StatusCharged withMaintenance ofFrom Direct MailPenalty for InfractionExemptions From Fine or Penaltyfor Violating Do Not Mail law
Re gi s t r y Marketers
thH1699In committeeContractorFee on a slidingOrganizations can haveExpressed permission, previous
rolinachosen by thescale of up to $500,up to three violationsbusiness contact, 501(c)(3), agencies
North Carolinawith largerper month; no setwith federal regulatory authority,
Utilitiesorganizationsfinancial penaltyreferrals, person working from
Commissionpaying the highestprimary residence
fee
iki/CRS-RL34643lvaniaH2551In committeeBureau ofFee may not exceedAttorney general can actNone
g/wConsumerthe costs incurred into impose a civil
s.or
leakProtection withinproduction,penalty, subsequent
the Office of thepreparation andoffenses may lead to the
://wikiAttorney Generaldistribution of therevocation of the right
httpor contractorregistryto conduct mail
solicitation in the
commonwealth
sland H 6190Held inContractorFee on a slidingUp to three violationsSmall businesses and charitable
committeeselected by thescale of up to $500,without penalty. Noorganizations, established business
Public Utilitieswith largerspecific penalty definedrelationship


C o mmi s s i o n organizations
paying the highest
fee

CRS-18
State AgencyFees Required
StateBill(s)StatusCharged withMaintenance ofFrom Direct MailPenalty for InfractionExemptions From Fine or Penaltyfor Violating Do Not Mail law
Re gi s t r y Marketers
nnesseeSB3760Withdrawn onDivision of$500 annualUp to $2,000 fee in civilTo be determined by the
January 28, 2008Consumerregistration feepenalty per violationCommissioner of Commerce and
Affairs in theInsurance
Department of
Commerce and
Insurance
iki/CRS-RL34643ermontH.0409The legislatureAttorney GeneralFee on a slidingActual damages or $500Prior consent, business contact
g/wadjourned on Maymay later decidescale of up to $500,for the 1st offense andwithin 180 days, 510(c)(3), federal
s.or
leak3, 2008 withoutwhether towith larger$1,000 for subsequentagencies with regulatory authority,
taking action oncontract outorganizationsviolationsresponse to referral, political mail
://wikithe billpaying the highest
http fee
tonHB 1205The legislatureAttorney GeneralAttorney General toFine of $2,000 perExpressed consent, established
and SBadjourned on Mayor privatedetermine feeviolation in addition tobusiness relationship, existing

571913, 2008 withoutcontractorother penalties andcustomer, non-profit organization,


taking action onthrough attorneyremediespolitical mail
the billgeneral’s office
Text of each state’s legislation.



Competing Priorities of Commerce and Environmentalism
In state legislatures where DNM bills have been introduced, anticipated
environmental benefits of the bills have been pitted against potential commercial
losses. Some states reference environmental concerns in the text of their pending
DNM bills. North Carolina’s legislation, for example, states, “Unsolicited bulk mail
(‘junk mail’) ... annually accounts for millions of pounds of trash in North Carolina
and the destruction of 100 million trees nationwide for paper pulp.”48 Rhode Island’s
DNM legislation states the following:
Unsolicited bulk mail (“junk mail”) now represents a major portion of the budget
and workload of the United States Postal Service, with over ninety billion49
(90,000,000,000) pieces delivered per year, and annually account for millions
of pounds of trash in North Carolina and the destruction of 100 million trees
nationwide for paper pulp. ...
Junk Mail is a large, unnecessary source of solid waste and imposes an
unnecessary burden on the environment for which taxpayers bear the cost.
Individual rights and commercial freedom of speech should be balanced in a way50
that accommodates both individual choice and legitimate marketing practices.
Illinois’s bill refers to junk mail as “environmental sacrilege,” and finds it “in
the public interest to establish a mechanism under which the residents .... can decide
whether or not to receive junk mail.”51
In New Hampshire, however, the current majority party stated that while DNM
legislation could reduce environmental concerns, other potential effects of the bill
outweighed those benefits. The Commerce Committee, in reporting the bill, stated,
“[v]aluable natural resources could be saved, landfill waste could be reduced, and
postal customers could save time.” Despite these “benefits,” “they were not enough
to overcome the various concerns and questions about this bill.”
Many rural postal carriers are paid by the number of pieces of mail they deliver
— HB1506 would directly affect their income. Exceptions in the bill for
saturation mailings that go to every resident along the postal route, mailings by
non-profits or political groups, and by or on behalf of a business with less then
[sic] 20 employees led us to the conclusion that this bill, as drafted, would not
significantly reduce unwanted mail. Lastly, the committee learned that the
NHDES [New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services] website offers


48 General Assembly of North Carolina, HB 1699, session 2007.
49 Although several states include this 90 billion figure, none of them cite the source for that
information. USPS reported that 100 billion pieces of advertising mail were delivered in
2007. See U.S. Postal Service, The Household Diary Study: Mail Use and Attitudes in
FY2007,p. 35, available at [http://www.usps.com/householddiary/_pdf/
USPS_HDS_FY07_web.pdf], viewed Sept. 22, 2008.
50 General Assembly of North Carolina, House Bill 1699. Rhode Island and Illinois have
similar, but not identical, bill introductions.
51 Illinois General Assembly, SB2115.

preaddressed postcards to major mailing organizations, which can be easily
printed and used to be put on their ‘do-not-mail’ lists. This could be just as52
effective in reducing junk mail as the proposed legislation.
The report indicated the majority found it “inexpedient to legislate” on the initiative.
Although most nonprofit and for-profit organizations advocating the creation
of DNM registries stress the environmental impact of “junk mail,” none of the state
legislatures have referred their bills to an environmental committee. States referred
their bills to consumer protection, judiciary, and finance committees.
“Junk” Mail and Public Opinion
The public’s dislike of unsolicited advertising mail may be prompting state
legislative initiatives to give consumers a way to opt out of receiving it. A 2003 Pew
Internet and American Life Project telephone poll of 2,200 adults found that 19% of
respondents thought unsolicited advertising mail was a “very big intrusion” in their
own life; 33% found unsolicited advertising mail a “big intrusion,” and 29% said it
was a “small intrusion.” Some 17% of respondents found unsolicited advertising
mail to be “no intrusion at all.”53
Options for Consumers Wishing to Reduce
the Receipt of Advertising Mail
There are actions that individuals may take to reduce the amount of advertising
mail delivered to them. Subscribing to private Do Not Mail registries or contacting
companies directly can curb advertising mail delivery, but it may take several months
for mailings to decrease. Other ways to reduce unsolicited advertising mail include
refusing to receive it when it is delivered, and avoiding solicitations that request
personal information.
Private Do Not Mail Registries. Several private organizations host “do not
mail” registries that are regularly updated and checked by direct mail marketers who
then remove those addresses from their mailing lists. The Direct Marketing
Association (DMA) maintains a Mail Preference Service, which functions similarly
to a DNM registry. Consumers can log onto the DMA’s Mail Preference Service


52 New Hampshire General Court, Committee Reports, House Calendar — Regular
Calendar, Part I, in the House Record, report to accompany HB1506-FN, 160th General
Court, vol. 30, no. 16, Feb. 6, 2008, available at [http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/house/
caljourns/journals/2008/houjou2008_16.html], viewed May 22, 2008.
53 Survey by Pew Internet &American Life Project. Methodology: Conducted by Princeton
Survey Research Associates, June 10 - June 24, 2003, retrieved May 22, 2008 from the
iPOLL Databank, The Roper Center for Public Opinion Research, University of
Connecticut. Although the Pew study may show public disapproval of direct mail
marketing, the language used in question — specifically the term “junk mail” — may have
prompted some respondents to report a higher level of dissatisfaction than if the question
had used the term “advertising mail” or “direct mail marketing” in its place.

website and register their name and address.54 Created in 1971, the Mail Preference
Service allows consumers to tailor which advertising magazines they would like to
have mailed to their homes and which magazines they would prefer not to receive.
After selecting to opt out from receipt of certain magazines, catalogs, or other direct
mail, consumers are asked to wait an additional 30 to 90 days for the request to
become effective.
Other private companies, like GreenDimes, DirectMail.com and
CatalogChoice.org, offer services that remove a consumer’s name from a variety of
direct mail marketing lists. GreenDimes grants subscribers access to a “catalog
screener” that allows them to individually select catalogs they would like to continue
to receive — and those they would not. GreenDimes offers their basic service —
which includes removing the subscriber’s name from a variety of mailing lists — for
free. GreenDimes also offers services at various fee levels. The $20 GreenDimes
level, for example, includes everything in the free service plus access to the customer
service hotline, monthly account monitoring, and the planting of five trees in the
subscriber’s name at a separate non-profit organization.55 DirectMail.com also
maintains an online Do Not Mail List.56 Similar to the other DNM efforts,
DirectMail.com allows a subscriber to register for free and tailor their direct mail to
his or her preferences. CatalogChoice57 allows subscribers to create an individual
account, and then select which catalogs they would like to receive and which they
would not. Additionally, several other private companies offer services to help
consumers reduce the advertising mail for a variety of fees.
A consumer can remove his or her address from credit card and insurance
company mailing lists for five years — or permanently — using
optoutprescreen.com. Pursuant to the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA; 15 U.S.C.
§ 1681 et seq.), consumer credit reporting companies may place a consumer’s name
and address on lists that creditors and insurers then use as potential customer
databases. Credit card companies and insurance companies may send consumers on
these lists unsolicited offers. FCRA, however, also mandated a right for consumers
to “opt out” of receiving credit card and insurance company advertising mail. At
optoutprescreen.com, consumers can electronically register to opt out of receiving the
solicitations for up to five years. Consumers who would like to stop the solicitations
indefinitely may fill out an online form58 and then print the electronic Permanent Opt


54 Direct Marketing Association, “Consumers: DMA’s Mail Preference Service,” available
at [https://www.dmachoice.org/MPS/proto1.php], viewed June 17, 2008.
55 Greendimes, “How Greendimes Works,” available at [http://www.greendimes.com/
greendimes/HowItWorks], viewed June 17, 2008.
56 DirectMail.com, “DirectMail.com Do Not Mail List,” available at
[https://www.DirectMail.com/directory/mail_preference/], viewed June 17, 2008.
57 Catalog Choice, “Clean Out Your Mailbox,” available at
[http://www.CatalogChoice.org], viewed June 17, 2008.
58 The online form prompts registrants to include their Social Security identification number.
The website can be accessed, and the form can be downloaded without including a Social
Security number in the form. Distribution of personal, private information may increase
(continued...)

Out Election form found on the site. The form must then be mailed to the Opt Out
Department in Illinois. Optoutprescreen.com also allows consumers to opt in to
credit card and insurance offers they would like to receive.
Private DNM initiatives allow a consumer to individualize advertising mail to
suit his or her preferences — an option not found in any of the pending state DNM
bills. The private efforts, however, may not stop mail from direct mail marketers
who do not use — or refuse to heed — the mailing lists provided by Greendimes,
DMA, optoutprescreen.com, or DirectMail.com. Also, companies or organizations
that continue to send advertising mail to those who have signed a registry are often
not penalized. Additionally, according to DirectMail.com, the company “cannot
guarantee that you will not receive mail addressed to ‘Occupant’ or ‘Resident.’”59
When using the private opt out services, a consumer must contact multiple
organizations to ensure his or her name is removed from any number of marketing
lists. Because private companies cannot offer a centralized, one-stop, direct-mail-
blocking service, consumers may spend substantial time finding the correct ways to
curb unwanted advertising mail. Private DNM initiatives are available, but may be
only minimally effective in curbing the delivery of unwanted advertising mail.
Direct Contact. While DNM registries allow consumers to remove
themselves from larger mailing lists used by direct mail marketers, contacting
individual mailers by telephone or mail may curtail the delivery of specific pieces of
advertising mail. Additionally, to stop bulk mail coupons, consumers can visit the
appropriate websites. For example, many households receive bulk mail coupons
from companies such as those sent by Valpack, ADVO, and Shop-Wise mailings.60
A consumer who has existing business-by-mail relationships with entities such
as individual magazine publishers, credit card companies, gardening supply
companies, or clothing stores may call or write to these organizations and request his
or her personal information — including home address, demographic information,
and name — not be shared with other solicitors.
Contacting the marketers themselves can be an effective method of stopping
individual solicitations, but it can also sometimes become a time consuming effort.
Because the consumer must contact each organization individually, which can
sometimes require navigating automated telephone systems before his or her name


58 (...continued)
one’s risk of identity theft.
59 Directmail.com, “Frequently Asked Questions about the DirectMail.com National Do Not
Mail List, available at [https://www.directmail.com/directory/mail_preference/faq.aspx],
viewed Sept. 23, 2008.
60 For Valpack mailings, consumers can visit Cox Target Media, “Mailing List Removal
Request,” available at [http://www.coxtarget.com/mailsuppression/
MailsuppressionForm.jsp], viewed July 25, 2008. Cox Target Media send the Valpack
coupons to more than 45 million households and businesses; and for ADVO and Shop-Wise
mailings, consumers can visit Valassis, “Consumer Support,” available at
[http://www.advo.com/consumersupport.html], viewed July 25, 2008.

can be removed from the mailing list, consumers may decide that removing their
address requires too much effort — especially if the effort culminates in removal
from just one mailer’s list.
Refuse Receipt. A customer receiving mailings may refuse them by writing
“Refused — return to sender” on the outside of the envelope or catalog, and then
leaving the item in his or her mailbox for their mail carrier. Depending on the size
of the mail item, USPS will return it to the sender or will dispose of it. Mailers who
receive mail marked “refused” may remove the names and addresses of recipients
from their mailing lists.
Other Options. A recipient of unwanted advertising mail can ask his or her
letter carrier for further suggestions, or the consumer may visit websites like the
Privacy Rights Clearinghouse’s “Reducing Junk Mail” website.61 Privacy Rights, as
an example, offers additional tactics to reduce advertising mail. In addition,
consumers should be mindful that participating in certain activities can result in their
names being placed on mailing lists. For example, individuals who sign up for
sweepstakes offers may receive additional advertising mail. These solicitations often
serve to create address databases for direct mail marketers.
Private Sector and USPS Efforts to
Reduce Paper Waste
Private sector organizations and the USPS have been increasing efforts to
recycle unwanted advertising mail and use certified paper providers. DMA, for
example, requires its members to progress toward a “Green 15” — 15 business
practices “that are well understood to deliver environmental benefits, with sensitivity
toward an organization’s bottom line.”62 Included among the guidelines are
requirements to “encourage paper suppliers to increase wood purchases from
recognized forest certification programs” and “encourage packaging suppliers to
submit alternate solutions for environmentally preferable packaging.” While the
DMA requires its members to follow the guidelines, it does not have a penalty for
those who ignore them.
Other organizations, including the National Recycling Coalition, Verso Paper,
and Time, Inc., have joined forces to create the Recycling Magazines is Excellent


61 Privacy Rights Clearinghouse, “Fact Sheet 4: Reducing Junk Mail,” available at
[http://privacyrights.org/fs/fs4-junk.htm], viewed June 17, 2008.
62 Direct Marketing Association, “The Green 15,” available from the DMA. See also “DMA
‘Green 15’ Toolkit,” available at [http://www.the-dma.org/Green15Toolkit/], viewed on
June 17, 2008.

(ReMix) campaign in five U.S. cities.63 The effort, according to a GAO report,
increased the recycling of magazines and catalogs in one city 19%.64
USPS generates nearly $7.5 million per year through recycling efforts —
recycling about 1 million tons of waste paper per year. USPS also hosts a website
[http://www.usps.com/green/greenmail.htm] that includes information on how
customers can reduce, reuse, and recycle their mail.65 The USPS greenmail website
includes a link to the DMA’s Mail Preference Service. A recent GAO report that
examined USPS recycling efforts stated that the service recently established “annual
goals to increase its revenue from mail-related recycling from $7.5 million in fiscal
year 2007 to $40 million in fiscal year 2010.”66
USPS also is increasing recycling efforts related to undeliverable-as-addressed
(UAA) mail. According to a GAO report, “USPS treatment of UAA mail depends
on the mail class.”67 First Class Mail is returned to the addressee if a return address
is available. If no return address is available, the item is sent to a USPS Mail
Recovery Center.68 Generally, according to GAO, all Standard Mail that is
undeliverable — including UAA mail — is treated as waste, most of which is
recycled. Nearly 317,000 tons of Standard Mail was UAA mail in 2006.69
Beginning March 2009, USPS will begin using the Intelligent Mail Barcodes to tally
the amount of UAA mail created by organizations that send large quantities of mail.70


63 National Recycling Coalition, “ReMix: Recycling Magazines is Excellent,” available at
[http://www.nrc-recycle.org/remix.aspx], viewed June 17, 2008.
64 U.S. Government Accountability Office, U.S. Postal Service: Mail-Related Recycling
Initiatives and Possible Opportunities for Improvement, GAO Report GAO-08-599, June

2008. p. 27.


65 Thrifty Fun, offers a blog on which users can list alternative uses for unsolicited
advertising mail, which include bringing it to the local veterinarian for use as animal cage
lining or using it for compost. See Thrifty Fun, “Uses for Junk Mail,” available at
[http://www.thriftyfun.com/tf480799.tip.html], viewed June 17, 2008.
66 [http://www.advo.com/consumersupport.html], p. 4.
67 Ibid., p. 8.
68 According to GAO, “USPS operates two First Class Mail recovery centers” — one in St.
Paul, Minnesota, and another in Atlanta, Georgia. The facilities determine how to dispose
of UAA First Class Mail. See U.S. Government Accountability Office, U.S. Postal Service:
Mail-Related Recycling Initiatives and Possible Opportunities for Improvement, GAO
Report GAO-08-599, June 2008, p. 8.
69 U.S. Government Accountability Office, U.S. Postal Service: Mail-Related Recycling
Initiatives and Possible Opportunities for Improvement, GAO Report GAO-08-599, June

2008, p. 8.


70 U.S. Government Accountability Office, U.S. Postal Service: Mail-Related Recycling
Initiatives and Possible Opportunities for Improvement, GAO Report GAO-08-599, June
2008, p. 35. Currently, organizations that send large quantities of mail must have a unique
barcode to measure their frequency of mail use to determine whether they qualify for
worksharing rates.

Concluding Observations
State-level DNM bills inherently generate issues of federalism because such
bills could affect the operations and revenue stream of a federal quasi-governmental
agency: the USPS. Moreover, the bills may raise constitutional questions related to
post offices and postal roads as well as the regulation of interstate commerce, powers
that the U.S. Constitution grants to Congress.71
The national impact of state-level legislation may be of concern to lawmakers
at all levels of government. Efforts to protect both the environment and consumer
identity may negatively affect job creation and USPS self-sustainability requirements.
Existing private-sector efforts that allow a consumer to tailor the solicitations that
arrive in his or her mailbox may significantly reduce the amount of unsolicited
advertising mail he or she receives. The mail registries, however, have no authority
to fine or otherwise penalize organizations that do not heed the lists.
Congress may consider potential legislative options related to reduction of
unsolicited advertising mail. One option would be to seek legislation that is nearly
identical to many of the pending state DNM bills. The bill might specify which
agency would manage the DNM registry and/or whether its maintenance could be
awarded as a private contract. Direct mail marketers would need to access the list at
intervals determined by the legislation. The bill could also determine the penalties
for direct mail marketers who fail to heed the list — or leave that determination to
the entity managing the list. Creating such legislation would have costs and benefits.
Constituents with concerns about environmental waste or identity theft could sign up
for the registry and reduce unsolicited advertising mail from their mailboxes.
Organizations that rely on advertising mail for revenue, however, could suffer
economic losses that prompt a rise in pricing or lead to the elimination of jobs.
Congress may also consider other legislative action to help USPS generate
revenues to replace those lost, including increasing federal building flexibilities for
USPS. Current statutes and USPS policies place restrictions on renting space in post
offices to private vendors like banks and coffee shops. By allowing USPS greater
flexibility to rent some of its retail space, the service could collect additional revenue
to help close its current budget shortfall and possibly replace revenue that could be
lost if state or federal level DNM legislation were passed.
In regard to resource usage concerns, Congress may consider policies that would
provide mailers with incentives to use environment-sensitive products and methods.
A GAO report suggested the creation of a Green Rate, or “discounted postal rate ...
for mailers that use recycled and/or certified paper.”72 The report states that
“stakeholders in the environmental advocacy industry” suggested the idea, which
“would help mailers offset the increased costs associated with using recycled paper


71 U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 8, Clause 7; and Article I, Section 8, Clause 3.
72 U.S. Government Accountability Office, U.S. Postal Service: Mail-Related Recycling
Initiatives and Possible Opportunities for Improvement, GAO Report GAO-08-599, June

2008, p. 34.



and would provide an incentive for mailers to use certified paper.”73 A Green Rate
could also be used to reward direct mail marketers who heed existing private Do Not
Mail registries. If marketers demonstrated that they did not contact consumers who
opted out of receiving unsolicited marketing, the company could be deemed eligible
for the Green Rate.74 Additionally, the Green Rate could also be made available to
“demonstrate measurable reductions in the amount of [undeliverable-as-addressed]
UAA mail they send” and “use mail materials efficiently.”75 GAO stated that a Green
Rate could increase USPS revenue, but added that USPS would have to conduct a
variety of “feasibility studies” to ensure that the service had the technology and
resources needed to create a new mail class.76 USPS may need both congressional
and Postal Regulatory Commission approval to create a new class of mail.
Congress could equally choose to not take any legislative action, but instead
provide constituents and governmental entities guidance on how to manage the
volume and impact of direct mail. Members could inform constituents of the
previously discussed private registries available to manage advertising mail as well
as other options that could reduce it.


73 Ibid. According to the report “certified paper is produced from forests that are managed
according to a verity of environmentally preferable practices.”
74 As discussed earlier in this report, USPS can use unique barcodes to determine which
organizations send the smallest quantity of UAA mail.
75 U.S. Government Accountability Office, U.S. Postal Service: Mail-Related Recycling
Initiatives and Possible Opportunities for Improvement, GAO Report GAO-08-599, June

2008, p. 34.


76 Ibid., p. 41. USPS, for example, would have to create a methodology to quickly determine
if certain products — like paper or envelopes — qualified for the Green Rate.