Don,
I agree. In fact, there was a show on NPR today about just that. It
seems that even a personalized note ahead of the form letter will
attract attention. The idea is to personalize the message so the
reader knows it's coming from an actual person rather than a spamming
organization.

mickey

Don W wrote:
Although its good to have a starting point, I would advise against
copying someone elses boilerplate. From what I've read some in
congress feel that if you don't care enough to take the time to
write your own letter then you don't care very much.

Also, there are professional organizations that inundate congress with
copied letters in much the same way that professional spammers hit
our email. The result is that copies of letters are mostly ignored.

If you are opposed to the bill, you might want to take the letter
and paraphrase it.

Don W.

mickey wrote:
snip

Sample letter Regarding S. 786 Weather Bill

The Honorable Sen. ________
United States Senate
Washington DC 20510

Dear Senator ________:

I am writing to ask you to oppose S. 786, legislation introduced by
Sen. Rick Santorum that calls for giving private, commercially operated
weather services exclusive access to weather data now developed by the
National Weather Service.

Such a drastic change in the public's access to critical weather
information could endanger the safety of boat owners who routinely rely
on this information to make basic decisions about when to head out of
port or when to return.

The bill would limit the National Weather Service to issuing severe
weather forecasts and warnings for the protection of life and property.
This would be detrimental to mariners because "non-emergency"
weather data such as wind speed, tides, currents and the movement of
fronts that would not be considered "severe" or life threatening
for those on land could easily lead to hazardous conditions at sea.

Both recreational and commercial mariners rely on NOAA Weather Radio
for constant updates on conditions and under the Santorum bill; these
would be halted and become the exclusive domain of commercial
providers. Boaters would be required to invest in special equipment and
pay costly subscription fees for a commercial service or go without.
One existing service costs $1,500 for the receiver and $695 a year to
subscribe.

Furthermore, S. 786 will not save the federal government money because
the National Weather Service will still have to collect and monitor all
the same weather data in order to only issuing warnings of severe
weather. Boat owners, like all citizens, would be paying twice for the
same information, once in their taxes to support the Weather Service
and again to buy weather forecasts from a private provider. This, in
our opinion, would set a bad precedent for many other federal services.


S. 786 is ill-conceived legislation that would establish a dangerous
precedent. I urge you to oppose this legislation and vote against it
should it be considered in committee or on the floor.

Thank you for your attention to this important issue.

Sincerely,