WASHINGTON - U.S. House members spent $20.3 million in tax money last year to send constituents what is often the government equivalent of junk mail - meeting announcements, tips on car care and job interviews, surveys on public policy and just plain bragging.

They sent nearly 116 million pieces of mail in all, many of them glossy productions filled with flattering photos and lists of the most recent roads and bridges the lawmaker has brought home to the district, an Associated Press review of public records shows.

Russ Levsen, deputy chief of staff for Rep. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin, D-S.D., said Thursday that the congresswoman sent two mailings in 2007.

The first was targeted at veterans, and the second was to explain several major pieces of legislation passed recently.

"We're fairly selective with when and how we use it, but when used properly, it can be an effective tool," Levsen said.

He said Herseth Sandlin tends to target mailings to particular constituent groups or to particular areas of the state.

He said all of the mailings must be approved by the Franking Commission on mailing standards before being sent.

Herseth Sandlin's Christmas card to supporters was paid for out of her campaign account, not with taxpayer money, Levsen said. Some House members offered advice on topics one would more commonly expect to see in a consumer-advice column.

"Keep your car properly maintained" to improve mileage, suggested Rep. Tim Murphy, R-Pa., in a newsletter about how to deal with rising energy prices.

Rep. Cynthia McKinney, D-Ga., who lost her primary race after a high-profile scuffle with a Capitol Hill police officer last year, sent out a taxpayer-funded newsletter a few months before the election that included this simple observation:

"Convicted felons can vote," she said, if "your" prison sentence has been served, parole or probation completed and fines paid. While campaigning, McKinney, who is black, noted that blacks make up a disproportionately large share of the prison population, which she said dilutes their voting strength.

A dozen House members spent more than $133,000 each to send 9.8 million pieces of mass mailings. Total cost? $1.8 million.

Sometimes the lawmakers' taxpayer-funded mailings topped what they paid for direct mail through their campaign funds.

Of the 64 House members with at least $100,000 in taxpayer-funded mailing expenses - and overwhelmingly for mass mailings - 42 were Republicans and 22 were Democrats, the AP review found.

In sharp contrast, 59 lawmakers in the 435-member House - 35 Republicans and 24 Democrats - spent nothing on mass mailings. They tended to be the more experienced House members, often with 14 or more years of service.

Mass mailings cannot be blatantly political, but they still can have political benefits, said Pete Sepp, a spokesman for the National Taxpayers' Union, which has condemned mass mailings.

"A taxpayer-financed mailing doesn't have to say 're-elect me' to have an impact on voters," Sepp said. "A glossy newsletter splashed with the incumbent's achievements in Congress can build useful credentials a lawmaker can take with him to the ballot box. The franking privilege is one of the main cogs in Congress' PR machine."

Franking, practiced since the early days of the republic, allows members of Congress to send mail with only a signature where the postage would normally be affixed. Although the mailings are regulated by a congressional commission to guard against overt political appeals and cannot go out within 90 days of an election, they still sometimes take a dig at the opposition.

In a June 2006 newsletter, Rep. Pete Stark, D-Calif., noted that under the Republican majority, Congress had passed tax cuts that "benefit the wealthiest Americans at the expense of working families."

Some lawmakers defend the newsletters as a vital way of communicating with constituents.

"One of the biggest complaints my constituents had (with) my predecessor was that they never knew what was going on in Washington," Rep. Ginny Brown-Waite, R-Fla., said

Brown-Waite is one of the biggest users of bulk mail, with 657,951 pieces at a cost of $129,428 last year.

The House Democratic Caucus encourages members to use the mailings to communicate with constituents, spokeswoman Sarah Feinberg said. She said it was a good way for congressmen to focus on an issue or, if survey questions are used, get a handle on what constituents are thinking.

That argument doesn't persuade Rep. Ray LaHood, R-Ill., who said he has never used the mailings in 13 years in Congress. "It's a waste of taxpayers' money," he said. "I don't believe in this self-promotion."

LaHood argues that franking should be used only to answer constituent mail. He has repeatedly introduced bills to ban mass mailings, and just as often, the legislation dies in committee.

For the House and Senate combined, the cost of taxpayer-paid mailings, including mass mailings, letters to individuals and groups of up to 500 people, was $34.3 million for fiscal year 2006, according to a recent Congressional Research Service report. In 1988, before more restrictions were imposed on the use of mailings, the figure was more than three times larger, $113.3 million.

The cost of postage is not the only expense for taxpayers. Printing and reproduction can add tens of thousands of dollars to a mailing's cost.

There is a practical limit on how much can be spent on mailings.

Funding comes from a congressman's office budget, which ranges from $1.2 million to $1.4 million for payroll and other expenses. The more spent on mass mailings, the less money is available for such needs as staff, salaries and district offices.

Senators can also send franked mail, but the amount for each senator is specific and generally based on the number of addresses in a senator's state. At no point may it exceed $50,000 a year for mass mailings. For fiscal year 2004, overall mail allocations ranged from $31,746 to $298,850.

Rep. Cliff Stearns, R-Fla., who mailed 906,788 pieces last year and won re-election with 60 percent of the vote, sees the mailings as helping him do his job.

"Ours is a representative government, requiring an active dialogue between elected officials and those they serve," Stearns said in a prepared statement.