The Washington Post's Ben Pershing alerts us to the latest report on Congressional websites (e.g., official .gov sites):

If you've ever had to peruse an official congressional Web site for business or pleasure, you know they're a mixed bag. Some are cutting-edge, incorporating blogs, video, podcasts and all the bells and whistles savvy surfers have come to expect. Others are basically a jumble of text and links that are rarely updated.

Periodically, the nonpartisan, nonprofit Congressional Management Foundation hands out its "Gold Mouse Awards" for the best Capitol Hill sites, and the 2007 awards came out today. The press release is here, and the lengthy report can be found here. (Unlike the Golden Globes, these awards do not appear to have been affected by the ongoing writers' strike.)

"Despite some bright spots, overall the quality of congressional Web sites continues to be disappointing," CMF says in its new report. "The most common letter grade earned by congressional Web sites in 2007 was a 'D' -- the same as in 2006. A full 41.6% of sites were substandard (D) or failing (F)."

Pathetic.

In his blog post, Pershing asks for a list of the worst websites for an award he's cleverly calling a "Gold Rat." Here's the comment I left on his post:

Gee Ben - where to begin...

They're equally bad on both sides of the aisle.

To be fair, most of the Members aren't personally to blame for such bad websites, but it's in fact the byproduct of the outdated Congressional Rules which limit a Member's use of the web. In other words, it's against the "Rules" to post YouTube videos. Heh.

Paul Blumenthal and I co-authored a chapter in the Open House Project on Member websites and the primitive rules which govern them in 2007. You can read our op-ed which ran on this issue last June here.

There's a rumor that the Ranking Member of the House Administration Committee, Vern Ehlers, is working to change these rules.

Until then, we're left with a whole bunch of Golden Rats.

Of course, that's the quality we've come to know and expect from the Factory approach.

Please. Somebody at the Capitol. Do something remarkable with your website or just communicate more effectively. Quit being sub-par and below average.

Make us believe that you actually care about your constituents. We're all watching.

Can you really afford to be mediocre? Didn't think so.

Michelle Malkin is following the story of how Democratic Senator Dick Durbin allegedly violated Senate ethics Rules by using Senate resources to create a plea to YearlyKos activists:

Earlier today, bloggers Reverse Spin and Backyard Conservative called attention to Democrat Dick Durbin’s video to the nutroots YearlyKos convention, which used an official Senate seal. The Senate Ethics Manual explicitly forbids the use of the Senate seal for campaign use. The video had been posted on the DailyKos website since Saturday. (Keep reading Michelle's post.)

And last month, TechRepublican pointed out similar violations of the rules by Harry Reid.

Are these Senate Ethics Rules just for show? Who is enforcing them? Does it matter to those that they represent?

Personally, I don't think a U.S. Senator or a Member of the House -- Republican or Democrat -- should have their web-use governed by a silly, prehistoric ethics manual. We live in the modern world and it's time our public officials start communicating like it.

Videos, blogs, social networking, etc. These are all likely vehicles for "Rule" breaking. But they're also modes of effectively communicating in the modern world.

In June I wrote an op-ed with Paul Blumenthal on Members of Congress being restricted by House Franking Rules.

Now it looks like we need to write one for the U.S. Senate. If not, we'll just be writing another post about how Senator X violated the Rules, again, by trying to communicate a message more effectively.