Your Tax Dollars Are Paying for Empty Ads
How Franking Works — and Why Indianapolis Deserves Specifics on Housing Results
Congressman Carson is running a cable ad about housing in Indianapolis.
His campaign didn’t fund the ad.
His official congressional office did — using taxpayer dollars.
That process is called franking. Franking allows Members of Congress to use taxpayer-funded accounts to communicate with constituents about their work. It’s legal and part of how congressional offices operate.
However, during a competitive election season, the use of official funds for broadcast advertising raises legitimate questions and has come under ethical scrutiny. Taxpayer-funded communications do not draw from a campaign account. They do not reduce campaign cash on hand. They operate alongside campaign spending rather than within it.
Voters rarely know which account paid for the message they are watching (unless they know what they are looking for in the disclaimer).
In this case, you are funding the ad.
In Congress, I won’t use franking for promotional advertising during an election year. Campaign funds should fund campaign messaging.
What the Ad Actually Says
The ad begins with a personal anecdote, then displays a graph ranking Indianapolis among the highest eviction rates in the country while calling for additional federal housing resources.
There’s no mention of specific legislation he authored. No walk-through of a reform he led. No explanation of what changed as a result of his work.
What viewers see most clearly is the eviction rate.
If Indianapolis ranks near the top nationally in eviction filings, that number deserves serious attention. Families facing eviction experience real disruption — lost housing, court dates, and instability for children.
When that statistic is presented in an ad, voters are entitled to understand what progress has been made under the current representation.
Eviction filings are influenced by a mix of factors — wages, rent levels, housing supply, local administration, and how well federal programs are managed on the ground. Federal funding announcements alone do not determine whether those numbers go up or down.
The ad focuses on the size of the problem. It doesn’t explain what has shifted.
Where HUD Comes In
Federal housing dollars move through the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) before reaching local housing authorities. Local agencies are responsible for applying for available funds, maintaining properties, complying with federal standards, and properly administering programs.
When that process functions well, residents benefit.
When it doesn’t, residents feel the consequences.
In 2022, an investigation by The Indianapolis Star found that the Indianapolis Housing Agency failed to apply for at least $4.4 million in available annual federal funding. During that period, residents at Lugar Towers reported deteriorating conditions. Recently, HUD stepped in. Below, testimony describes Indianapolis as an “abhorrent situation.”
A Member of Congress doesn’t manage a local housing authority. Still, when federal dollars are moving through that system, and warning signs appear, people will want to know how closely the congressional office was paying attention.
Was anyone tracking whether available grants were actually being applied for?
Was there communication with HUD as conditions declined?
What happened in the months before federal intervention became necessary?
These are basic questions about oversight and follow-through.
Housing insecurity is serious in Indianapolis. It affects seniors, working families, and children.
If taxpayer-funded advertising centers housing as an accomplishment, voters deserve clarity about what has been accomplished — and what has not.
A graph showing high eviction rates is a starting point. It is not a full account.
Indianapolis families deserve more than broad claims. They deserve transparency about performance and results.
I am running a voter education-driven campaign. Donate below so I can keep sharing how politics is really impacting our lives.