What is GOP Rep. Peter Roskam thinking?  According to the watchdog group Public Citizen, 6th Congressional District residents have reported receiving taxpayer-funded mailings from Roskam between August 18 and October 7.  Congressional ethics law prohibits members from using their "franking" privileges within 90 days of an election.  Therefore, "rising star" Roskam should have ceased such communications on August 6.

Today, Public Citizen filed a complaint (available for viewing or download) which urged the House Commission on Congressional Mailing Standards "to severely reprimand Roskam and require him to pay a civil penalty and pay back the taxpayers for any franked mail sent out since early August."

From the accompanying press release:

“Right up into October, just weeks before the election, voters have been receiving two-page color mailers paid for by taxpayers, with Peter Roskam’s name splashed all over them,” said Joan Claybrook, president of Public Citizen. “Taxpayers should not be footing the bill to advertise Roskam’s candidacy for Congress.”

“Using tax dollars to pay for campaign literature is a clear violation of the franking laws,” said David Arkush, director of Public Citizen’s Congress Watch division. “The mailers are campaign advertisements, plain and simple. They promote Roskam for things like ‘Protecting Children from Poison’ and ‘Securing Our Borders.’ ”

UPDATE: From Roll Call's report:

Roskam’s office didn’t immediately return calls for comment Thursday, but a spokeswoman for the Republicans on the House Administration Committee — which oversees the franking commission — said Public Citizen will have to prove that Roskam sent out more than 500 pieces of official mail. If it’s less than 500, the mail would not reach the threshold for a “mass mailing” and thus not fall under franking rules, other than for content.

It’s the first complaint the franking commission has received for this election cycle, said House Administration spokesman Kyle Anderson. If the commission finds Roskam guilty of violating House rules, the issue would go to the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct.