You might be interested to hear what happened at yesterday's Capitol Hill presentation of the political science study you paid for -- the one promoted as a way of helping your congressman boost his approval rating by up to 18 points using Internet town halls.

The study, funded in part by the National Science Foundation and conducted by a non-profit called the Congressional Management Foundation, drew mostly unremarkable conclusions. It found that Internet town halls are easy to hold and increase political participation. Most importantly, it found that they make voters more likely to agree with, like, and vote for their members after they participate in one.

In fact, the final report offered a fairly precise number by which members could boost their approval ratings if they would only hold more Internet town halls -- 18 percent. That finding is far less remarkable when you read the study and find that only 15 to 25 people took part in each of the 12 the town halls they studied in detail. Perhaps the more important conclusion about Internet town halls is that very few people take part in them.

I was not allowed to attend yesterday's presentation. When I tried, I was informed that it was for staff and members only. But a staffer who was there tells me over the phone that it was entertaining.

For example, when asked whether his study had diverted National Science Foundation grant money away from the study of a cure for cancer, the presenter choked up and talked about his friend's daughter who has leukemia.

When he was asked whether Internet town halls had any impact on politicians’ understanding of constituents’ points of view, the presenter admitted that the study had not even considered that question.

And so at best, it looks like taxpayers footed the bill for a study on how their members of Congress can mollify them.

Even from that perspective, they appear to have been ripped off.