Transcript Congressional Reform - University of Wisconsin–Madison

Congressional Reform
PS 426
May 5-7, 2009
Future prospects for Congress


Congress is not in good shape: expansion in the role of
government and expansion of presidential power; the
capacity for legislative action and the reduction in
congressional autonomy; the increase in plebiscitary
politics and the subversion of Congress’s role in the
American political system.
Other recent trends: the heightened scope and stakes of
politics, the preeminence of the president in the party
system and national consciousness, the rise of
candidate-centered politics, the revolutionary changes in
travel and communication.
Future, cont.


Constant themes: seeking credit claiming,
advertising, position taking at the expense of
substance, sacrificing congressional prerogatives
for party or policy gain, evading responsibility,
exploiting public distrust for personal or partisan
advantage (running for Congress by running
against Congress). More incentives for such
behavior recently.
All of this makes reform difficult because it is
inherent in the political system.
Context of reform


Two reasons not to do anything – if it is just responses to
short term factors involving Congress or the external
world, or are the problems more systemic and can’t be
addressed without a fundamental change in the nature of
our government. Do you agree with either of these
views?
The public: what do people want from Congress? John
Hibbing: distinction between Congress as an institution,
as a collection of individuals, and as your specific
member of Congress. Linked to more general patterns of
trust in government and in other institutions.
Context, public approval, cont.



Political knowledge is negatively related to support and
being a conservative was positively related when Republicans were in control, now higher support from liberals.
Also, approval of recent policies is positively related
(reverse causation?), and those who see little value in
debate and compromise are less supportive of Congress.
People don’t like conflict – blame it on parties. Interest
groups are trusted even less. Previous pressure for
reform came from inside the institution rather than from
outside (exception was the 1993 reform committee –
response to the check-bouncing and an all-time low, to
that point, in public approval of Congress: 17% in 1992).
What type of changes are most likely and least likely to
have an impact?
Self-inflicted damage: the
congressional “Hall of Shame”



Abscam, 1980-81. FBI sting operation yielded
convictions of one senator and five House
members. Controversy about entrapment.
House banking scandal – “rubber checks.”
Involved 450 members and was really a
cooked-up scandal. No laws were broken, yet
many members of Congress were defeated
because of the publicity.
“Members gone wild” – James “Beam Me Up”
Traficant (expelled in 2002, currently in jail),
William Jefferson $90,000 in ziplock bags
(defeated in 2008, trial set for this May), and
Duke Cunningham, $2.4 million in bribes
(resigned in 2005, currently in jail).
Congressional “Hall of Shame,” cont.



Jack Abramoff scandal. Bob Ney and Tom
DeLay were brought down. Many levels of
corruption in this scandal.
Level of corruption? 14,209,365 arrests in 2007
out of about 225 million adults (6.3%), which
would translate into about 34 members of
Congress getting arrested every year. Even
compared to “white collar crime” more generally,
Congress is probably relatively crime-free.
Individual “bad apples” vs. systemic problems
(lobbying, ethics process, earmarks, etc.).
Context of reform


Internal issues – “quality of life” concerns in Congress.
Work schedule, fundraising, family considerations,
difficulty of being in the minority party (and increased
partisanship more generally). Difficult to address some
of these issues without making public image even
worse: lighten the work schedule, make it more “family
friendly,” voters will see them as more “out of touch.”
External issues – relations with the President (divided
government), state of the economy and budget deficits
(more difficult to act when responsible policy making
means imposing painful cuts or raising taxes).
Context of reform, cont.


Tradeoff between responsiveness and responsibility.
Impossible to simultaneously maximize the potential for
both. Issues that would address the quality of life issues
would make it less responsive (and more responsible),
such as insulating Congress from outside pressures.
Others, such as strengthening the leadership would
make it more responsible, but further undermine comity.
Unintended consequences – 1974 FECA produced
PACs and soft money and contributed to the
incumbency advantage. 1995 reforms, terms limits on
chairs, led to the retirement of key Republican leaders.
McCain/Feingold: rise of 527s and third-party ads.
Reform options: campaign finance


Campaign finance reform. Reduce time spent on raising
money and strengthen the common bonds that tie
members of Congress together. Also would increase
competition and provide more accountability, so it could
potentially have some impact on responsiveness and
responsibility. However, public financing, the only option
that would really make a difference, isn’t politically
feasible.
Other more incremental steps? Federal tax credit to
encourage more small contributions. Bruce Ackerman’s
proposal for anonymous contributions. Would it work?
Announcements


The final exam is on Sunday, May 10th, from 12:25-2:25
in Social Sciences 5106. Format of the exam:
18 multiple choice questions, 2 points each
5 of 6 short essays, 8 points each
1 long essay, 24 points
The MC questions and short essays will only cover
material since the last midterm and the long essay will be
comprehensive.
Of the MC questions, 2 are from lecture only, 7 are from
readings only, and 9 are from both. The MC questions
are equally drawn from the copy packet, Oxford reader,
and textbook (with a couple from my book). The short
essays were all covered in readings and lectures (but
there are some points that you will need to cover that
weren’t mentioned in lecture).
Reform options: insulate Congress



Weaken the traceability chain – insulate Congress from outside
forces and allow them to make tough decisions. An unintended
consequence of the “sunshine laws” of the 1970s was to give
interest groups more power. Omnibus legislation, closed rules,
delegation of authority to the other branches of government,
executive summits, fast-track provisions, bipartisan commissions,
and greater secrecy. Problems with these?
Examples of success: closing military bases,1986 tax reform (the
Gucci Boys). Watergate vs. Clinton impeachment. Former was
much more behind closed doors.
Also can be used for things that are not necessarily in the public’s
interest, but in the collective interest of members of Congress, such
as pay raises. Downside: lack of accountability and transfer of
power to other institutions.
Reform Options: Deliberation

Enhancing deliberation in Congress
–
–
–
–
Oxford style debates
Restoring “regular order.” More committee autonomy
(with regular hearings, open markups, and real
oversight), bring back the conference committee, limit
holds in the Senate (especially on nominations), and
restore the filibuster to its original function – as a
protection of minority rights on important legislation.
Also motion to recommit in the House.
More time to examine legislation (ideally 72 hours, at
least).
20 minutes for recorded votes (do not hold open).
Reform options: oversight

Oversight of the executive branch during unified
government? How can this be done? Especially
important in the areas of national security and foreign
policy. Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission:
1)
intelligence oversight should be vested in either a joint
House-Senate committee or in combined authorization/
appropriations intelligence panels in each chamber;
2) Congress should consolidate oversight of the
Department of Homeland Security in a single committee
in each chamber rather than having oversight scattered
among many committees in each chamber.
Reform options: oversight, cont.



Bringing back the reauthorization stage.
More oversight during the appropriations process.
Serious oversight is needed every two years.
Need to restore bipartisanship on key oversight
committees such as Intelligence and Appropriations.
This would help avoid oversight failures such as those
that occurred in the buildup to the Iraq war. Didn’t ask
enough question about how much it would cost, the
pre-war claims of WMDs, and wasteful spending during
the war.
Reform options: restoring public
confidence


Public education. Need a specific kind of information
about how Congress works: compromise and partisan
politics are not bad things. Civic journalism and the
Internet provide opportunities for reaching the public.
Lobbying reform: more limitations on the “revolving
door,” more disclosure of contact and campaign
contributions by lobbyists. One proposal would be to
forgive student loans for people who agree to work in
Congress for at least five years and then not become a
lobbyist for a minimum of five years after they leave
Congress. However, there are limits here on what is
desirable: Wisconsin open records case and the NRA.
Reform options: restoring public
confidence




Ethics reform: Congress established independent nonpartisan ethics commission to handle some cases (the
Office of Congressional Ethics); just now is getting up
and running.
Earmarks – good first steps (more transparency and
reporting), but more needed (conflicts of interest).
Bring back fiscal discipline and the “pay-as-you-go”
budgeting rule (the Democrats did reinstate this rule in
2007, but it is routinely ignored).
Leadership PACs and fundraising. Abolish leadership
PACs and prohibit fundraising while Congress is in
session (many state legislatures already do this). Pros
and cons of these ideas?
Reforms that probably are not good ideas


Term limits. Arguments for: bring new blood into the
system. Make politicians less beholden to special
interests and more accountable to the people. Against:
will transfer power to the “permanent government”
(bureaucracy and interest groups), we lose a great deal
of expertise and leadership, undermines voter autonomy.
Would require a constitutional amendment because SC
struck down term limits in 1995 (U.S. Term Limits v.
Thornton). Also allowed to stand a state SC ruling that
Arkansas’s “scarlet letter law” on term limits was
unconstitutional (Donovan v. Priest, 1997).
Mandatory retirement age instead?
Reforms that probably are not good ideas


Balanced budget amendment. A blunt
instrument that could damage the economy
during recession (however, provisions could be
put in place to allow exceptions during
recessions). Pay-as-you-go budgeting rules
can accomplish the same goal without
amending the Constitution.
This probably will become and issue again
because of the exploding budget deficits.
Racial Representation


What is the future of minority-majority
districts? What is the best course of action
here? Should majority-minority districts be
encouraged when possible, or are “influence
districts” more desirable? Need to
disentangle the partisan and racial
dimensions of these questions.
NAMUDNO case and the future of Section 5.
Future direction for the parties: Repubs.

Debate within the Republican party in Congress
after Arlen Specter’s defection:
–
–
–
Good riddance? Rs need to get back to their
conservative roots, so a purge of the moderates is a
good thing.
Must have room for moderates if Rs are going to
become the majority party again.
Demographics are not in their favor: young voters
and Latinos. Need to move away from moral issues,
especially gay marriage, to broaden the party’s
appeal.
Future direction for the parties: Dems.




60 seats in the Senate will be a huge
advantage.
Dems have to be careful not to push farther
than the public wants to go. Health care and
immigration reform will be the two most
challenging issues.
Will face certain losses in 2010 – the question
is how large.
Everything depends on how the economy will
respond. Dems are hoping it is like 1982-84.