Local Issues In Congress

It’s been argued ever since the constitution was made how in touch the congress members where with the people who elect them and this argument still goes on today. With the 425 members of the House each has a district which averages nearly 650,000 people, this is a vast number with many arguing that there is little chance that congress can be in touch with the people when they have to represent such vast numbers. However, the other side of the argument displays evidence that in fact the members of congress are able to stay in touch and represent the people who elect them.

This written report is appertaining to the book How Congress Works and Why You Should Care, written by Lee H. Hamilton. This book is published by Indiana University Press in Bloomington, IL, it was copyrighted in 2004 by the publisher.

Today, career politicians are constantly looking for what will aid them in getting reelected. They become more loyal to their campaign fund contributers than to the people whom they represent. This increases the likelihood of having corrupted politicians in office, as they use the government as a vehicle to further their own career (Kurfirst, 1996, p. 123, 129). George Will, a well-known political journalist, was quoted as saying “[The] worst feature of professionalism in politics is that it obliterates the proper distance between the representatives and the represented” (Kurfirst, 1996, p. 125). Even James Madison agreed that legislators were meant to represent the people, not hold office as a career. In The Federalist No. 57 (1788), he wrote, “From this change of men must proceed a change of opinions; and from a change of opinions, a change of measures.” The lack of new faces in Congress today symbolizes that the American legislative branch is straying from its intended purpose.

Many people who are elected are very well known names, so often reelects. Having term limits gives people a chance to get their name out there and run for positions. According to the site Our Generation, “There is a 94% re-election rate in the House and 83% in the Senate. Because of name recognition, and usually the advantage of money, it can be easy to stay in office. Without legitimate competition, what is the incentive for a member of Congress to serve the public? Furthermore, it is almost a lost cause for the average citizen to try to campaign against current members of Congress.” People are not very likely to vote for someone they have never heard of. That’s why people start out in their states, become politicians and work their way up. If it wasn’t for term limits, then there would be not room for them to advance. The term limits make politicians think about and worker harder toward their objectives. No one is going to get anything done if they have all the time in the world. Politicians have limited time in each position to prove themselves if they are ever to be reelected or move up the line of

This diminishes the potential of an elitist concentration developing in the congress. By providing each politician (whose is significant enough to qualify for such funding) an equal amount of funding to use to campaign during an election, the frugality of limited resources will cause the funds to be spent deliberately, appealing to people through a political platform and message, and not due to behemoth largesse employed to win elections. According to author of Welfare for Politicians?: Taxpayer Financing of Campaigns John Samples, “Fundraising success correlates strongly with electoral success. In 2002, 95 percent of House winners raised more than their opponents. In 2004, more than 95 percent of House winners outspent their

Term limits, thus provide an escape from the Faustian bargain that voters face: they know that returning an incumbent for another term may help their district, but in the long run it has dire institutional and national consequences. Voters realize even though the Congressman is doing good things for their district soon they will need someone new. They know long-term officeholders become less vulnerable because they come gradually to identify their interests more and more with those of the federal government. There is a strong relationship between length of legislative service and votes in favor of more public expenditures.

Congressional terms have no limits. Controversy exists between those who think the terms should be limited and those who believe that terms should remain unlimited. The group that wants to limit the terms argues that the change will promote fresh ideas and reduce the possibility of decisions being made for self-interest. Those who oppose term limits believe that we would sacrifice both the stability and experience held by veteran politicians. They also point out that our election process allows the voter to limit terms, at their discretion. While experience and stability are important considerations, congressional terms should be limited to a maximum of two.

There is a lot of argument regarding the issue of term limits, in which a service in elective office after a fixed and specified number of terms is directed. The idea of issuing term limits is not only a damage to the Constitution, but also a quick fix to a problem that may just end up affecting severe outcomes down the line. Authorizing term limits to deal with the corruption among congressmen is not a normal solution. If some parts of the system were dishonest, term limits would basically get cleared of everyone, those upsetting Congress both negatively and positively. At that juncture new representatives are selected and they become corrupt and are soon thrown out, and this cycle of continuing corruption will go on and on for a while, and would not be fixed. Likewise, the fact that term limit gives a

In “Congressional Government”, Woodrow Wilson tries to explain the system of Congress and in it he thoroughly discusses the predominance of Congressional Committees in the legislative body. He argues that our legislature is more analogous to a conglomerate, not a homogenous body and that “we are ruled by a score and a half of ‘little legislatures’”(Wilson p. 323). There is little unity in the House and party organization is not strong according to Wilson. The many distinct, disconnected committees has leads Congress to have weak leadership and therefore decreases decision making. Also Wilson shows how multiple committee jurisdictions creates a system where there is no clear voice on the issue and since committees differ in political ideology broad questions of policy suffer. Lawrence C. Dodd also discusses the committee system in “Congress and the Quest for Power”. In it, he argues that the solution to congressmen’s need for power is a decentralized congress with a committee system that allows members to gain considerable power in their small committees. “Each member wants to exercise power, to make the key policy decisions. … Given this widespread power motive, an obvious way to resolve the conflict is to disperse power”(Dodd p. 335). Dodd argues that the solution to member Congress constantly seeking power is the current

This means they will likely raise money in any way possible to increase their chances of winning. This leads many members of Congress to give less consideration to the needs of low-income individuals when developing legislation. Since these low-income individuals do not have the means to give large amounts of money to re-election campaigns, their views are often ignored. Many members of Congress endorse legislation that would benefit their largest donors. This leads to a Congress that is not a true representative of the broad interests across the United States (Flavin 2015).

One of the advantages that incumbents enjoy in congressional elections is due to “Pork barrel politics” this term is used when congressmen and senators focus government funds into their home

Taylor, a special interest group member, controlled everything Senator Paine did until he finally decided to change. This denotes the impact that wealth can have in the government. The system is designed so that things such as pork barreling can pass and sometimes need to pass in order for a law to go through. This creates a system of lies and corruption, with members of the Senate not looking out for the national good. Senators are forced to focus on improving their own district because it is all they can do to ensure re-election. The most successful Senators do this because it gains short-term approval from their district and gets them a future vote. This is a method of maintaining their career, and is something they are in some cases forced to do. If someone like Mr. Smith came in and was consistently free of corruption, people would vote for him based on his truthfulness.

Gaurav Sharma Professor Sherry Sharifian Texas Government 2306 SLO#3 April 24, 2017 Local Control in Texas In Texas, there are very many functional Interest groups and lobbyists that operate effectively influencing the policy-making processes. The Interest groups and lobbyists are in close association with policy-makers whereby they act as negotiators of democracy to the citizens who cannot reach the legislatures (Texas Vox: 1). This has impacted local control in Texas greatly. However, the nature of laws that have been passed recently in Texas shows that the policy-makers are diverging from interest from the citizens and favoring individual groups and companies. The following essay will address the impact depicted by Interest groups and lobbyists

Wayne, Lasser, Miller and others tend to agree that lobbyists and PACs have a great amount of influence over congress members because they may have direct connections and give campaign contributions. Recently, the airlines industry convinced congress to pass a $15 billion aid package it needs in order to survive. “The airlines had plenty of resources to draw on: 27 in-houses lobbyists, augmented by lobbyists from 42 Washington firms, including former White House aides and transportation secretaries, as well as the airlines own chief executives and corporate board members, whom all are well known in the halls of congress”(Wayne, NYT, 10/01/01. Lasser, American Politics, 1999. Miller, The American Prospect, 10/23/00. Geiger, Washington Post, 11/4-10/91.)

One key debate among the authors is what is actually influenced by lawmaking. On one hand, Hansen (1991) takes the perspective that lobbying influences the relationship between interest groups and lawmakers. Hansen bases his argument on the belief that because legislators want to be reelected and they lack information about the “issue preferences of their constituents, the salience of issues to their constituents, and the effectiveness of various policy options,” they will seek information to reduce this uncertainty. The service that interest groups provide the, is this information. Certain interest groups, Hansen argues have “competitive advantage,” (p. 13) in the sense that they can provide certainty about constituent beliefs in an efficient and effective manner, in order to help lawmakers get reelected. Given that elections re-occur, an additional point Hansen makes is for interest groups to have some kind of influence over lawmakers, the conditions that provide this competitive advantage must be expected to recur. When these conditions are met, interest groups