Lobbyist and K-Street are at the core of the problem in the Beltway. I've spent a long time trying to figure out the root issues there, and I think short term limits are the best way to prevent this, because here how it happens.
You get elected on hopes and dreams, and propose a bill, but you are a freshman. The senior guy you ask to help you sponsor the bill which is only 10 pages long then says he will support you if you add an amendment that says X, even that amendment has nothing to do with the main bill, and he has been donated money or promised campaign support by $KSTREETGROUP. If you say no, you get derailed, the bill never leaves committee, and you have made an enemy. You agree, and then the floodgates are open for 10 other sitting house members to throw in their amendments too. Before you know it, your bill is 250 pages and they removed all your original text and it's no longer your bill. If you rock the boat, you make enemies and forever get shoved aside. Agree and support the bill you introduced, that is actually now bad legislation, and all those people say they will help you next time.
In this case, it's more of the, this bill has to pass, so we can add all kinds of little tidbits and the public won't know about them in time to stop it!. Then you might have a guy or two who actually put that tidbit in vote no just so he has some plausible deniability to his constituents who don't know any better because reports on the hill suck these days.
We need to get rid of excessive riders, last minute riders on big bills, extend time for public review, and give power back to congress/senate to take stances without being pushed over politically. The thing is that the lobbyist will mostly just promise to get the guy fired if they push back too much, or they will then donate to another guy who's been in for 18 years and get him to put the pressure on. If we put short term limits (and I don't mean 12 years, I mean 6 year limits) then you can get people who will do stuff and not care about getting booted out, because they never had the intention to turn it into a lifetime job in the first place.
Also, we need to stop the revolving door between the hill and k-street. Staffers should not be allowed to turn around and go work for them, as Jack Abramoff put it, once he promised a staffer a job, he found out that they would do more for him than he even asked them to do!
We have a broken system, and until we address these fundamental problems, all the other issues people are passionate about will never get fixed properly. Fix the system first, then work on the more mainstream issues.
> You get elected on hopes and dreams, and propose a bill, but you are a freshman. The senior guy you ask to help you sponsor the bill which is only 10 pages long then says he will support you if you add an amendment that says X, even that amendment has nothing to do with the main bill, and he has been donated money or promised campaign support by $KSTREETGROUP. If you say no, you get derailed, the bill never leaves committee, and you have made an enemy. You agree, and then the floodgates are open for 10 other sitting house members to throw in their amendments too. Before you know it, your bill is 250 pages and they removed all your original text and it's no longer your bill. If you rock the boat, you make enemies and forever get shoved aside. Agree and support the bill you introduced, that is actually now bad legislation, and all those people say they will help you next time.
The alternative is that you're a freshman congressman (so are many of the rest—term limits!—and no-one could be called senior) so you have no idea WTF is going on, so one or both of 1) long-term staff you inherited from your predecessors—mind you, I'm not even sure such people exist under the current system, so this is hypothetical, or 2) lobbyists, who really are so helpful, telling you how to get things done and summarizing complicated bills for you, and won't you just do this one little thing for them? end up running the show.
I think this is a valid potential downfall worth looking into more... unfortunately. I really wonder about the long term-staffer thing. It doesn't seem to me like there are very many of those, simply because they get snatched up into other industries. The congressman I know has two or three dedicated people with them, and the rest cycle in and out, and I don't think the two long-termers would stay if someone else got elected to the seat...
I think the most experienced reps should put together a "congress/senate bootcamp" training package for newcomers, document it well, as to avoid the knowledge-drain of such a proposed system.
One solution, (not that it would ever happen) , is to anonymize the bills. In order to submit a bill, you have to be a house member, but once you submit it your name is stripped off. everyone reviews it and either adds it to a larger bill or discards it. larger bills eventually make it up to group vote.
another deterrent would be a rule that every meeting between congressmen and lobbyist has to be recorded. So CSPAN can air what actually goes in at the negotiating table between these "lobbyists".
finally, if there were some kind of "citizens' lobby" that could influence these assholes the same way corporations do (even though this is how it was supposed to work all along). But the "citizens" are so divided on partisan and emotional issues they'd never agree to form a coalition and lobby on par with industry.
These "citizens' lobby" you pre-suppose exists. Many of them, actually. They tend to specialize. They have names like "The Sierra Club" and "The Nature Conservancy".
How about a constitutional amendment which states that a bill can only address 1 issue. Separate bills would be required for K street lobbyists to address their interests, and then they would have a tougher time getting these passed.
Cool idea, but how on earth do you decide what "1 issue" is?
For example, take a farm subsidy bill. Is it one issue? Or maybe there should be separate bills for corn farmers and wheat farmers? What about large farms and small farms?
I don't have an answer, I'm just playing devil's advocate :)
Taking the example given elsewhere in this thread, a farm subsidy bill. If the original bill was to pay farmers 10% of their annual yield (i'm literally making this up), would an amendment that added a 2.5% tax on commodities trading of the same crops be a rider bill, or an amendment?
If the president declares a disaster area (meaning it is bona-fide) an exception could be made for relief funds, but the bill would only be able to address the disaster issue.
I think executive orders could fit the bill. Also, there's existing legislation which already covers that matter. Plus, you can add a limit to the delay of a bill if it's for the necessity of govt operations like appropriation bills.
I think that might work, though there might be some nuanced missed, but here is the problem: how do you get that bill passed in the first place?!
One option is to vote out all incumbents. Here's the problem with that though: the media aren't doing a good job and the public are too apathetic.
We need a new movement to encourage participation in local/state/federal politics by the younger generation.
I've been asking younger people around me why they don't vote and how I could get them to vote, and almost universally I have gotten the same response. "I would have to feel like my vote would make a difference."
You get elected on hopes and dreams, and propose a bill, but you are a freshman. The senior guy you ask to help you sponsor the bill which is only 10 pages long then says he will support you if you add an amendment that says X, even that amendment has nothing to do with the main bill, and he has been donated money or promised campaign support by $KSTREETGROUP. If you say no, you get derailed, the bill never leaves committee, and you have made an enemy. You agree, and then the floodgates are open for 10 other sitting house members to throw in their amendments too. Before you know it, your bill is 250 pages and they removed all your original text and it's no longer your bill. If you rock the boat, you make enemies and forever get shoved aside. Agree and support the bill you introduced, that is actually now bad legislation, and all those people say they will help you next time.
In this case, it's more of the, this bill has to pass, so we can add all kinds of little tidbits and the public won't know about them in time to stop it!. Then you might have a guy or two who actually put that tidbit in vote no just so he has some plausible deniability to his constituents who don't know any better because reports on the hill suck these days.
We need to get rid of excessive riders, last minute riders on big bills, extend time for public review, and give power back to congress/senate to take stances without being pushed over politically. The thing is that the lobbyist will mostly just promise to get the guy fired if they push back too much, or they will then donate to another guy who's been in for 18 years and get him to put the pressure on. If we put short term limits (and I don't mean 12 years, I mean 6 year limits) then you can get people who will do stuff and not care about getting booted out, because they never had the intention to turn it into a lifetime job in the first place.
Also, we need to stop the revolving door between the hill and k-street. Staffers should not be allowed to turn around and go work for them, as Jack Abramoff put it, once he promised a staffer a job, he found out that they would do more for him than he even asked them to do!
We have a broken system, and until we address these fundamental problems, all the other issues people are passionate about will never get fixed properly. Fix the system first, then work on the more mainstream issues.
Vote arca_vorago for congress.