by A Member of Congress
February 6, 2015 12:33 PM Subscribe
posted by Fizz at 12:35 PM on February 6, 2015 [10 favorites]
I'm not sure I would consider any of these a "secret". Congresspeople listen to money, like political redistricting shenanigans that keep them in office, don't get much done by committee, and are just waiting for a sweet lobbying gig once their term is up? You don't say.
posted by Phire at 12:38 PM on February 6, 2015 [11 favorites]
posted by Phire at 12:38 PM on February 6, 2015 [11 favorites]
The public doesn't trust Congress, according to an elected official with knowledge of the situation
posted by RobotVoodooPower at 12:42 PM on February 6, 2015 [4 favorites]
posted by RobotVoodooPower at 12:42 PM on February 6, 2015 [4 favorites]
I'm SHOCKED, quite frankly. These "secrets" are not really.
posted by nevercalm at 12:43 PM on February 6, 2015
posted by nevercalm at 12:43 PM on February 6, 2015
Parliaments only work because they have a prime minister who can get things done. We have a parliament without any ability to take executive action.This is an interesting point. There was a scholar who made a career out of pointing out that the US is pretty much the only democracy in which the executive is split from the legislature that hasn't broken down. The US is exceptional, at least for now. True parliaments tend to be more stable as institutions because their governments are less stable and more monolithic; it's possible to throw out all the bums, all at once, so revolutions can be accomplished without needing a revolution. Not so in polities with strong, separate executives.
posted by clawsoon at 12:47 PM on February 6, 2015 [16 favorites]
I wonder how genuine this is. I don't say that because I am an internet cool guy who goes around not believing things for fun; I just wonder. And if it is, how long until this person is identified? People who are this introspective and willing to risk it in such an article* are rare in politics these days.
-----
* I'm not saying this person is all that introspective and brave, just for a Congressman in this day and age.
posted by Countess Elena at 12:48 PM on February 6, 2015 [1 favorite]
-----
* I'm not saying this person is all that introspective and brave, just for a Congressman in this day and age.
posted by Countess Elena at 12:48 PM on February 6, 2015 [1 favorite]
I admit, I hadn't thought about the committee part much (#6), but yeah, this is mostly Known Secrets.
The entire lobbying system needs to be burnt to the ground and rebuilt by rational actors. And campaign finance, but that'll take more effort thanks to the Supreme Court.
posted by Etrigan at 12:59 PM on February 6, 2015 [1 favorite]
The entire lobbying system needs to be burnt to the ground and rebuilt by rational actors. And campaign finance, but that'll take more effort thanks to the Supreme Court.
posted by Etrigan at 12:59 PM on February 6, 2015 [1 favorite]
Some days, I think we need to get rid of Congressional elections, and replace them with random lot: Congress Duty, like Jury Duty, but it lasts 2 or 6 years. All citizens over 18 are eligible.
posted by fings at 1:11 PM on February 6, 2015 [31 favorites]
posted by fings at 1:11 PM on February 6, 2015 [31 favorites]
Nothing about lizard people?
posted by dances_with_sneetches at 1:20 PM on February 6, 2015 [9 favorites]
posted by dances_with_sneetches at 1:20 PM on February 6, 2015 [9 favorites]
the US is pretty much the only democracy in which the executive is split from the legislature that hasn't broken down.
[citation needed]
posted by neckro23 at 1:26 PM on February 6, 2015 [6 favorites]
[citation needed]
posted by neckro23 at 1:26 PM on February 6, 2015 [6 favorites]
He is very wrong about the move from office to lobbyist. No one abandons a still-promising political career to lobby. People retire and then become lobbyists when their political careers are done, either through defeat, loss of ability to advance in leadership, or recognition that they'll never be elected Senator or Governor (in the case of House members) or to President or Vice President (in the case of Senators).
It's a lot more common to see people who have hit a complete dead end in their politcal careers, and easily could go on to lobby and create transformational wealth, who continue to stick out in politics for years (or decades), achieving nothing.
posted by MattD at 1:28 PM on February 6, 2015 [1 favorite]
It's a lot more common to see people who have hit a complete dead end in their politcal careers, and easily could go on to lobby and create transformational wealth, who continue to stick out in politics for years (or decades), achieving nothing.
posted by MattD at 1:28 PM on February 6, 2015 [1 favorite]
Some days, I think we need to get rid of Congressional elections, and replace them with random lot: Congress Duty, like Jury Duty, but it lasts 2 or 6 years. All citizens over 18 are eligible.
That's why Athens is such a powerhouse on the world stage today.
More seriously, that's basically the reductio ad absurdum of term limits, and it's fairly well established that term limits only serve to increase the power of lobbyists. If politicians cannot gain experience and institutional knowledge, then those that have those qualities will wield more power.
Writing laws is a complicated business. I'm not saying that politicians (professional or otherwise) do an especially great job of it, but I don't think we would get better laws from a random sampling of 535 adult citizens.
the US is pretty much the only democracy in which the executive is split from the legislature that hasn't broken down.
[citation needed]
JJ Linz is the scholar referenced above. The Perils of Presidentialism [pdf] is one of the key papers.
posted by jedicus at 1:33 PM on February 6, 2015 [17 favorites]
That's why Athens is such a powerhouse on the world stage today.
More seriously, that's basically the reductio ad absurdum of term limits, and it's fairly well established that term limits only serve to increase the power of lobbyists. If politicians cannot gain experience and institutional knowledge, then those that have those qualities will wield more power.
Writing laws is a complicated business. I'm not saying that politicians (professional or otherwise) do an especially great job of it, but I don't think we would get better laws from a random sampling of 535 adult citizens.
the US is pretty much the only democracy in which the executive is split from the legislature that hasn't broken down.
[citation needed]
JJ Linz is the scholar referenced above. The Perils of Presidentialism [pdf] is one of the key papers.
posted by jedicus at 1:33 PM on February 6, 2015 [17 favorites]
Linz and his ideas were discussed on MeFi following his death in 2013.
posted by jedicus at 1:35 PM on February 6, 2015 [4 favorites]
posted by jedicus at 1:35 PM on February 6, 2015 [4 favorites]
I was hoping this would be "secrets" like Representative X is surprisingly good at fantasy hockey or Senator Y sometimes pretends to be his own secretary to prank callers, not "you, the voter, need to change things even though we, congress, aren't listening unless you have deep pockets." We know that already. Though it is novel that a congressperson admitted it.
posted by everybody had matching towels at 1:41 PM on February 6, 2015 [28 favorites]
posted by everybody had matching towels at 1:41 PM on February 6, 2015 [28 favorites]
I wonder how many politicians hate the idea of lobbyists and swear they will never become one. Until they are out of office and not really qualified for a 'real job' and some recruiter offers them six+ figures. At which point they realize if they are going to have a comfortable lifestyle, they'll have to become what they once despised.
posted by el io at 1:54 PM on February 6, 2015 [3 favorites]
posted by el io at 1:54 PM on February 6, 2015 [3 favorites]
I have seriously considered running for Congress. I have discussed it with local party leaders, with national party leaders and with family and friends. I have not pulled the trigger for one reason, the fund raising. He mentions it. I am just not prepared to suck up to rich people and ask. Until we can change the way money and politics intersect, our system will be broken.
posted by 724A at 1:56 PM on February 6, 2015 [8 favorites]
posted by 724A at 1:56 PM on February 6, 2015 [8 favorites]
He is very wrong about the move from office to lobbyist. No one abandons a still-promising political career to lobby. People retire and then become lobbyists when their political careers are done, either through defeat, loss of ability to advance in leadership, or recognition that they'll never be elected Senator or Governor (in the case of House members) or to President or Vice President (in the case of Senators).
Jim DeMint? As far as I can tell he had no driving ambition for higher office, and could have certainly advanced in leadership if he stuck around, but he decided (correctly) that he could have far more influence at the Heritage Foundation without having to deal with the daily grind of showing up for votes and what-not.
Your larger point that this is rare remains, of course, but I wonder if this pattern will become more common, especially given how many of today's Tea Partiers go in with a maximalist "move things as far right as possible as fast as possibe" approach that tends to clash with the old "hang around, get seniority" style of politics as a career.
posted by tonycpsu at 1:56 PM on February 6, 2015 [2 favorites]
Jim DeMint? As far as I can tell he had no driving ambition for higher office, and could have certainly advanced in leadership if he stuck around, but he decided (correctly) that he could have far more influence at the Heritage Foundation without having to deal with the daily grind of showing up for votes and what-not.
Your larger point that this is rare remains, of course, but I wonder if this pattern will become more common, especially given how many of today's Tea Partiers go in with a maximalist "move things as far right as possible as fast as possibe" approach that tends to clash with the old "hang around, get seniority" style of politics as a career.
posted by tonycpsu at 1:56 PM on February 6, 2015 [2 favorites]
This'll prove invaluable should I ever choose to write any House of Cards fanfic.
posted by Keith Talent at 1:58 PM on February 6, 2015 [3 favorites]
posted by Keith Talent at 1:58 PM on February 6, 2015 [3 favorites]
I call bullshit.
posted by sfts2 at 2:12 PM on February 6, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by sfts2 at 2:12 PM on February 6, 2015 [2 favorites]
but I don't think we would get better laws from a random sampling of 535 adult citizens.
I'm not so sure. I think it's definitely clear that we'd get better legislation from some type of Wikipedia-esque system (although that's different from just picking 535 random people). A look at, say, the level of scientific and technological expertise represented on the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology illustrates this.
It seems a bit like electability is actively compromised by the presence of qualities like thoughtfulness, probity, expertise, etc. I'd guess that those qualities are more widespread in the general population than in the pool of people who are likely to succeed at the electoral politics game.
posted by busted_crayons at 2:15 PM on February 6, 2015 [2 favorites]
I'm not so sure. I think it's definitely clear that we'd get better legislation from some type of Wikipedia-esque system (although that's different from just picking 535 random people). A look at, say, the level of scientific and technological expertise represented on the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology illustrates this.
It seems a bit like electability is actively compromised by the presence of qualities like thoughtfulness, probity, expertise, etc. I'd guess that those qualities are more widespread in the general population than in the pool of people who are likely to succeed at the electoral politics game.
posted by busted_crayons at 2:15 PM on February 6, 2015 [2 favorites]
9) Congress is still necessary to save America, and cynics aren't helping
How does this follow, given 1 through 8? The explanation given looks to me like just a bunch of rah-rah cliches.
posted by ZenMasterThis at 2:15 PM on February 6, 2015 [3 favorites]
How does this follow, given 1 through 8? The explanation given looks to me like just a bunch of rah-rah cliches.
posted by ZenMasterThis at 2:15 PM on February 6, 2015 [3 favorites]
Some days, I think we need to get rid of Congressional elections, and replace them with random lot: Congress Duty, like Jury Duty, but it lasts 2 or 6 years. All citizens over 18 are eligible.
Honestly, I'm not sure Jury Duty wouldn't be much-improved if the pool were limited strictly to bar association members.
posted by Navelgazer at 2:21 PM on February 6, 2015
Honestly, I'm not sure Jury Duty wouldn't be much-improved if the pool were limited strictly to bar association members.
posted by Navelgazer at 2:21 PM on February 6, 2015
Honestly, I'm not sure Jury Duty wouldn't be much-improved if the pool were limited strictly to bar association members.
Nobody wants to live on that Farscape planet where everyone is a lawer...
posted by The Power Nap at 2:27 PM on February 6, 2015 [3 favorites]
Nobody wants to live on that Farscape planet where everyone is a lawer...
posted by The Power Nap at 2:27 PM on February 6, 2015 [3 favorites]
#4-You have no secret ballots anymore-
To take a fresh angle on this list-neither does congress. Before about 1970 (beginning of lots of signs of decline in the republic and governance) congressional votes were secret-you only got a total of yeas/nays and no record of how any particular congressman voted. Congress members were (somewhat) free to vote their conscience.
There is a reason public voting was made secret. Maybe congress should reinstate this rule.
posted by bartonlong at 2:39 PM on February 6, 2015 [10 favorites]
To take a fresh angle on this list-neither does congress. Before about 1970 (beginning of lots of signs of decline in the republic and governance) congressional votes were secret-you only got a total of yeas/nays and no record of how any particular congressman voted. Congress members were (somewhat) free to vote their conscience.
There is a reason public voting was made secret. Maybe congress should reinstate this rule.
posted by bartonlong at 2:39 PM on February 6, 2015 [10 favorites]
I wonder if this was written by a real member of congress... I can't help doubting. Of course it has been pointed out that these are mostly not secrets. This piece reminds me of my childhood when the Reader's Digest used to publish articles with titles like "I am Joe's Liver", which were fun education/healthcare-exhortation pieces told from an imaginary first person point of view.
posted by anguspodgorny at 2:46 PM on February 6, 2015 [3 favorites]
posted by anguspodgorny at 2:46 PM on February 6, 2015 [3 favorites]
Congress members feeling free to vote their conscience? Is this really a desirable thing?
posted by el io at 2:46 PM on February 6, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by el io at 2:46 PM on February 6, 2015 [1 favorite]
Public financing of campaigns. Six week campaign window. Throw out gerrymandering.
posted by potsmokinghippieoverlord at 3:17 PM on February 6, 2015 [13 favorites]
posted by potsmokinghippieoverlord at 3:17 PM on February 6, 2015 [13 favorites]
Congress members feeling free to vote their conscience? Is this really a desirable thing?
I'm surprised nobody has ever, AFAIK, run for Congress on the following platform: "I will put all my votes to a vote on my website; any of my constituents may vote (I guess there should be some verification process which, in practice, would restrict voting to the motivated an able in an undesirable way) and I pledge to vote however my constituents vote, on each issue."
The Direct Democracy By Proxy candidate, in other words.
posted by busted_crayons at 3:19 PM on February 6, 2015 [5 favorites]
I'm surprised nobody has ever, AFAIK, run for Congress on the following platform: "I will put all my votes to a vote on my website; any of my constituents may vote (I guess there should be some verification process which, in practice, would restrict voting to the motivated an able in an undesirable way) and I pledge to vote however my constituents vote, on each issue."
The Direct Democracy By Proxy candidate, in other words.
posted by busted_crayons at 3:19 PM on February 6, 2015 [5 favorites]
Public financing of campaigns. Six week campaign window. Throw out gerrymandering.
No campaign ads; only a PDF manifesto, in several languages, uploaded to a central website to be freely accessed by the public, with printed copies available at post offices, libraries, city hall, etc. Any evidence of additional campaigning results in removal from the ballot.
posted by busted_crayons at 3:22 PM on February 6, 2015 [5 favorites]
No campaign ads; only a PDF manifesto, in several languages, uploaded to a central website to be freely accessed by the public, with printed copies available at post offices, libraries, city hall, etc. Any evidence of additional campaigning results in removal from the ballot.
posted by busted_crayons at 3:22 PM on February 6, 2015 [5 favorites]
Oh god. "We're all self interested fucknuts who could give a rats ass about the country, but send us money and vote for us anyway!"
Sorry, no.
posted by smidgen at 3:32 PM on February 6, 2015 [2 favorites]
Sorry, no.
posted by smidgen at 3:32 PM on February 6, 2015 [2 favorites]
Can cliches be secrets?
posted by aaronetc at 3:33 PM on February 6, 2015 [3 favorites]
posted by aaronetc at 3:33 PM on February 6, 2015 [3 favorites]
Heritage isn't a lobby shop in the traditional sense, it's the dean of DC think tanks. A lot more respectable, and not a disqualifier for running for President as standard 7 figure DC lobbying is. Gingrich surprised a lot of people with the legs on his 2012 campaign after having been more or less a one-man think tank for a dozen years.
posted by MattD at 3:42 PM on February 6, 2015
posted by MattD at 3:42 PM on February 6, 2015
It's also worth noting that cozying up to rich guys has never been less important for running for Congress. A candidate with something important to say to a motivated constituency can raise all the money he can use online. If your Congressional campaign can't do this, it's because nobody cares or what you're saying isn't important.
posted by MattD at 3:48 PM on February 6, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by MattD at 3:48 PM on February 6, 2015 [1 favorite]
This piece reminds me of my childhood when the Reader's Digest used to publish articles with titles like "I am Joe's Liver",
I am America's Colon*
*i am constipated and can't make sausages right now
posted by pyramid termite at 3:51 PM on February 6, 2015 [7 favorites]
I am America's Colon*
*i am constipated and can't make sausages right now
posted by pyramid termite at 3:51 PM on February 6, 2015 [7 favorites]
It's also worth noting that cozying up to rich guys has never been less important for running for Congress.
Partially true, but mostly because the rich guys already know who they're going to cut the big checks for.
A candidate with something important to say to a motivated constituency can raise all the money he can use online.
That word "motivated" makes your entire sentence an exercise in wishful thinking. The majority of constituencies aren't motivated by much more than "Liberals are bad" or "Republicans are bad" these days, especially in midterms, and even more especially in downticket races. People simply don't care about their state legislators, even though they essentially determine who 80 percent of the people in Congress are going to be.
posted by Etrigan at 3:53 PM on February 6, 2015 [3 favorites]
Partially true, but mostly because the rich guys already know who they're going to cut the big checks for.
A candidate with something important to say to a motivated constituency can raise all the money he can use online.
That word "motivated" makes your entire sentence an exercise in wishful thinking. The majority of constituencies aren't motivated by much more than "Liberals are bad" or "Republicans are bad" these days, especially in midterms, and even more especially in downticket races. People simply don't care about their state legislators, even though they essentially determine who 80 percent of the people in Congress are going to be.
posted by Etrigan at 3:53 PM on February 6, 2015 [3 favorites]
Honestly, I'm not sure Jury Duty wouldn't be much-improved if the pool were limited strictly to bar association members.
one time i was a prospective juror and during voir dire, the defence lawyer with a knowing grin asked a very well dressed and grinning man if he knew any of the officers of the court - "well, yes, i do" - more knowing grins from the prosecutor and the judge - the defense lawyer just kind of shook his head with a wide grin and laughed, while the man and the prosecutor and the judge kind of laughed, too
"well, i just hate to do this, your honor, but i'll have to use a peremptory here" and they all laughed
guess what profession the man belonged to?
no, the last thing any prosecutor or defense lawyer wants is another lawyer on the jury, especially one they all know
posted by pyramid termite at 4:02 PM on February 6, 2015 [1 favorite]
one time i was a prospective juror and during voir dire, the defence lawyer with a knowing grin asked a very well dressed and grinning man if he knew any of the officers of the court - "well, yes, i do" - more knowing grins from the prosecutor and the judge - the defense lawyer just kind of shook his head with a wide grin and laughed, while the man and the prosecutor and the judge kind of laughed, too
"well, i just hate to do this, your honor, but i'll have to use a peremptory here" and they all laughed
guess what profession the man belonged to?
no, the last thing any prosecutor or defense lawyer wants is another lawyer on the jury, especially one they all know
posted by pyramid termite at 4:02 PM on February 6, 2015 [1 favorite]
Yeah, I had the direct democracy by proxy idea 30+ years ago in college. Might work.
posted by Windopaene at 4:08 PM on February 6, 2015
posted by Windopaene at 4:08 PM on February 6, 2015
Public financing of campaigns. Six week campaign window.
You'd have to switch to a Westminster-esque system for that to work. With fixed election dates, campaigning and fundraising are full-time activities.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 4:32 PM on February 6, 2015
You'd have to switch to a Westminster-esque system for that to work. With fixed election dates, campaigning and fundraising are full-time activities.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 4:32 PM on February 6, 2015
I think it's definitely clear that we'd get better legislation from some type of Wikipedia-esque system (although that's different from just picking 535 random people). A look at, say, the level of scientific and technological expertise represented on the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology illustrates this.
Members of Congress don't literally write the laws, thank god. That's done by lawyers on their staffs (or lawyers from special interest groups, if you're cynical). If laws were written by wiki it would be a disaster. How would you make sure laws didn't contradict one another, for example?
posted by ultraviolet catastrophe at 4:35 PM on February 6, 2015
Members of Congress don't literally write the laws, thank god. That's done by lawyers on their staffs (or lawyers from special interest groups, if you're cynical). If laws were written by wiki it would be a disaster. How would you make sure laws didn't contradict one another, for example?
posted by ultraviolet catastrophe at 4:35 PM on February 6, 2015
Heritage isn't a lobby shop in the traditional sense, it's the dean of DC think tanks.
You forgot the scare quotes around the word "think." And when I hear the word "dean", I think of David Broder, known as dean of the press corps, which is no compliment.
Heritage is about the worst hack shop around. The quality of their "scholarship" is quite low. You should read some of their analyses regarding the Paul Ryan and Mitt Romney economic plans. It is quite a joke -- bad math that wouldn't qualify for a fourth grader.
posted by JackFlash at 4:43 PM on February 6, 2015 [3 favorites]
You forgot the scare quotes around the word "think." And when I hear the word "dean", I think of David Broder, known as dean of the press corps, which is no compliment.
Heritage is about the worst hack shop around. The quality of their "scholarship" is quite low. You should read some of their analyses regarding the Paul Ryan and Mitt Romney economic plans. It is quite a joke -- bad math that wouldn't qualify for a fourth grader.
posted by JackFlash at 4:43 PM on February 6, 2015 [3 favorites]
They don't test for contradictions in law now, not rigorously. Back when I was a legal code editor, I dreamed of developing a system that could, because the contradictions in law at the municipal level were so glaring. The Supreme Court's job, in part, is supposed to be resolving contradictions in law with an eye toward constitutional principles, but no, believe me, there are lots of contradictions in law today.
posted by saulgoodman at 4:45 PM on February 6, 2015 [3 favorites]
posted by saulgoodman at 4:45 PM on February 6, 2015 [3 favorites]
Yeah, Heritage may be respectable among the DC set, but their reputation's pretty poor outside the beltway bubble.
posted by saulgoodman at 4:46 PM on February 6, 2015
posted by saulgoodman at 4:46 PM on February 6, 2015
I think it's most common for the actual text of legislation introduced in the U.S. House of Reps to be written by the nonpartisan House Office of the Legislative Counsel. Basically, some staffer calls them up, asks them to draft a bill (or section of a bill) that does X, Y, Z, they go back and forth to make sure the drafter understands the intent, and a few days later, the bill comes back. It seems like working there would be an interesting job, though it would be realllllly tempting to insert a clause sabotaging a bill you hate.
posted by burden at 4:47 PM on February 6, 2015
posted by burden at 4:47 PM on February 6, 2015
A candidate with something important to say to a motivated constituency can raise all the money he can use online.
I suppose this could lead to polarizing politics, for someone who wants to get donations from lots of people online, because "MY OPPONENT WANTS TO KILL YOUR GRANDMOTHER" is a stronger rallying cry than "I think most things are pretty good and we can fix the things that aren't with gradual, prudent action."
The former will get lots of small money donations. The latter?
posted by zippy at 4:48 PM on February 6, 2015 [1 favorite]
I suppose this could lead to polarizing politics, for someone who wants to get donations from lots of people online, because "MY OPPONENT WANTS TO KILL YOUR GRANDMOTHER" is a stronger rallying cry than "I think most things are pretty good and we can fix the things that aren't with gradual, prudent action."
The former will get lots of small money donations. The latter?
posted by zippy at 4:48 PM on February 6, 2015 [1 favorite]
He is very wrong about the move from office to lobbyist. No one abandons a still-promising political career to lobby. People retire and then become lobbyists when their political careers are done, either through defeat, loss of ability to advance in leadership, or recognition that they'll never be elected Senator or Governor (in the case of House members) or to President or Vice President (in the case of Senators).
Well, it reminded me of this, just for one example:
Rep. Jo Ann Emerson (R-Mo.) will resign from Congress next February to become President and Chief Executive Officer of the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association, she announced on Monday.
It's true the Emerson pretty well fits your model (she could have stayed in the House for probably another 30 years but obviously wasn't going anywhere else--so dead-ended in that respect). But it fits the OP's model as well, because what does happen to those hundreds of ex-Reps/Sens who don't become president? A bunch of them become lobbyists.
posted by flug at 5:00 PM on February 6, 2015 [1 favorite]
Well, it reminded me of this, just for one example:
Rep. Jo Ann Emerson (R-Mo.) will resign from Congress next February to become President and Chief Executive Officer of the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association, she announced on Monday.
It's true the Emerson pretty well fits your model (she could have stayed in the House for probably another 30 years but obviously wasn't going anywhere else--so dead-ended in that respect). But it fits the OP's model as well, because what does happen to those hundreds of ex-Reps/Sens who don't become president? A bunch of them become lobbyists.
posted by flug at 5:00 PM on February 6, 2015 [1 favorite]
I'm not going to tell you .... from which party.
Now that the Supreme Court has ruled that money is speech and corporations are people....
You just told us.
posted by escabeche at 5:38 PM on February 6, 2015 [5 favorites]
Now that the Supreme Court has ruled that money is speech and corporations are people....
You just told us.
posted by escabeche at 5:38 PM on February 6, 2015 [5 favorites]
I had assumed that this person was, if genuine, a Democrat, because s/he has an actual belief in the institution of government as it stands.
Jury duty Congress would be a terrible idea. It might work in a small, civilized nation with good public education, but this one? Where 42% of people believe in young-earth creationism, and 18% believe Obama is a Muslim? Where vanquished childhood diseases are coming back to life thanks to a known and proven fraud? Perish forbid.
posted by Countess Elena at 6:13 PM on February 6, 2015 [6 favorites]
Jury duty Congress would be a terrible idea. It might work in a small, civilized nation with good public education, but this one? Where 42% of people believe in young-earth creationism, and 18% believe Obama is a Muslim? Where vanquished childhood diseases are coming back to life thanks to a known and proven fraud? Perish forbid.
posted by Countess Elena at 6:13 PM on February 6, 2015 [6 favorites]
I would describe this article as Congressional click bait. It's not serious, it's borderline trolling of public naivete.
Who killed the OTA? Why? Who turned Congress into a 3-day week making time for more and more fund-raising as a focus of their activity? Why? Who deliberately created gridlock via a strategic notion that obstructionism of the other party is equal to a victory for the minority party? Who shut down the government not once, but twice, as a matter of tactics, public welfare be damned?
Hint: He's an unabashed neo-Confederate and his name rhymes with Brute Blingbitch.
(okay, I know he didn't do it all by himself, but he rightly shoulders a lot of that noxious load.)
posted by CincyBlues at 6:26 PM on February 6, 2015 [4 favorites]
Who killed the OTA? Why? Who turned Congress into a 3-day week making time for more and more fund-raising as a focus of their activity? Why? Who deliberately created gridlock via a strategic notion that obstructionism of the other party is equal to a victory for the minority party? Who shut down the government not once, but twice, as a matter of tactics, public welfare be damned?
Hint: He's an unabashed neo-Confederate and his name rhymes with Brute Blingbitch.
(okay, I know he didn't do it all by himself, but he rightly shoulders a lot of that noxious load.)
posted by CincyBlues at 6:26 PM on February 6, 2015 [4 favorites]
Public financing of campaigns. Six week campaign window.
You're never going to get a court to agree that the government can stop people from engaging in political speech by campaigning, or funding the campaigns of others, or funding ad campaigns about issues or candidates that they care about.
Throw out gerrymandering.
All districting is gerrymandering. It can't be anything else. Any set of districts you could draw makes it easier for some people to be elected and harder for others, relative to some other set of districts. Even if you use a process that isn't biased -- say some algorithm with a for-real-random seed -- whatever set of districts it creates will, ex post, help some people get elected and hurt others.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 6:56 PM on February 6, 2015 [2 favorites]
You're never going to get a court to agree that the government can stop people from engaging in political speech by campaigning, or funding the campaigns of others, or funding ad campaigns about issues or candidates that they care about.
Throw out gerrymandering.
All districting is gerrymandering. It can't be anything else. Any set of districts you could draw makes it easier for some people to be elected and harder for others, relative to some other set of districts. Even if you use a process that isn't biased -- say some algorithm with a for-real-random seed -- whatever set of districts it creates will, ex post, help some people get elected and hurt others.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 6:56 PM on February 6, 2015 [2 favorites]
Where 42% of people believe in young-earth creationism, and 18% believe Obama is a Muslim?
I suspect a congress chosen at random might be an improvement over the current situation, where the party in power is ~48% anti-evolution (and that was 2 years ago).
Random lot representation avoids fundraising, re-elections, and campaigning. I would also say to make more popular, and reduce promises made for post-term gains, former members would get a modest annual ($50k?) retirement benefit for the rest of their life.
posted by fings at 7:14 PM on February 6, 2015
I suspect a congress chosen at random might be an improvement over the current situation, where the party in power is ~48% anti-evolution (and that was 2 years ago).
Random lot representation avoids fundraising, re-elections, and campaigning. I would also say to make more popular, and reduce promises made for post-term gains, former members would get a modest annual ($50k?) retirement benefit for the rest of their life.
posted by fings at 7:14 PM on February 6, 2015
ROU_Xenophobe: All districting is gerrymandering. It can't be anything else. Any set of districts you could draw makes it easier for some people to be elected and harder for others, relative to some other set of districts.
A successful gerrymander consistently produces a higher number of districts won for one party even though the other party consistently gets more votes overall. A successful gerrymander doesn't produce the run-of-the-mill unfairness in the broad middle of the set of "any set of districts you could draw" that you describe; it produces the kind of extreme unfairness that typically only results from intentional design.
posted by clawsoon at 7:37 PM on February 6, 2015 [5 favorites]
A successful gerrymander consistently produces a higher number of districts won for one party even though the other party consistently gets more votes overall. A successful gerrymander doesn't produce the run-of-the-mill unfairness in the broad middle of the set of "any set of districts you could draw" that you describe; it produces the kind of extreme unfairness that typically only results from intentional design.
posted by clawsoon at 7:37 PM on February 6, 2015 [5 favorites]
I'm surprised nobody has ever, AFAIK, run for Congress on the following platform: "I will put all my votes to a vote on my website; any of my constituents may vote (I guess there should be some verification process which, in practice, would restrict voting to the motivated an able in an undesirable way) and I pledge to vote however my constituents vote, on each issue."
I don't understand, aren't votes on the public record for US members of Congress?
They are in Australia. Someone created an open source site for this re Australian members of Parliament. They Vote For You.
posted by His thoughts were red thoughts at 7:58 PM on February 6, 2015
I don't understand, aren't votes on the public record for US members of Congress?
They are in Australia. Someone created an open source site for this re Australian members of Parliament. They Vote For You.
posted by His thoughts were red thoughts at 7:58 PM on February 6, 2015
If that wasn't written by Jim McDermott I'll eat a hat.
posted by bigbigdog at 8:50 PM on February 6, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by bigbigdog at 8:50 PM on February 6, 2015 [1 favorite]
If laws were written by wiki it would be a disaster. How would you make sure laws didn't contradict one another, for example?
My current hat is a large, never-washed, partially folded-up gross wool balaclava. I will eat it if presented with compelling evidence that, say, the USC is contradiction-free, or even anything other than riddled with contradictions. I'd even be pretty surprised if, upon enactment of a new law, it is checked for consistency with the entire corpus of existing law. Does anyone know how this works, if at all?
posted by busted_crayons at 9:26 PM on February 6, 2015 [1 favorite]
My current hat is a large, never-washed, partially folded-up gross wool balaclava. I will eat it if presented with compelling evidence that, say, the USC is contradiction-free, or even anything other than riddled with contradictions. I'd even be pretty surprised if, upon enactment of a new law, it is checked for consistency with the entire corpus of existing law. Does anyone know how this works, if at all?
posted by busted_crayons at 9:26 PM on February 6, 2015 [1 favorite]
...why can't we change the constitution? It's such a shitty document that we had to fucking amend it quite a few times. The constitution is shitty, this economic system is shitty, and every goddamn person running the show is shitty. Fuck off, every member of congress.
posted by GoblinHoney at 10:22 PM on February 6, 2015 [5 favorites]
posted by GoblinHoney at 10:22 PM on February 6, 2015 [5 favorites]
I don't think it's can't amend the Constitution, it's more like that would be a spectacularly bad idea right now.
Imagine what 3/4 of the State legislatures would be involved right now. As I understand it, a Constitutional Convention can't be called with an agenda--so anything could be proposed. It would take some time even if it happened tomorrow, I imagine, so I am forced to consider the horrifying spectre of a bunch of state-level Republicans in nicely gerrymandered districts running on platforms promising to add an abortion ban to the Constitution, or taking away queer rights, or establishing a flat tax or forbidding the government from creating mass healthcare, or even--let's be honest--enshrining racism into law, or taking out that pesky first amendment and establishing Christianity as the official religion of the USA as God intended.
Imagine the House, Senate, and Presidential races in 2016. Republican majorities in both houses of Congress aren't an impossibility, and Constitutional amendments don't have to go to the President.
Trying to amend the Constitution is just way, way too dangerous for anyone who hates things as they are to do right now. Too much chance the asshats could have power over the whole process.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 11:12 PM on February 6, 2015 [1 favorite]
Imagine what 3/4 of the State legislatures would be involved right now. As I understand it, a Constitutional Convention can't be called with an agenda--so anything could be proposed. It would take some time even if it happened tomorrow, I imagine, so I am forced to consider the horrifying spectre of a bunch of state-level Republicans in nicely gerrymandered districts running on platforms promising to add an abortion ban to the Constitution, or taking away queer rights, or establishing a flat tax or forbidding the government from creating mass healthcare, or even--let's be honest--enshrining racism into law, or taking out that pesky first amendment and establishing Christianity as the official religion of the USA as God intended.
Imagine the House, Senate, and Presidential races in 2016. Republican majorities in both houses of Congress aren't an impossibility, and Constitutional amendments don't have to go to the President.
Trying to amend the Constitution is just way, way too dangerous for anyone who hates things as they are to do right now. Too much chance the asshats could have power over the whole process.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 11:12 PM on February 6, 2015 [1 favorite]
All districting is gerrymandering. It can't be anything else. …say some algorithm with a for-real-random seed -- whatever set of districts it creates will…
That is so not gerrymandering.
posted by five fresh fish at 11:56 PM on February 6, 2015 [2 favorites]
That is so not gerrymandering.
posted by five fresh fish at 11:56 PM on February 6, 2015 [2 favorites]
a congress chosen at random might be an improvement over the current situation, where the party in power is ~48% anti-evolution
Most people aren't corrupt or nuts, so random already beats the current reality.
posted by five fresh fish at 12:00 AM on February 7, 2015 [3 favorites]
Most people aren't corrupt or nuts, so random already beats the current reality.
posted by five fresh fish at 12:00 AM on February 7, 2015 [3 favorites]
I googled "transformational wealth," and all the uses I can find seem to involve consultants who've given themselves the title "transformational wealth specialist" and something about "Quantum Transformational Wealth Seminars" and "transformational holistic wealth coaching." A bunch of it seems to be tied up with a motivational speaker named Chris Howard, who also uses NLP woo and hypnosis demos as part of his talks. So right now, it sounds like the finance world's answer to Deepak Chopra and homeopathy. Can anyone point me to a more respectable meaning of the phrase, or is it an empty buzzword?
posted by kewb at 4:36 AM on February 7, 2015
posted by kewb at 4:36 AM on February 7, 2015
I assumed it was just a more polite phrase for fuck-you money.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 5:58 AM on February 7, 2015 [3 favorites]
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 5:58 AM on February 7, 2015 [3 favorites]
Yeah, I guess it's meant to refer to the broader concept of transformation in economics, but *all* economic activity is transformational in that sense, so I'm not sure why lobbying is special...or why it would be about the "creation of transformational wealth." But, yeah, I guess it's a nice way of saying "influence peddling."
In any case, the sense I get in these threads is that meaningful change probably will no happen through existing electoral and financial institutions, which have a system that works perfectly well for careerists in both fields but is increasingly, visibly dysfunctional for almost everyone else. This has two effects, neither of them good (at least in the short term).
The first is that people like the author of this article insist that the system will work if we all just put more effort into it. They see the work that goes into the system and they point to both its stated principles and to the sophisticated maneuverings that specialist knowledge of the system enables them to undertake.
But for people with little actual involvement and influence, there's an ongoing cycle of feelings (often justified) of disenfranchisement that, in turn, fuels the sense that the system is illegitimate and needs, perhaps, to be formally delegitimated. This second sense is not helped much by the way rhetoric about the incompetence or illegitimacy of government is actually a successful, if frequently insincere move for the aforementioned careerist types. Saying that government is terrible is a good way to get into it and use it to do things, and it's also a useful way to position oneself as a negotiator over legislation. Never mind that this leads to things like government shutdowns, as long as it makes a good bargaining technique.
It's the same sense I get from conversations here about legal decisions: the legal professionals among MeFi's discussants patiently describe the workings of the legal system and point to precedents and the principles of our legal system's design. Meanwhile, everyone outside the professional side of that system sees a bunch of outcomes they intensely dislike with serious concrete, visible effects on their communities. When that complaint is met with "just-so" descriptivism-as-advocacy by career professionals, the effect is not to shore up trust int he decision, but rather to undermine trust in the precedents and the underlying principles and structures that generate contemporary legal reasoning in the first place.
It may be that Congress-to-K-Street is the most efficient possible way of carrying out the sort of business that politicians and corporations want carried out, but this is not an argument for the social or ethical value of any of that business.
posted by kewb at 6:20 AM on February 7, 2015 [5 favorites]
In any case, the sense I get in these threads is that meaningful change probably will no happen through existing electoral and financial institutions, which have a system that works perfectly well for careerists in both fields but is increasingly, visibly dysfunctional for almost everyone else. This has two effects, neither of them good (at least in the short term).
The first is that people like the author of this article insist that the system will work if we all just put more effort into it. They see the work that goes into the system and they point to both its stated principles and to the sophisticated maneuverings that specialist knowledge of the system enables them to undertake.
But for people with little actual involvement and influence, there's an ongoing cycle of feelings (often justified) of disenfranchisement that, in turn, fuels the sense that the system is illegitimate and needs, perhaps, to be formally delegitimated. This second sense is not helped much by the way rhetoric about the incompetence or illegitimacy of government is actually a successful, if frequently insincere move for the aforementioned careerist types. Saying that government is terrible is a good way to get into it and use it to do things, and it's also a useful way to position oneself as a negotiator over legislation. Never mind that this leads to things like government shutdowns, as long as it makes a good bargaining technique.
It's the same sense I get from conversations here about legal decisions: the legal professionals among MeFi's discussants patiently describe the workings of the legal system and point to precedents and the principles of our legal system's design. Meanwhile, everyone outside the professional side of that system sees a bunch of outcomes they intensely dislike with serious concrete, visible effects on their communities. When that complaint is met with "just-so" descriptivism-as-advocacy by career professionals, the effect is not to shore up trust int he decision, but rather to undermine trust in the precedents and the underlying principles and structures that generate contemporary legal reasoning in the first place.
It may be that Congress-to-K-Street is the most efficient possible way of carrying out the sort of business that politicians and corporations want carried out, but this is not an argument for the social or ethical value of any of that business.
posted by kewb at 6:20 AM on February 7, 2015 [5 favorites]
There may be something to "function follows form" argument. If we could get a better deal from a congress composed only of Mr. Smiths, then how come that hasn't already happened? If most people are basically good, then how come we seem to be governed by a body of self-interested cynics? The image here is one of incoming starry-eyed congressional freshmen being either driven out, or else fleeing the cesspool of political self interests. Good guys quit in disgust or are forced out because they won't play the game.
We've had over two centuries to settle down. So, does this mean that we truly have a government that represents us? Is the average American corrupt and self-centered? I would like to think the opposite, that the system favors the corrupt. The former is depressing, the latter is merely terrifying.
I once read a book called "The Crack In The Cosmic Egg." One of the ideas presented therein was the notion that we should have national elections predicated on the individual votes of all eligible voters: one vote per person. (This book was written in the early 70's, and the author dreamed of an electronic solution to many things.) The candidate with the most votes gets the job. Anyhow, everyone gets to vote on everything. If a new law is proposed, however, 51% of all registered voters have to approve, or else it won't pass. By this system, a non-vote is a no vote. Sponsors have to convince their constituents that the law is necessary. This, the author claimed, would insure that only laws having support from a majority of eligible voters would pass. Voters would put their voter card into a card reader and hit the appropriate button. Your voter ID would be registered--this would prevent you voting more than once. You would give anonymity, but your vote would have a direct bearing on the outcome.
Ah, those were the days. The author, of course, hadn't been exposed to the fellow travelers of the electronic age--hackers. And anyway, the author assumed that this system would give us a government that represented the true will of the majority.
I think we accomplished that anyway, but without the feature that restricted laws and representatives to only that, and those, which attracted the majority of voters.
posted by mule98J at 10:30 AM on February 7, 2015
We've had over two centuries to settle down. So, does this mean that we truly have a government that represents us? Is the average American corrupt and self-centered? I would like to think the opposite, that the system favors the corrupt. The former is depressing, the latter is merely terrifying.
I once read a book called "The Crack In The Cosmic Egg." One of the ideas presented therein was the notion that we should have national elections predicated on the individual votes of all eligible voters: one vote per person. (This book was written in the early 70's, and the author dreamed of an electronic solution to many things.) The candidate with the most votes gets the job. Anyhow, everyone gets to vote on everything. If a new law is proposed, however, 51% of all registered voters have to approve, or else it won't pass. By this system, a non-vote is a no vote. Sponsors have to convince their constituents that the law is necessary. This, the author claimed, would insure that only laws having support from a majority of eligible voters would pass. Voters would put their voter card into a card reader and hit the appropriate button. Your voter ID would be registered--this would prevent you voting more than once. You would give anonymity, but your vote would have a direct bearing on the outcome.
Ah, those were the days. The author, of course, hadn't been exposed to the fellow travelers of the electronic age--hackers. And anyway, the author assumed that this system would give us a government that represented the true will of the majority.
I think we accomplished that anyway, but without the feature that restricted laws and representatives to only that, and those, which attracted the majority of voters.
posted by mule98J at 10:30 AM on February 7, 2015
I think it's delusional at this point to think the system is giving us good results--a sort of just-world fantasy. Don't think about the problem as a pure poli-sci or theoretical one, because this is a problem driven by specific historical circumstances. Certain industries were really keen on capturing our political system in pursuit of their interests and through determination and persistance, they won. That's all I think can be said. It's not a situation driven by theoretical principles and historical inevitability, it's a very specific situation brought about by very particular historical and cultural circumstances. Not a chess problem, but a human one.
posted by saulgoodman at 10:52 AM on February 7, 2015
posted by saulgoodman at 10:52 AM on February 7, 2015
This districting/gerrymandering topic is one that I struggle with. What is a fair way to draw voting districts?
posted by jindc at 12:24 PM on February 7, 2015
posted by jindc at 12:24 PM on February 7, 2015
By computer, based on population, probably with rules about finding the simplest shapes possible, maybe set to follow overlay data that takes into account geographical features and in urban areas discrete neighbourhoods.
That, and like we do in Canada, everything about elections--including setting districts--needs to be wrenched away from any partisan influence; independent nonpartisan commission.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 12:38 PM on February 7, 2015
That, and like we do in Canada, everything about elections--including setting districts--needs to be wrenched away from any partisan influence; independent nonpartisan commission.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 12:38 PM on February 7, 2015
The census bureau's census tracts are "Designed to be relatively homogeneous units with respect to population characteristics, economic status, and living conditions". Create congressional districts following the same guidelines by some disinterested 3rd party and scaled up to whatever average population size you need. Then all the people in each district should have as many of the same wants and needs from their representatives as possible.
posted by VTX at 2:44 PM on February 7, 2015 [3 favorites]
posted by VTX at 2:44 PM on February 7, 2015 [3 favorites]
Then all the people in each district should have as many of the same wants and needs from their representatives as possible.
In case anyone is thinking of saying "Isn't this what gerrymandering does?", the answer is Only partially. The nefarious part of gerrymandering is not just that District X is carefully assembled to be 90 percent Group 1, but that Districts Y and Z are just as carefully assembled to be 55 percent Group 2, each of which is a 10-point swing that's pretty hard to overcome. So you end up with an area that is 2/3 Group 1 being 2/3 represented by Group 2.
Expand it over a larger area and you end up with Michigan, where Democratic U.S. House candidates have received more votes that Republican House candidates statewide in 2012 and 2014, but won only 5 out of 14 seats in each election. Take one guess which party drew the districts.
posted by Etrigan at 3:41 PM on February 7, 2015
In case anyone is thinking of saying "Isn't this what gerrymandering does?", the answer is Only partially. The nefarious part of gerrymandering is not just that District X is carefully assembled to be 90 percent Group 1, but that Districts Y and Z are just as carefully assembled to be 55 percent Group 2, each of which is a 10-point swing that's pretty hard to overcome. So you end up with an area that is 2/3 Group 1 being 2/3 represented by Group 2.
Expand it over a larger area and you end up with Michigan, where Democratic U.S. House candidates have received more votes that Republican House candidates statewide in 2012 and 2014, but won only 5 out of 14 seats in each election. Take one guess which party drew the districts.
posted by Etrigan at 3:41 PM on February 7, 2015
Until we can change the way money and politics intersect, our system will be broken.
Compulsory voting is not unconstitutional (tho you never know with the wacky justices) and would change the equation considerably.
I was hoping this would be "secrets" like Representative X is surprisingly good at fantasy hockey or Senator Y sometimes pretends to be his own secretary to prank callers, not "you, the voter, need to change things even though we, congress, aren't listening unless you have deep pockets."
Exactly. I mean, "for that to happen, the people have to rise up and demand better." YOU DON'T SAY?!?!?!?!?!
posted by mrgrimm at 6:20 PM on February 7, 2015
Compulsory voting is not unconstitutional (tho you never know with the wacky justices) and would change the equation considerably.
I was hoping this would be "secrets" like Representative X is surprisingly good at fantasy hockey or Senator Y sometimes pretends to be his own secretary to prank callers, not "you, the voter, need to change things even though we, congress, aren't listening unless you have deep pockets."
Exactly. I mean, "for that to happen, the people have to rise up and demand better." YOU DON'T SAY?!?!?!?!?!
posted by mrgrimm at 6:20 PM on February 7, 2015
Having lived in the 49th most populous state and the 1st and 2nd most populous states, I feel pretty strongly that population served to number of representatives is an important consideration in reforming the current system. The higher the population served, the more disconnected the representative.
In California and Texas, the odds of ever seeing with or interacting with your senators are incredibly low unless you join the political parties and start working your way up. Not so in the less populated states, where there's only around half a million people and you have much better odds of knowing someone who knows the senator (in my case, senator 1 was my distant landlord and senator 2 was the sister of someone I served on a committee with) and meeting them in person.
We obviously don't want to divide each state into populations of half a million (my current city would divide into something like five states) but there's got to be a better way. A senator from California serves ~18 million people; a senator from Wyoming serves ~200,000. It's pretty easy to lose sight of your constituents when there are 18 million of them and only ten very handy lobbyists who keep wooing you with dinner.
posted by librarylis at 10:24 AM on February 8, 2015
In California and Texas, the odds of ever seeing with or interacting with your senators are incredibly low unless you join the political parties and start working your way up. Not so in the less populated states, where there's only around half a million people and you have much better odds of knowing someone who knows the senator (in my case, senator 1 was my distant landlord and senator 2 was the sister of someone I served on a committee with) and meeting them in person.
We obviously don't want to divide each state into populations of half a million (my current city would divide into something like five states) but there's got to be a better way. A senator from California serves ~18 million people; a senator from Wyoming serves ~200,000. It's pretty easy to lose sight of your constituents when there are 18 million of them and only ten very handy lobbyists who keep wooing you with dinner.
posted by librarylis at 10:24 AM on February 8, 2015
I'm surprised nobody has ever, AFAIK, run for Congress on the following platform: "I will put all my votes to a vote on my website; any of my constituents may vote (I guess there should be some verification process which, in practice, would restrict voting to the motivated an able in an undesirable way) and I pledge to vote however my constituents vote, on each issue."
I don't understand, aren't votes on the public record for US members of Congress?
They are in Australia. Someone created an open source site for this re Australian members of Parliament. They Vote For You.
Yes, votes are public record here (click Votes under Legislative Activity). But what busted_crayons is suggesting is allowing constituents to register their opinion online in advance of a floor vote to decide how their representative will vote. Disturbingly, a large proportion of the American public seems to be under the impression that this is already how things work. As a congressional aide, I frequently spoke to constituents who would demand to know, for example, how many phone calls and letters for and against the ACA our office had received (which I would not tell them) and then inform me that it would be basically treasonous for the congressman to not act in accordance with the majority opinion.
Also wanted to reiterate burden's comment that Legislative Counsel does most of the actual bill drafting and add that some House offices don't even have one lawyer on staff.
posted by naoko at 3:10 PM on February 8, 2015
I don't understand, aren't votes on the public record for US members of Congress?
They are in Australia. Someone created an open source site for this re Australian members of Parliament. They Vote For You.
Yes, votes are public record here (click Votes under Legislative Activity). But what busted_crayons is suggesting is allowing constituents to register their opinion online in advance of a floor vote to decide how their representative will vote. Disturbingly, a large proportion of the American public seems to be under the impression that this is already how things work. As a congressional aide, I frequently spoke to constituents who would demand to know, for example, how many phone calls and letters for and against the ACA our office had received (which I would not tell them) and then inform me that it would be basically treasonous for the congressman to not act in accordance with the majority opinion.
Also wanted to reiterate burden's comment that Legislative Counsel does most of the actual bill drafting and add that some House offices don't even have one lawyer on staff.
posted by naoko at 3:10 PM on February 8, 2015
Confessions of a Capitol Hill Staffer: 9 Secrets from the Inside
posted by andoatnp at 8:53 AM on February 10, 2015
posted by andoatnp at 8:53 AM on February 10, 2015
« Older Colleges, assaults and carrying the weight | are you aware you are ‘shouting' Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments