Just what in the world are they doing?

Washington D.C. is full of activity.  Hearings, meetings, press conferences, press releases, media appearances, fundraisers, round tables, and the three square meals of the day, breakfast, lunch and dinner, which have been drafted into a flurry of political activity.  So just what in the world is all this activity and why does it seem to be accomplishing so little?

Committee Hearings - There are 20 standing committees in the House of Representatives and 16 standing committees in the Senate.  A standing committee is just another name for a permanent committee.  These committees are the most powerful committees in Congress (we won't waste time on the other committees right now) that handle legislation on all areas of government activity.  You can see a list of all committees in the House and Senate by clicking on the embedded links. 

Committee hearings serve several purposes.  They are where legislation gets "marked up" first.  The mark up process is essentially an amendment process where members of the committee get to make changes to a bill before it is reported to the House or Senate floor where it can be further amended.  It is much easier in some ways to amend a bill in committee than on the floor of the full chamber of the House or Senate.  However, the committee is dominated by its chairman so if you want to amend the bill in a way the chairman doesn't support you have virtually no chance of success.  In practice mark up hearings are the final step of a process that unfolds almost entirely outside the hearing room.  All amendments that are offered have been pre-approved by the chairman and vetted with staff, leadership, and maybe even outside interests. 

Committee hearings may also be informational.  The committee will invite experts on an issue and take their testimony.  Members of the committee will also be able to ask them questions to further explore the concept being discussed at the hearing.  Like the mark up hearings, informational hearings are very orchestrated events.  The witnesses are carefully selected to deliver the message that the committee wants to hear.  The majority and the minority both get to invite witnesses so you do at least typically get to hear both sides of an issue (if there are three or more sides you may be out of luck). 

Finally, committee hearings offer a way for the committee to exercise its oversight function by calling witnesses from government agencies to explain their actions.  Like the other hearings, these oversight hearings are very orchestrated events.  Depending on whether the committee is friendly or hostile to the witnesses the questions asked and the tone of the hearing will be designed to bolster the witness or rip the witness to shreds.  The government witness will be from the executive branch and, again depending on hostility or friendliness, will either typically either stonewall the committee or make comments in support of the committee's theme for the hearing.

Meetings, press conferences, press releases, - A favorite activity in Washington for both parties is the daily flailing of arms in search of attention from anyone with a viewing, listening, or reading audience.  Most of the things American see on the evening news are not candid shots or clips of legislators as they go about their daily work, but carefully staged and scripted events designed to communicate a specific political message.  The media is often prepped before the event happens with press releases and background information from a politician's press shop. 

Articles that appear in newspapers with quotes from politicians are often, but not always, similarly scripted.  When a reporter wants a quote from a politician for a story they can either try to physically locate the politician and extract a quote from him or her on the spot.  This sometimes works, but if the issue is controversial or the political figure doesn't know anything about the issue they will usually decline to talk to the reporter.  A surer way to get a quote is to contact the politician's press shop.  The politician's press secretary and other staff will collaborate, along with the politician, to craft a precise quote for the story.  The press secretary may also provide information "on background" which will influence the story's outcome, but won't be cited in the story as a source of information.  Since the press relies on politicians to get quotes and information for their story political figures have a great deal of ability to influence what appears in the press.  For this reason (and there are many other reasons we won't get into here) no press story should be taken at face value.  Even if the story is accurate it has likely been influenced and shaped with the intention of giving the reader a certain impression.

Fundraisers, Round Tables, and Three Square Meals a Day - A huge amount of effort goes on in Washington to raise money and network (which helps raise more money).  Of course, as the old saying goes, money is the mother's milk of politics.  To the extent that politicians raise money to relieve the financial burden on political supporters (like grass roots Tea Party individuals) that's a good thing.  Unfortunately, as we've touched on before, all too often the race to raise money becomes an end unto itself rather than a means to an end.  If a politician isn't careful to only raising money from his allies he can also end up with an additional pressure to be "flexible" on future legislation that big donors support.  So how is all this money raised?

Fundraiser events are specially held events for that purpose.  An invitation list will be created, typically by a professional fundraising firm that gets a commission on all money raised.  The fundraiser may have a theme (save the endangered species, support the widget industry, friends of turnip farmers) and all the donors who come to the event to give money will be associated with this particular cause or industry.  The fundraiser then not only raises money, but also becomes a way to network, befriend the politician who is benefiting, and discuss issues important to the people throwing the fundraiser. 

Other fundraising events are not themed, but merely a gathering of potential donors in large or small settings.  These fundraising events are typically accompanied by expensive meals (if not individually, then collectively, since dozens of people may attend).  Due to the prohibitions against lobbyists purchasing meals for a Member of Congress the Congressman's campaign will almost always pick up the bill for the cost of food and other expenses at the fundraising event.  Of course, since the lobbyists will be giving money to the Congressman's campaign fund, in reality, the lobbyists are picking up the bill anyway.  This is probably one of the clearer examples of why campaign finance reform was a failure, but we won't go into those details here, or why campaign finance reform is almost certainly a violation of First Amendment political speech rights.

Let's talk about professional fundraisers for a moment too.  These firms essentially make their living by matching up donors with politicians who need donations.  They get a flat fee plus a considerable percentage (usually 10%) of the funds they raise.  Networking is their primary function.  This is one of the biggest ways in which new representatives to Washington are able to tap into the establishment quickly and easily.  It is also one of the ways in which weak-hearted politicians are co-opted by the system because they are suddenly confronted by a lot of new donors with political interests to be fulfilled. 

The system also encourages active fundraising.  Members of both parties have "dues" which they are informally expected to pay in fundraising dollars to the national party they're associated with (Republican or Democrat).  The higher ranking the politician is the more money they're expected to raise.  So the Speaker, for example, is expected to raise the most money, then the rest of leadership, then important committee chairmen, then other rank and file members, etc...  Being a good fundraiser makes politicians more powerful and popular with other members of Congress and is probably the number one way to advance in leadership over other members. 

So what is the solution to the problem of money in politics?  It isn't more laws, since those will be worked around or will create serious constitutional concerns.  The solution is for the public to stop being so heavily influenced by name identification and negative advertising.  All campaign money can buy is name identification through heavy advertising and negative attacks on political rivals.  If the public didn't vote overwhelmingly based on these two factors then the advantage of money and incumbency would greatly diminish.  Like most problems in politics today, the solution is a more engaged and informed public!

Just Who is in Charge in Washington?

When talking with people who have no experience or information about the inner workings of Washington D.C. I get the sense that there is a lot of misunderstanding about who is "in charge" of our nation's government.  The answer is complex; mostly it is "no one," but also to a lesser degree it is "everyone."  I shall attempt to explain.

 

Since is an article geared toward politics from a Tea Party perspective we will ignore the judicial component and focus on Congress, the president, and outside special interests.  The president is often considered the "most powerful man in the world."  In reality, the president is much less powerful than many other chief executives in other countries politically.  The perception of the president as the world's most powerful man comes from his role as commander in chief of the world's most powerful military force.  Even in that role, however, Congress plays an important balance in deciding the scope of any American military action.  Let's ignore the military component and focus on politics since that's the purpose of this article.

The president has several tools, both formal and informal, at his disposal to shape the political agenda in Washington.  The president is a highly visible figure and the only politician which is elected nationwide.  This gives him a unique political mandate and a position from which to communicate to the whole nation in a way that no other single politician can.  The president is also typically considered the leader of his party which translates into increased influence in Congress if his party holds the majority there as well.  When Congress acts to support the president, in essence adding its authority to his own, the president is at the peak of his political power.  We most recently saw a president and Congress acting in harmony during the first two years of President Obama's presidency.  The president's party had a large majority in the House of Representatives and a filibuster proof majority in the Senate.  These majorities were large enough that the president was able to pass his signature health care law without a single vote from the opposing Republican party.  Since Congress cannot typically deliver such large majorities, President Obama was an uncommonly powerful president during the early years of his first term in office.  After Republicans gained control over the House of Representatives the president's political power has declined and he has been unable to pass any other signature pieces of legislation.

Additionally, the modern regulatory state has given modern presidents more power than early presidents possessed.  Starting in the early 20th century Congress began erecting large new bureaucracies to regulate society, especially the economy.  These agencies were delegated legislative powers from Congress which are today referred to as rule making authority.  These agencies are a part of the executive branch and accountable to the president.  This means that modern presidents have significant tools to change the law without Congressional input by regulating under authority that Congress has already granted to the executive.  These regulatory powers are most useful to the president when his political party does not control all of Congress and cannot be relied on to deliver favorable legislation through the normal legislative process.

The president also has several checks on his power, both formal and informal.  We'll explore these limitations as we talk about other centers of power in Washington D.C.  

Next let's look at the Speaker of the House.  Today's speakers are much less powerful than even other recent modern speakers and much less powerful than earlier speakers.  The power of the Speaker of the House probably peaked in the first decade of the 20th century under Republican Joe Cannon, who was simultaneously the Chairman of the Rules Committee and who had the power to appoint all other committee chairmen.  This meant that Speaker Cannon controlled all aspects of the legislative process in the House, including what amendments could be offered to bills and what bills would be voted on.  While modern speakers no longer had sole authority to appoint chairmen or direct control over the Rules Committee, they were still very powerful.  Modern speakers had the ability to exert great influence over chairmen positions and to dispense earmarks, or grants of money for special projects in legislation, along with other lesser powers.  Today's speaker retains only the ability to influence the appointment of chairmen due to the House ban on earmarks.  As a result, the speaker cannot deploy many tools to keep discipline in the caucus he leads.  

For example, the speaker may usually control what legislation comes to the floor of the House for a vote.  However, if a majority of members sign a discharge petition they can bring a piece of legislation to the floor of the House for a vote without the legislation being approved by a committee or the speaker.  

The speaker may reassign unruly members from desirable committees to less influential committees.  However, most members view reassignment from choice committees to be inconvenient at best and may not be dissuaded from engaging in the conduct that leadership seeks to discourage.  The speaker cannot reassign very many members, nor can he use this particular tool very often, because he relies on a strong majority of his conference to maintain his own position as speaker.  

The speaker may also try to punish members by using his influence over the National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC) to deny unruly members access to campaign funding assistance.  Again, members that are personally wealthy or who have access to a strong fund raising base which is loyal to them personally will not find this tool particularly threatening.  

As a result, today's speaker is not particularly powerful and lacks any reliable means of keeping his conference in order.  This has made the modern speaker more of a consensus builder and negotiator rather than a strong leader that issues commands.  In order to get anything accomplished the speaker must try to get different factions within his conference to work together to accomplish the party's goals.   

The Senate Majority Leader is somewhat stronger than the Speaker of the House because the majority leader has more power over what legislation is considered by the whole Senate and because the Senate's procedural rules give the majority leader more tools to influence legislation (what amendments are offered, etc).  Of course, Senate rules also empower individual senators to a much greater degree than individual Members of the House of Representatives.  An individual senator can do far more to disrupt and shape the legislative agenda in the Senate, including many informal rules (for example, it has been tradition that if a senator from a judicial nominee's home state objects to the judicial nominee, that nominee will not proceed to confirmation).  

The dynamic between the president, Congressional leadership, the bureaucracy, and individual Members of Congress is further complicated by a plethora of special interests, including lobbyists who contribute significant sums of money to political activities.  It isn't strictly accurate to say that lobbyists purchase votes in Congress or favorable regulation from the president.  However, lobbyists (I will use lobbyists as a short hand for all special interests, including issue advocates, not just economic special interests) do use their money to gain access to the legislative process where the decisions on many critical issues are made.  Lobbyists have access to other resources beyond money, such as information.  They use this information to present a case to legislators to persuade them to pass laws or regulations which are favorable to the lobbyists.  Lobbyists will boil down complicated issues into easy concepts for legislators to understand, especially on complicated or obscure issues where individual Members of Congress are unlikely to be subject matter experts.  By controlling the information that legislators receive lobbyists are able to exert immense influence on how legislation is crafted.  Indeed, lobbyists may create first drafts of legislation to help legislators begin the process of making a new law or rule on an issue.  This process also occurs in the bureaucracy, but with an added layer of lobbyist influence because many bureaucrats were either former members of the industry they regulate or anticipate leaving the bureaucracy to join the industry they regulate.  

While this is a corrupting process, this is not necessarily a criticism of individual legislators or bureaucrats.  These individuals want to do a good job for the American people, but they lack the information they need to make rules on so many different industries and activities.  No person can be an expert on banking, car manufacturing, health care, endangered species, monetary policy, airline travel, deep sea fishing, and the thousands of other activities the government regulates.  Of course, this is why the Tea Party, and others like us, advocate for less government intervention in every part of society.  Central planning will always lack critical information, which makes the central planners (legislators) ripe for capture by industry backed subject matter experts giving them information designed to help established interests.  

So who is in control of Washington?  No one, really, and everyone.  The Congress still reacts to the will of the people, but it also reacts to whoever is shouting loudest at any given moment, including many vested special interests.  Questions?  Comments?  Leave them in the comment section below.