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!