Top 9 reasons Congress is broken

Congress's approval rating is barely at 10 percent, and the venerable institution is filled with such rancor that moderates such as Sen. Olympia Snowe (R) of Maine are fleeing the place. From people who've previously served on the Hill comes this assessment of the top nine problems Congress faces today.

4. More fundraising, more problems

When Tom Downey arrived in Congress in 1974, he had spent $64,000 to get elected, “and like a good Democrat I raised $43,000.” The gap between the two seemed hopelessly large to then-Representative Downey, from New York, and he held two Washington fundraisers over the next year to close out his campaign debt.

Then-Rep. Dan Rostenkowski (D) of Illinois chided him for what was, for the time, an aggressive Washington fundraising schedule.

“‘Two fundraisers? How many are you going to do here?’” Rostenkowski asked, as Mr. Downey tells it. “He said, ‘You need to go home and raise the money where you should be raising it.’ ”

Today, members can handle two fundraisers a day without blinking. A straightforward equation describes how money went from being a huge part of the political process to a massive part, argues historian Zelizer: Rising costs plus campaign-finance reforms limiting donations from single sources equal an explosion of the time members of Congress need to raise money.

Even when members succeed in stocking their campaign war chests, the growth of "super political-action committees" (super PACs), which can spend unlimited sums, means candidates live in fear of a PAC swooping in near Election Day with millions of dollars in advertising “that you have no control over,” Downey says. “This is no way to run elections.” 

The need for greater and greater campaign funds, moreover, may be spilling over into the legislative process.

“Choosing committee and subcommittee chairs in the House is sometimes based more on members’ fundraising abilities than on their expertise or seniority,” Don Wolfensberger, director of the Congress Project at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, testified before a Senate Oversight committee hearing in March. “And then, once they become chairs, they are assessed specified amounts by their campaign committees to contribute to party coffers.” 

Want to climb the leadership ladder on the Hill? Better be ready to raise the big bucks, too – another change in emphasis over past Congresses, Downey says.

“To talk about cultural change would be to so understate the way that money has influenced politics,” Downey says. “In the '70s and the '80s, we selected our leaders because we thought they would be good ones. We didn’t select them to be our leaders in Congress because they were the best fundraisers.”

4 of 9

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.