Sometimes when there is a great deal
of grumbling about the ineffectiveness of Congress,
Congress is capable of responding to the wishes of
the people and of fashioning effective and coherent national
policies. It also shows, however, how many barriers exist to
this kind of action, particularly the peculiarities of
congressional organization and procedures, and the
substantial influence of interest groups.
Structural Foundations
Constitutional Design
The framers were ambivalent about democracy. Although they
fashioned a constitutional system designed to prevent tyranny
and to protect personal freedom, they placed roadblocks in
the way of popular sovereignty (particularly majority rule)
and political equality. We can see this ambivalence at work
in their design of the legislative branch of government.
The framers divided the legislative branch into two houses or
chambers. Single-house legislative bodies, they believed,
would be prone to rash action. Representation in the House
of Representatives was apportioned on the basis of population
while each state was represented equally in the Senate.
Members of the House would serve for two year terms. Senate
terms were set at six years, with one third of the seats up
for election each election cycle. The Constitution called
for the election of senators, not by the people but by state
legislatures. Again, the objective was to insulate one house
of Congress from popular pressures and to make it a seat of
deliberation and reflection.
The Founders gave the Congress several specific powers.
Those powers specifically listed in the Constitution are
called enumerated powers. A constitutional provision known
as the elastic clause enables Congress to legislate in areas
not mentioned in the Constitution (or imagined by the
framers). This clause gives Congress the power to make all
laws "necessary and proper" for carrying out the enumerated
powers.
Although the framers wanted to create an energetic government
with a strong legislative branch, they also wanted to limit
congressional power. The Constitution prohibits bills of
attainder, ex post facto laws, titles of nobility, and the
suspension of the right of habeas corpus. Subsequently, the framers included several other limitations on the power of
Congress in the Bill of Rights.
The framers created separate legislative, executive, and
judicial branches and gave each a role to play in the
activities of the other branches so as to further guard
against tyranny. For example, the Constitution specifies
that Congress must share its legislative power with both the
president, who must sign congressional bills before they can
become law, and the federal courts, which interpret the meaning of laws. Congress shares executive power by virtue
of its responsibilities for approving or disapproving
presidential nominees and treaties, making the federal
budget, and legislating the organization of the legislative
branch.
History
These constitutional rules remain important in shaping how
Congress is organized and how it operates, but so are other
structural, political, and governmental factors. Initially,
Congress was without committees. Because both the House and
Senate were small bodies, neither needed strong leadership to
manage its business. Each house considered bills, meeting as
a committee of the whole, with all members participating.
Members essentially made up the rules as they went along.
The issues that they dealt with were important, but the flow
of business was manageable, because the federal government
did not play a large role in American life. Though they were
skilled and experienced politicians, few members saw service
in Congress as a lifelong career. Most expected to return to
private life or to politics in their home states.
Over the years Congress changed as the United States grew
from a small agricultural and trading nation on the periphery
of the world to an urban, industrialized superpower. The
most obvious change in Congress has been its growth in size.
Another important change is that the federal government plays
a larger role in American life now than the framers
envisioned. This development is the result of several
structural changes in America, including urbanization,
population growth, industrialization, new forms of business
organization, and the nation's emergence as a superpower.
These changes have generated a wide range of problems and
opportunities that seem to require a vigorous and
interventionist government. The growth of government forced
Congress to take on more responsibilities.
As Congress grew in size and considered ever more complex
issues, it became more institutionalized, that is, it became
more structured, organized, regularized, and rule-bound. Formal ways of doing things replaced informal arrangements.
Legislative business today is done mainly in specialized
committees and subcommittees by subject-matter specialists
and professional staff. Congress has also become more
professional in the sense that its members increasingly think of their jobs as careers.
Another historical trend has been a shift in the center of
national policymaking leadership, from Congress, where the
Founders expected it to reside, to the president. Both
Congress and the American people expect the president to take
the lead in foreign policy and military affairs, making most
of the tough decisions.
Congress plays a more significant role in domestic
policymaking, but here too, presidents have significantly
expanded their influence, assuming responsibility for
fashioning a legislative program for the nation. As
government's role in economic management has become more
important, Congress has gradually deferred to the president's
ability to steer foreign policy and the economy with a single
hand. The shift in power to the executive branch in the U.S.
government, though substantial, is not nearly as great as in
other democratic countries, such as Great Britain and France.
Representation and Democracy
Styles of Representation
Do members of Congress carry out their representative responsibilities in a way that can be considered democratic?
Edmund Burke described two principal styles of representation. As a delegate, the representative tries to mirror perfectly the views of his or her constituents. As a trustee, the representative acts independently, trusting his or her own best judgment of the issues. The choice between these two styles of representation for members of Congress is based probably less on personal tastes than on judgments about the relative safety of their seats.
Members of Congress
A perfectly representative legislative body would have
characteristics similar to the characteristics of the general
population in terms of race, sex, ethnicity, occupation,
religion, age, and the like. In this sense, the U.S.
Congress is unrepresentative.
Congress has long been a bastion of white males and remains
so today. Both women and racial minorities are significantly
underrepresented, especially in the Senate. Members of
Congress are far better educated than the general population.
They tend to come from wealthy families and enjoy incomes
that are substantially above average. Nearly half are
lawyers. Most of the rest come from business or the
professions.
Does it matter that Congress is unrepresentative
demographically of the American people? Some political
scientists and close observers of Congress think not. They
believe that the electoral process forces lawmakers to be
attentive to all significant groups in their constituencies.
In contrast, groups who are not well represented--such as
women, blacks, other racial minorities, and the poor--believe
that their interests would get a better hearing if their
numbers were substantially increased in Congress. The
demographic disparity between the American population and the
makeup of Congress suggests some violation of the norm of
political equality, an important element of democracy.
The Electoral Connection
Each state is entitled to two senators. This gives
extraordinary power in the legislative process to small
states. This arrangement can substantially distort popular
sentiment and, thus, diminish democracy. Republicans took
control of the Senate after the 1980 election, for example,
by winning 22 of 34 Senate elections, even though they won
less than a majority of Senate votes cast nationwide. This
was possible because most of their victories were in small
states.
Representation in the House of Representatives is based on
population. Reapportionment of House seats between the
states occurs every ten years after the national census.
Although congressional districts must be approximately the
same size in terms of population, state legislatures are
still relatively free to draw district lines where they
choose.
The party that controls the state legislature usually tries
to draw district lines in a way that will help it win
elections. The resulting districts are often drawn in odd-
looking ways in order to take full partisan advantage of the
redistricting process. When taken to the extreme, such a
process is called gerrymandering.
Running for the House or the Senate is an expensive
proposition, and it keeps getting more expensive. There is
nothing particularly surprising about the increase in
campaign spending. Inflation plays a part, as well as the
ever greater reliance on expensive campaign technologies, such as direct mail; polling; focus groups; television,
radio, and print advertising; and phone banks. The decline
of party loyalty in the electorate also contributes to
increases in campaign spending as each candidate is now
compelled to try to reach as many voters as possible.
Spending does matter in election campaigns. Though the
candidate who spends the most money does not always win, the
amount of money spent is related to the probability of
winning. Because money matters, candidates spend a great
deal of time and effort making sure that they have enough.
The dollars that support congressional campaigns come from
four main sources: individuals, parties, the candidates, and
PACs. The largest portion comes from individual
contributors--about 55 percent in recent elections. About
one-third of the money for congressional campaigns comes from PACs, with most going to incumbents.
PAC money the fastest growing source of campaign finances.
Many people believe that the increased role of PACs in
congressional campaigns increases the influence of interest
groups in general and business interests in particular.
Corporate, trade, and professional groups together account
for over 60 percent of all PAC expenditures in congressional
races.
The remainder of the campaign money comes primarily from
candidates' contributions out of their own pockets and the
parties, which contribute less than 2 percent of the total.
Incumbents win at higher rates today than in the past and the
number of competitive districts across the nation has
declined. In elections stretching from 1950 to 1988, over 90
percent of House incumbents ran for reelection, and over 90
percent were successful.
In the Senate, lower but still impressive rates of success
for incumbents prevail. The somewhat more competitive nature
of Senate elections may be traced to the transformation of
the South from a one-party, Democratic stronghold to a more
competitive two-party system. Outside the South, incumbent
success in the Senate is close to that in the House.
These high success rates for incumbents may now be changing,
however. Voter discontent with Congress during the 1990
elections resulted in a decline in the average incumbent's
margin of victory. Concern about the incumbency effect has
also sparked a term limitation movement in many states.
Incumbents enjoy several advantages over their potential
rivals. Incumbents easily attract contributions. PACs and
interest groups want access to key decision makers in the
House and the Senate. They look at campaign contributions as
an investment, a way to guarantee that their phone calls will
be answered, that they will be allowed to make their case,
and that their interests will be taken into account. The
flow of money to incumbents is particularly heavy for those
who sit on key committees or hold important leadership posts.
Incumbents not only have more money but also spend more. In
the 1990 congressional elections, Senate incumbents out spent
challengers by a 2 to 1 margin; House incumbents out spent
their challengers by a 3.5 to 1 margin.
Incumbents control the congressional machinery, which they
use to help their reelection chances. Members use the
franking privilege, for example, to advertise their
accomplishments and keep their names before the public. The
House and the Senate also provide travel budgets for
lawmakers so that they can make periodic visits back to their
state or district.
Incumbents use their offices to service their districts
through casework which usually involves helping constituents
deal with the federal bureaucracy. Generous budgets to staff
offices in the home districts or home states help
representatives and senators do casework. Another way in which members of Congress serve their district is to provide
pork, that is, federal dollars in the form of contracts, facilities, and subsidies.
Incumbents enjoy two additional advantages. First,
incumbents are usually stronger candidates than challengers.
That's probably why they were successful in the first place.
Consequently, potentially strong opponents are reluctant to
run. Second, incumbent members of Congress may win
reelection because they are doing a relatively good job
representing their constituents. Research shows that members
of Congress vote in conformity with majority opinion in their
districts about two-thirds of the time.
How Congress Works
Though Congress has lost some of its policymaking authority to the president over the years, it remains a vital center of power in our national government. By all accounts, Congress remains the most powerful legislative body among the Western democratic nations.
The Agenda
Congress's agenda is shaped by the structural, political, and governmental environment in which it works. Federal courts
may rule on the constitutionality of laws passed by Congress,
and, if laws are overturned, that action may spark a
legislative reaction. The president and the executive branch are also important in shaping the legislative agenda. Many
of the bills that are introduced in the House and the Senate
by lawmakers are actually drafted in executive departments
and come to Congress after being cleared by the Office of
Management and Budget.
The congressional agenda is also shaped by the many groups
and individuals that comprise its political environment.
Because of their key role in electoral financing, interest
groups play a particularly important role in defining the
issues before the House and the Senate.
Lawmakers must balance the needs and demands of interest
groups against those of the voters, their constituents, and
the public. The media also shape what issues are attended to
in the legislative branch. Social movements, at times,
impose their own needs. At a more fundamental level,
structural change mobilizes demand for congressional action
from voters, interest groups, and other government officials.
Committees
Most of the work of Congress takes place in committee and
subcommittee. Committees serve as screening devices,
allowing only a small percentage of bills to take up the time
of the entire legislative body. This enables Congress to
process a much larger volume of information. Committees are
islands of specialization, whose members and staff develop
the expertise to handle complex issues and to meet executive branch experts on equal terms. Committees are also useful to
members of Congress who use their committee positions to
generate benefits for their districts or states.
There are several kinds of committees, each of which serves a
special function in the legislative process. A standing
committee is a relatively permanent committee, specified in
House or Senate rules. In most cases, standing committees
are the first stop for House and Senate bills. The ratio of
Democrats to Republicans on committees is set for each house
through a process of negotiation between majority and
minority party leaders. The majority party holds a majority
of members on each committee, controls the chair, and usually
holds an extra-heavy majority on the most important committees.
For most bills, hearings, negotiations, and markup take place
in subcommittees. Moreover, subcommittees play an important
oversight role. The number of subcommittees has multiplied rapidly since the early 1970s when the Democratic party
(which controlled the House) decided to parcel out committee
power and responsibilities to over 150 subcommittees. These
reforms strengthened the subcommittees and led to
substantially decentralized power in the house, giving rise
to what some have called subcommittee government.
Select committees are temporary committees created to conduct
studies or investigations. They exist because there are
sometimes matters that standing committees and subcommittees
cannot handle or do not wish to handle. Joint committees,
with members from both houses, are organized to facilitate the flow of legislation. Finally, conference committees are
supposed to resolve the difference between versions of bills
coming out of the House and the Senate.
Committee assignments are important to members of Congress
because they affect members' reelection chances and their ability to achieve their policy goals. Committee assignments
are largely determined by the political parties, members'
seniority, and members' preferences.
Each party in each chamber goes about the assignment process
in a slightly different way. Most lawmaker settle into a
committee, become specialists in the area of that committee's
jurisdiction, and gradually move up the committee hierarchy as they accumulate years of service. New members of both
houses submit their preferred committee assignments to the
relevant party organizations. For the most part, they get
their way if there are openings.
Not so long ago, committee chairs controlled their committees
without challenge. From 1910, when substantial power was
stripped from the Speaker of the House and distributed to
committee chairs, until the early 1970s, when the Democratic
party reduced the power of chairs, committee chairs could
assign staff, control the budget, create or abolish
subcommittees at will, control the agenda, schedule meetings,
and report (or refuse to report) bills to the floor.
Over the last two decades, power has migrated in both
houses from the chair to the subcommittees, party leaders,
and the house leadership. Nonetheless, committee chairs
remain the most influential and active members of committees.
The principle of seniority generally prevails in the
appointment of committee and subcommittee chairs. For most
of this century prior to the 1970s, appointment by seniority
was an unbreakable rule. Both Republicans and Democrats in
the House instituted the secret ballot among party members
for the election of chairs after 1974, however, and now
seniority is occasionally ignored.
Parties in Congress
The electoral needs of lawmakers and the organization of
Congress into committees and subcommittees radically
fragments and decentralizes the institution. At times,
Congress threatens to fly apart, with each member going his
or her own way. How is it that Congress is able to operate at all? The answer may be found in a number of institutions
that help foster cooperation and coordination. The most
important of these are political parties, congressional leadership, and ideology, though none entirely solves the
problem of fragmentation.
Political parties have a strong presence in Congress.
Members come to Washington, DC as elected candidates of a
political party. At the opening of each session, they
organize their legislative business along political party
lines. At the opening of each new Congress, each party
caucus or conference meets to select party committees and
officers. The majority party in the House selects the Speaker of the House, while the majority party in the Senate
selects the president pro tempore and the Majority Leader.
The majority party in each house also chooses committee and
subcommittee chairs, and decides the party ratios on them.
The Democratic party dominates the modern Congress. It has
been the majority party in the House of Representatives for
all but four years since 1932. In the Senate, the
Republicans have managed to be in the majority for only ten
years since 1932.
Political parties provide some glue for holding together the
decentralized fragments of Congress and for lending coherence to the legislative process. Party labels are important cues
for members of Congress as they decide how to vote. Research shows that party affiliation is the best predictor of the
voting behavior of members of Congress. Moreover, party cohesion is fairly substantial in both chambers.
Although party label is the best predictor of the voting
behavior of members of Congress, party in the U.S. is not
nearly as important as it is in parliamentary systems such as
that of Great Britain. Moreover, it's not entirely clear
whether party voting differences are caused directly by party affiliation or indirectly by the character of constituencies.
Differences in party voting also may be attributed to
ideological differences between the two parties.
Democrats tend to fall on the liberal side of the ideological
spectrum, whereas Republicans tend toward the conservative
side. The importance of ideology in Congress is shown by the
existence of ideological coalitions that cross party lines,
both liberal and conservative.
Moderate Republicans from the Northeast, popularly known as
the Gypsy Moths, are nearly as likely to vote with the
Democrats in Congress as with their fellow Republicans.
Southern Democratic conservatives are more likely to vote
with Republicans than with their own party on major issues. The support of these so-called Boll Weevil Democrats was an
important reason the Reagan legislative program enjoyed such
success in 1981 and 1982.
American parties are weak organizations, virtually without
resources to impose discipline on their legislative
representatives. Members of Congress are essentially independent operators who mount their own campaigns. Their
reelection prospects depend on their own ability to serve their districts and to maintain good relationships with their
constituency. They do not depend on the party. Thus, parties have no power to compel compliance with party positions or to discipline members who stray from the party
line.
Congressional Leadership
Political party leaders are also the leaders of the House and
the Senate. The leader in the House of Representatives is
the Speaker of the House. Until 1910, the Speaker exercised
great power over the House legislative process. The basis of
his power was his right to appoint committees and their chairs, and his position as chair of the Rules Committee. The revolt of the rank and file against Speaker Cannon in
1910 resulted in the Speaker's removal from the Rules
Committee and the elimination of his power to appoint
committees and their chairs. The House Democratic Caucus staged a revolt against the committee system after 1974 and
restored some of the powers of the Speaker.
Responsibility for committee appointments was transferred
from the Ways and Means Committee to the Committee on
Committees, chaired by the Speaker, and the power to appoint
the Democratic members of the powerful Rules Committee was
given to him. Adding these to his other powers--referral of
bills to committee, control of the House agenda, appointment
of select committees, and direction of floor debate--gives
the modern Speaker considerable leadership resources.
The parties also have leaders which are separate from
Congressional leadership positions. When Democrats are in
the majority, the Democratic Caucus selects a Majority Floor
Leader to help the Speaker plan strategy and manage the
legislative business of the House.
In recent years, the Majority Floor Leader position has been
a way station on the road to the speakership. The minority
party elects a Minority Floor Leader. The Minority Floor
Leader is the chief spokesperson and legislative strategist for the opposition. He not only tries to keep his
forces together but also seeks out members of the majority party who might be won over against
the House leadership on key issues.
Leadership in the Senate is less visible because those
individuals with formal leadership titles exercise little
influence. The presiding officer of the Senate is the vice
president of the United States, but he is rarely in evidence
and has no power other than the right to vote to break a tie
should one occur on the Senate floor.
The majority party elects a president pro tempore to
preside in the absence of the vice president. The Senate
Majority Leader is as close as one comes to a leader in that
body, but the powers of the office pale beside those of the
Speaker of the House. The degree of actual influence of the
Majority Leader is based less on formal powers, than on
skills of personal persuasion, the respect enjoyed from
colleagues, visibility in the media as majority party
spokesperson, and role as the center of many of the various
communications networks.
The majority party in the Senate remains a body of
independent, relatively equal members tied together very
loosely by the thin threads of party loyalty, ideology, and
mutual concern for the next election. It is not an
environment conducive to decisive leadership. The Senate
Minority Leader exercises even less power than the Majority
Leader.
Caucuses
Lawmakers use caucuses in an attempt to fashion coherence in
a legislative environment characterized by decentralization
and fragmentation. A caucus is a group formed by lawmakers who share a particular set of policy interests that are not
otherwise recognized in the formal organization of the House
or Senate.
These organizations serve as a basis for the formation of
political coalitions that cross the boundaries between
communities, parties, and even chambers.
Rules
As with all organizations, Congress is guided by both formal
rules and informal norms of behavior. Rules specify
precisely how things should be done and what is not allowed.
Norms are generally accepted expectations about how people
ought to behave and how business ought to proceed. Some norms of behavior are common to both houses of Congress.
Senators and representatives are expected to act with
courtesy and civility toward one other, even if they detest
one other. Senators and representatives are expected to
become specialists in some area or areas of policy and to
defer to the judgment of specialists on most bills. This
mutual deference is known as reciprocity.
Lawmakers are also expected to be willing to compromise and
strike deals. Finally, members of Congress are expected to
respect the reelection motivations of their colleagues and to
be willing to make certain accommodations in the legislative
schedule for such purposes.
Because of its large size, legislative life in the House of
Representatives is much more rule-bound than in the Senate;
it tends to be more organized and hierarchical. The Senate
is a more open and fluid place, and it lodges less power in
its leaders than does the House. Each senator is more of an independent operator than his or her House colleagues. The
Senate is a more relaxed place that accommodates mavericks
and tolerates the foibles of its members.
Differences between the House and the Senate are especially
apparent in floor debate. Bills are scheduled for floor
debate in the Senate, for instance, not by a powerful Rules Committee, but by unanimous consent, meaning that business
can be blocked by a single dissenter.
In contrast to the House, where debate on a bill is strictly
regulated as to amendments and time limit, Senate tradition
allows for an unlimited number of amendments and unlimited debate. Senators in the minority have used this tolerance of
unlimited amendments and debate to block legislation.
Senators can also try to talk a bill to death through a
filibuster. However, when a very strong majority favors a
bill, the Senate can close debate by invoking cloture.
Cloture requires support by three-fifths of those present and
voting. Cloture is seldom tried and rarely succeeds.
Staff
Although most of the media attention during deliberations on
important pieces of legislation goes to prominent lawmakers
in the House and Senate, the actual drafting of final
legislative packages is done by members of the Congressional
staff.
The size and influence of the congressional staff has grown
enormously over the past quarter century. The reasons for
this growth are tied to the interests of each member of
Congress, and to the needs of the institution as a whole.
The staff helps members keep in touch with and serve their constituency and, in general, do their jobs as legislators.
For the institution, staff enables Congress to keep
up with the expertise of the executive branch.
Some scholars, journalists, and lawmakers worry about the
growing influence of staff. Critics believe that lawmakers,
overwhelmed by conflicting commitments, have allowed
unelected committee staff to draft legislation, negotiate on
legislative details, guide questioning at hearings, deal with interest groups, and strike deals with executive branch
officials.
Many observers worry that the proliferation of staff
intermediaries makes real deliberation between lawmakers less
likely. Defenders of the staff system respond that staff
merely do what lawmakers want them to do and that critics
exaggerate the range of discretion practiced by the staff.
How Bills Becomes Law
The path by which a bill becomes a law is so strewn with
obstacles that few survive. Bills can be introduced in
either house with the exception of tax bills (which must
originate in the House). The presiding officer in the Senate
and the Speaker in the House refer a bill to the appropriate
standing committee. In some instances, leaders can exercise
discretion as to committee assignment or even send a bill to
more than one committee. Committee chairs normally pass the
bill on to the appropriate subcommittee for hearings.
Many bills die at this stage, when either the subcommittee or
the full committee declines to consider it further. If the
bill makes it this far, however, the subcommittee will
generally hold hearings on it. The subcommittee may then
forward the bill as rewritten by the staff and subcommittee
members, or it can decide to allow the bill to go no further.
Rewriting the bill is called the markup, which is an intense
period of bargaining and deal making with an eye toward
fashioning a bill that will muster majority support in the
full committee.
The subcommittee then reports its action to the full
committee. The committee chair may choose to hold additional
hearings and markup sessions, decide to kill the bill
outright, or simply accept the action of the subcommittee.
On most bills, the full committee will simply rubber-stamp
the work of the subcommittee and move it along for floor
action.
If a bill is favorably reported from committee, congressional
leaders schedule it for floor debate. In the House, a bill
ordinarily must first go to the Rules Committee for a rule
under whose terms a bill will be considered. A rule specifies the amount of time for debate and the number (if
any) of amendments allowed. Floor debate in the Senate,
where rules do not limit debate, is freewheeling. After
floor debate, the entire membership of the chamber votes on
the bill, either as reported by the committee or (more often)
after amendments have been added.
What happens if the Senate and House pass differing versions
of the same bill? Before going to the president, conflicting
versions of a bill must be rewritten so that a single bill
gains the approval of both houses of Congress. This
compromise bill is fashioned in a conference committee made
up of members from both the House and the Senate. It must be
voted up or down on the floors of the House and the Senate
with no further changes allowed. If, and only if, both
houses approve it, the bill is forwarded to the president for
his consideration.
The president can either sign the bill (making it law),
refuse to sign it and allow it to become law anyway after 10
days, veto it (which Congress may override with a two-thirds
vote), or issue a pocket veto (if he takes no action and
Congress adjourns before ten days pass).
Oversight
Oversight is another important responsibility of Congress. Oversight involves keeping an eye on how the executive branch carries out the provisions of the laws that Congress has passed, and on possible abuses of power by executive officials, including the president. Oversight is primarily the province of the committees and subcommittees of Congress.
Hearings are an important part of the oversight process. The
hearings are designed to send signals from committee members
to the relevant part of the bureaucracy. Congress spends an
increasing amount of its time on oversight. For the most
part, it responds to the complaints and the entreaties of constituents and interest groups.
Ethics
Critics charge that many members of Congress display a lack
of ethics. Although there is no evidence that members of
Congress are any less honest than any other group of
professionals, the number of recent, highly publicized cases
of misconduct has harmed the reputation of the institution.
Many Americans believe that members of Congress enjoy
excessive privileges paid for by taxpayers. Still others
believe that the main ethical problem of Congress is the
close relationship members enjoy with interest groups and
their dependence on those who give them large contributions.
The growing public outcry over these developments has forced Congress to create codes of ethics for its members and to
establish ethics committees in both houses in order to
oversee them.
Congress, Public Policy, and Democracy
Democracy
How does Congress contribute to (or detract from) democracy?
One of the main dramas of congressional life is the struggle
between majority public opinion and interest groups as the engine of the legislative process. The evidence suggests
that when the public is aware of issues and expresses its
opinion, Congress responds to it. This connection between
majority opinion and congressional behavior operates through
a number of mechanisms, including public opinion polls, mail
from constituents, electoral competition, and the party
system.
Although Congress responds to popular preferences to an
impressive degree, it is far from perfect. One out of three
times Congress acts contrary to public opinion. Moreover,
Congress must frequently grapple with issues about which the
public is either unaware or has no opinion. It is here that
interest groups become especially important.
It seems that, when the issues before Congress are technical
and obscure, and public attention is low, Congress is
responsive to narrow, particularistic, and privileged
interests. At such times, lawmakers parcel out government
benefits to the well organized in their districts and states.
This is significantly related to the prominent role played by
interest groups, large contributors, and PACs.
The relationship between Congress and democracy is
complicated. Congress is frequently, but not always, an
effective instrument of democracy. The principles of popular
sovereignty and political equality are especially at risk
when Congress responds to organized and privileged groups rather than to the public.
Policymaking
Critics charge that Congress is so fragmented
that it cannot create coherent national policy. These
critics claim that Congress is filled with members who are
judged by the voters on the basis of their individual
attributes and service to the district and to interest
groups, not on the basis of the performance of Congress as a
whole.
They say that because lawmakers respond to organized
interests, serve their constituency as their first order of
business, and try to avoid difficult decisions that might put
their reelection at risk, Congress cannot easily tackle the
nation's most difficult problems or think about solutions in general terms. Congress would rather practice distributive
politics, in which benefits are parceled out to a wide range
of constituency and interest group claimants. Although this approach conforms to the self-interested electoral
calculations of the individual member, it is, according to
many observers, the basis for the overall ineffectiveness and
decline of Congress as an institution relative to the
presidency.