# How do we get Congressmen to do their jobs instead of peddling influence all the time? **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [January 11, 2013, 10:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-do-we-get-congressmen-to-do-their-jobs-instead-of-peddling-influence-all-the-time/646911 "2013-01-11T22:59:47Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2013, 3:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-do-we-get-congressmen-to-do-their-jobs-instead-of-peddling-influence-all-the-time/646911/61 "2013-01-15T15:19:42Z")
> [@Exapno\_Mapcase](#): > > This recapitulates much of the debate over the First Amendment over the years. Why do some individuals have more capacity? Because that’s how life is, and because any attempts to create an artificial fairness lead to greater abuses. Are people content with this? No, people are never content - until someone tries to regulate their speech and suddenly they’re extremely content with waving the First flag. > > The First Amendment came from experiences with the British government, although all European monarchies were pretty much the same. The concern was never about equality of speech. What they wanted to ensure was that the government couldn’t jail you for speech. (Which made Adams’ Alien and Sedition Laws all the more ironic.) Once they got the government out of speech the rest was a good ol’ American free-for-all. It’s stayed that way ever since. Yes, we defeated those bad old government people and now our right to free speech is protected by our sacred corporations! ---
**Author:** ![Exapno\_Mapcase](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/exapno_mapcase/32/1051_2.png) [@Exapno\_Mapcase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Exapno_Mapcase)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2013, 4:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-do-we-get-congressmen-to-do-their-jobs-instead-of-peddling-influence-all-the-time/646911/62 "2013-01-15T16:31:24Z")
> [@Evil\_Captor](#): > > Yes, we defeated those bad old government people and now our right to free speech is protected by our sacred corporations! And yet you don’t see the irony that you’re able to freely broadcast this opinion around the world on the Internet, an option not given to you by the governments of several countries. ---
**Author:** ![lance\_strongarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@lance\_strongarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lance_strongarm)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2013, 11:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-do-we-get-congressmen-to-do-their-jobs-instead-of-peddling-influence-all-the-time/646911/63 "2013-01-27T23:35:42Z")
> [@foolsguinea](#): > > [Congress is awful because members spend all day talking to rich people.](http://www.salon.com/2013/01/09/congress_is_awful_because_members_spend_all_day_long_talking_to_rich_people/) Five hours a day of schmoozing and begging, every weekday, is a waste of their time, and takes away from doing their duties. The fatal flaw in that article is the assumption that only rich people donate money. Donations are limited to $2,500 per person. Yes, rich people are more likely to give, and give more, but it’s not like they’re all billionaires. Most donors to campaigns are small donors who give alot less. The donation limit forces them to talk to alot more than rich people. Another 3rd or so of their money comes from PACs, many of which are sponsored by organizations that represent everyday people, not rich people, for instance, labor unions or ideological groups or interest groups like AARP. Not rich people. But yeah, they spend too much time raising money. ---
**Author:** ![lance\_strongarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@lance\_strongarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lance_strongarm)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2013, 11:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-do-we-get-congressmen-to-do-their-jobs-instead-of-peddling-influence-all-the-time/646911/64 "2013-01-27T23:39:04Z")
> [@gamerunknown](#): > > What the public is content to consume in the form of media is ultimately up to them - are they content with unrestricted expenditures on advertising? You answer your own question here. The public decides what media to consume, or believe. The public has plenty of access to information about the candidates, beyond TV ads. I don’t think most people are dumb enough to just vote for whoever blows the most ads at them. However, if they are - that’s still their choice. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2013, 12:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-do-we-get-congressmen-to-do-their-jobs-instead-of-peddling-influence-all-the-time/646911/65 "2013-01-28T00:09:16Z")
> [@](#): > > Donations are limited to $2,500 per person. Yes, rich people are more likely to give, and give more, but it’s not like they’re all billionaires. Most donors to campaigns are small donors who give alot less. The donation limit forces them to talk to alot more than rich people. Yes, but… > [@](#): > > Another 3rd or so of their money comes from PACs, many of which are sponsored by organizations that represent everyday people, not rich people, for instance, labor unions or ideological groups or interest groups like AARP. Not rich people. _Many_ of them represent everyday people, but that’s hardly a requirement. You can just as easily have a PAC that represents only one (presumably rich) person, who can then funnel as much money through that PAC as he wants. Which rather defangs that $2,500 limit. ---
**Author:** ![lance\_strongarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@lance\_strongarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lance_strongarm)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2013, 1:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-do-we-get-congressmen-to-do-their-jobs-instead-of-peddling-influence-all-the-time/646911/66 "2013-01-28T01:02:07Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > Yes, but… > _Many_ of them represent everyday people, but that’s hardly a requirement. You can just as easily have a PAC that represents only one (presumably rich) person, who can then funnel as much money through that PAC as he wants. Which rather defangs that $2,500 limit. Nope. An individual may only give up to $5,000 to a PAC. And donations from PACs to campaigns is also limited to $5,000. So no, there is no funneling. FYI - here are all the limits: > **[Help for candidates and committees - FEC.gov](https://www.fec.gov/help-candidates-and-committees/)** > > FEC help for federal candidates, PACs, party committees and separate segregated funds (i.e., corporate/labor/trade PACs), including help with accepting contributions, making disbursements and filing financial reports ---
**Author:** ![foolsguinea](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foolsguinea/32/14751_2.png) [@foolsguinea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/foolsguinea)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2013, 1:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-do-we-get-congressmen-to-do-their-jobs-instead-of-peddling-influence-all-the-time/646911/67 "2013-01-28T01:47:52Z")
> [@lance\_strongarm](#): > > I don’t think most people are dumb enough to just vote for whoever blows the most ads at them. However, if they are - that’s still their choice. I don’t think ignorance and foolishness are choices, exactly. So being “dumb enough” may not be a choice. ---
**Author:** ![gamerunknown](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/6bbea6/32.png) [@gamerunknown](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gamerunknown)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2013, 7:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-do-we-get-congressmen-to-do-their-jobs-instead-of-peddling-influence-all-the-time/646911/68 "2013-01-28T07:50:06Z")
> [@lance\_strongarm](#): > > The public decides what media to consume, or believe. and yet rational choice is severely constrained by cognitive biases and available information, as any marketer would tell you. The public have declared that they do not want unlimited expenditures on electioneering materials. The public also do not want corporations to give money to politicians in order to fund speeches for the politicians. I think free speech can survive either of those onslaughts. ---
**Author:** ![lance\_strongarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@lance\_strongarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lance_strongarm)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2013, 1:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-do-we-get-congressmen-to-do-their-jobs-instead-of-peddling-influence-all-the-time/646911/69 "2013-01-28T13:14:31Z")
> [@foolsguinea](#): > > I don’t think ignorance and foolishness are choices, exactly. So being “dumb enough” may not be a choice. Okay, but the Constitution has already declared that the people are smart enough to be entrusted with democracy. Anyone who says otherwise risks being considered one of the dumb ones. You don’t think you’re dumb, do you? ---
**Author:** ![lance\_strongarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@lance\_strongarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lance_strongarm)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2013, 1:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-do-we-get-congressmen-to-do-their-jobs-instead-of-peddling-influence-all-the-time/646911/70 "2013-01-28T13:15:37Z")
> [@gamerunknown](#): > > and yet rational choice is severely constrained by cognitive biases and available information, as any marketer would tell you. To hell with marketers. > [@](#): > > The public have declared that they do not want unlimited expenditures on electioneering materials. The public also do not want corporations to give money to politicians in order to fund speeches for the politicians. I think free speech can survive either of those onslaughts. To hell with what the public has declared. The Bill of Rights protects us from public opinion too. ---
**Author:** ![Dumbguy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/2bfe46/32.png) [@Dumbguy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dumbguy)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2013, 2:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-do-we-get-congressmen-to-do-their-jobs-instead-of-peddling-influence-all-the-time/646911/71 "2013-01-29T02:23:14Z")
Whenever there’s a campaign finance thread, there will be at least a few posters saying it doesn’t matter because people aren’t dumb enough to vote for someone because a commercial tells them to. If that’s true, doesn’t it mean that a lot of people are spending metric shit-tons of money on advertising that they could be making better use of? If one side or the other is necessarily stupid, I know which side my money is on. ---
**Author:** ![foolsguinea](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foolsguinea/32/14751_2.png) [@foolsguinea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/foolsguinea)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2013, 4:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-do-we-get-congressmen-to-do-their-jobs-instead-of-peddling-influence-all-the-time/646911/72 "2013-01-29T04:10:01Z")
> [@lance\_strongarm](#): > > Okay, but the Constitution has already declared that the people are smart enough to be entrusted with democracy. > > Anyone who says otherwise risks being considered one of the dumb ones. You don’t think you’re dumb, do you? Don’t I? I have a user name which is meant to be read, “fool’s guinea.” I’m quite ignorant of plenty of things, from matrix maths to the history of Guyana. _Of course there are things I don’t understand._ Understanding _that_ is important. I don’t think I’m _perfectly_ smart, certainly. I am at times surprised at how dumb other people appear to be. As for the Constitution declaring that the people are smart enough to be entrusted with democracy, I don’t see how it can support that claim. Given a good public education system, you can hope to educate people to manage a democracy. The Constitution can’t prove whether such an educational régime exists or not; the Constitution is just a framework of law, not a body of current social research. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2013, 6:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-do-we-get-congressmen-to-do-their-jobs-instead-of-peddling-influence-all-the-time/646911/73 "2013-01-29T06:48:11Z")
> [@Exapno\_Mapcase](#): > > And today’s reform movement equivalent is called the Tea Party. It worked well for one election cycle and fairly well for a second, putting in candidates against the wealthy establishment’s wishes. [Well, not exactly.](http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Tea_Party#Astroturf_organisation) To put it mildly. > [@](#): > > **Astroturf organisation** > > Despite claims that it is a “grassroots” organisation, the Tea Party has merely become another patsy for the US’s health care insurance companies to fight healthcare reform. The “Tea Party Caucus” received donations of $2.7 million from the health care sector, which also contributed towards a $25 million “war chest” to be used by the Tea Party to fight the elections.[17][18] > > One insurer has gone as far as to urge employees to attend anti-healthcare Tea Party rallies.[19][20] > > The two main 'Bagger astroturf groups are FreedomWorks headed by Dick Armey and Americans for Prosperity. Both were spun off from the Koch-bankrolled Citizens for a Sound Economy. The Kochs denied any connection to the Tea Parties. A few months after that statement, a video leaked of Teabag state chapter leaders reporting directly to David Koch himself at the Americans for Prosperity mothership.[21] (But they’re grassroots, honest!) > > Sadly, most Tea Party members are too full of righteous indignation and are too stupid to realise they are merely pawns in a gambit by their corporate backers to ensure they retain their profits… at the cost of the very people who are cheering them on. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2013, 6:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-do-we-get-congressmen-to-do-their-jobs-instead-of-peddling-influence-all-the-time/646911/74 "2013-01-29T06:54:14Z")
> [@Skypist](#): > > I don’t know if it’s possible to fix this. Congress critters will always be seeking reelection, which means they will be doing the bidding of whoever finances their campaigns. [There **is** a solution to **that.**](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=653227) ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2013, 6:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-do-we-get-congressmen-to-do-their-jobs-instead-of-peddling-influence-all-the-time/646911/75 "2013-01-29T06:55:26Z")
> [@Evil\_Captor](#): > > Another question: is money speech? No, it is not. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2013, 6:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-do-we-get-congressmen-to-do-their-jobs-instead-of-peddling-influence-all-the-time/646911/76 "2013-01-29T06:57:04Z")
> [@foolsguinea](#): > > I can see a few reasonable lines of attack: > > 1. Repeal McCain-Feingold and its ilk. Let it all go. If someone can raise a few million from a single donor, that’s more efficient than begging from umpteen donors. Will that put Congressmen in rich men’s pockets? Sure. But they are in rich bundlers’ pockets now. Repealing campaign finance laws would mean more flexibility for those who want to compete in different ways and defy the system. > **But this does not address the real problem.** > > 2. Change the social attitudes. Make it shameful to waste the public’s investment in you by spending your time begging for bribes. Make it shameful to bribe. > > 3. Pass laws prohibiting sitting Congressmen from spending too much time soliciting donations. This is where I was trying to go with this thread. And when I posted the OP, I had an idea how to do it, too, but put off saying it in the OP (clearly a mistake). > States with a referendum process could pass laws prohibiting any sitting Congressman from personally soliciting donations until after, say, the June primaries. You presumably have a record, you can run on that. If your friend, your wife, your brother, or your confessor want to raise money for you, fine. If you’re out of office and trying to get in, you can go out and raise money. \*If you’re in office, \*you have a duty to do the work, and should be prohibited from “campaigning” in the form of soliciting or receiving donations personally until a defined election season. We restrict gifts to public officials, we prevent uniformed personnel from campaigning, this is in that vein. > **But this doesn’t make them do their work. It’s still indirect.** > > 4. Mandate that they spend time on their constitutional duties. This is the nitty-gritty. Maybe even make them spend a certain number of hours a week in “study hall” and set up an authority who will watch them like students in detention. If they can’t be trusted to do their work unwatched, watch them all the time, like high school students or assembly-line workers. This would presumably also be accomplished by referendum. > **Maybe this is the best answer.** > > 5. Failing all of the above, maybe some kind of executive _coup d’etat_, dissolving Congress and declaring emergency martial law. If they won’t do the work, they don’t get to keep the position. > **But this would be a revolutionary act, and thus could well backfire.** > [@Exapno\_Mapcase](#): > > This isn’t policy; it’s a tantrum. You got a better idea? ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2013, 7:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-do-we-get-congressmen-to-do-their-jobs-instead-of-peddling-influence-all-the-time/646911/77 "2013-01-29T07:00:56Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > How would that survive a court challenge on 1st amendment grounds? Perhaps by this sort of argument, from [_The Next American Nation,_](http://www.amazon.com/NEXT-AMERICAN-NATION-Nationalism-Revolution/dp/0684825031/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1214163307&sr=8-1) by Michael Lind: > [@](#): > > An outright ban on paid political advertising and the imposition of free time requirements on the media are radical measures, but nothing less is necessary if we are to prevent our government from continuing to be sold to the highest bidders. The argument against strict public regulation of money in politics is based on a false analogy between free spending and free speech protected under the First Amendment. The analogy is false, because limits on campaign finance do not address the content of speech – only its volume, as it were. It is not an infringement on free speech to say that, in a large public auditorium, Douglas will not be allowed to use a microphone unless Lincoln can as well.\* > > \*A much more compelling analogy would be between the electoral process and the judicial system, with the electorate playing the role of the jury. In our system of trial by jury, there are elaborate rules governing the presentation of evidence to the jury by plaintiff and defendant (the “candidates”). If our judicial system were organized the way our judicial system is, then rich candidates would be allowed to buy time before the jury. Texas Senator Phil Gramm, in one Senate election, outspent his opponent by 300 to 1; the equivalent, in the judicial system, would be allowing a rich defendant to buy, say, six months to present his side of the case, while the poor plaintiff might be able to purchase only twenty minutes for his side. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2013, 7:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-do-we-get-congressmen-to-do-their-jobs-instead-of-peddling-influence-all-the-time/646911/78 "2013-01-29T07:08:22Z")
> [@foolsguinea](#): > > How do we get Congressmen to do their jobs instead of peddling influence all the time? > [@marshmallow](#): > > That _is_ their job. Believe it or not, I actually recall a quasi-serious argument to that effect in Heinlein’s _Time Enough for Love._ Lazarus Long says a “business politician” will steal as a matter of course, but that is much better than an idealist who will break his word readily if convinced that is for the good of the “pee-pul.” “All a politician has to sell is his jawbone” anyway. That cynical POV is entirely consistent with the “Individualist Political Culture,” as opposed to the “Moralist” and “Traditionalist” American-regional political cultures, as identified by political scientist [Daniel Elazar.](http://academic.regis.edu/jriley/421elazar.htm) ---
**Author:** ![gamerunknown](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/6bbea6/32.png) [@gamerunknown](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gamerunknown)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2013, 8:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-do-we-get-congressmen-to-do-their-jobs-instead-of-peddling-influence-all-the-time/646911/79 "2013-01-29T08:28:46Z")
> [@lance\_strongarm](#): > > To hell with what the public has declared. > > The Bill of Rights protects us from public opinion too. Ah yes, protection from the levelling spirit of man, the most vital function of the Constitution. Unfortunately, you weren’t paying attention: there are already limitations on direct contributions to candidates from corporations for the purposes of effecting speech from the candidates. There have also been proposals for a constitutional amendment to limit campaign expenditures while preserving the freedom of the press. ---
**Author:** ![lance\_strongarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@lance\_strongarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lance_strongarm)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2013, 2:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-do-we-get-congressmen-to-do-their-jobs-instead-of-peddling-influence-all-the-time/646911/80 "2013-01-29T14:00:46Z")
> [@Skypist](#): > > I don’t know if it’s possible to fix this. Congress critters will always be seeking reelection, which means they will be doing the bidding of whoever finances their campaigns. Well, no, since they must get a majority of votes to get re-elected, they will do the bidding of the voters first. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-do-we-get-congressmen-to-do-their-jobs-instead-of-peddling-influence-all-the-time/646911.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-do-we-get-congressmen-to-do-their-jobs-instead-of-peddling-influence-all-the-time/646911.md?page=5)