Ask the Scholar
Document scope · 1 page
Scholar
Ask about this object, its catalog metadata, its source description, or the page inventory.
For page-specific OCR and visual context, open one of the page chats.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
415892605
label
[Congress-Reform, 1991]
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
415892605
contentType
document
title
[Congress-Reform, 1991]
citationUrl
identifierLocal
13893-004
collections
Records of the White House Office of Speechwriting (George H. W. Bush Administration)
Tony Snow Subject Files
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
415892605
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
357eb498a5837b6e
ocrText
Originally Processed With FOIA(s):
foia Number:
S
FOIA
MARKER
This is not a textual record. This is used as an
administrative marker by the George Bush Presidential
Library Staff.
Record Group/Collection:
George H.W. Bush Presidential Records
Collection/Office of Origin:
Speechwriting, White House Office of
Series:
Snow, Tony, Files
Subseries:
Subject File, 1988-1993
OA/ID Number:
13893
Folder ID Number:
13893-004
Folder Title:
[Congress-Reform, 1991]
Stack:
Row:
Section:
Shelf:
Position:
G
18
29
2
1
Withdrawal/Redaction Sheet
(George Bush Library)
Document No.
Subject/Title of Document
Date
Restriction
Class.
and Type
01a. Memo
Charles E. M. Kolb to Andy Card, Re: Mike Horowitz memo/
10/18/91
Congressional reform. (1 pp.)
Collection:
Record Group:
Bush Presidential Records
Office:
Speechwriting, White House Office of
Series:
Snow, Robert Anthony (Tony)
Subseries:
Subject File
Open on Expiration of PRA
WHORM Cat.:
(Document Follows)
File Location:
[Congress / Reform] [1991]
By CAP (NLGB) on 4/5/05
Date Closed:
12/22/2004
OA/ID Number:
13893-004
FOIA/SYS Case #:
S
Appeal Case #:
Re-review Case #:
2005-0485-S
Appeal Disposition:
P-2/P-5 Review Case #:
Disposition Date:
AR Case #:
MR Case #:
AR Disposition:
MR Disposition:
AR Disposition Date:
MR Disposition Date:
RESTRICTION CODES
Presidential Records Act - [44 U.S.C. 2204(a)]
Freedom of Information Act - [5 U.S.C. 552(b)]
P-1 National Security Classified Information [(a)(1) of the PRA]
(b)(1) National security classified information [(b)(1) of the FOIA]
P-2 Relating to the appointment to Federal office [(a)(2) of the PRA]
(b)(2) Release would disclose internal personnel rules and practices of an
P-3 Release would violate a Federal statute [(a)(3) of the PRA]
agency [(b)(2) of the FOIA]
P-4 Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential commercial or
(b)(3) Release would violate a Federal statute [(b)(3) of the FOIA]
financial information [(a)(4) of the PRA]
(b)(4) Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential or financial
P-5 Release would disclose confidential advice between the President
information [(b)(4) of the FOIA]
and his advisors, or between such advisors [a)(5) of the PRA]
(b)(6) Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of
P-6 Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of
personal privacy [(b)(6) of the FOIA]
personal privacy [(a)(6) of the PRA]
(b)(7) Release would disclose information compiled for law enforcement
purposes [(b)(7) of the FOIA]
C. Closed in accordance with restrictions contained in donor's deed of
(b)(8) Release would disclose information concerning the regulation of
gift.
financial institutions [(b)(8) of the FOIA]
(b)(9) Release would disclose geological or geophysical information
PRM. Removed as a personal record misfile.
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
Congress Reform)
October 18, 1991
TO:
Andy Card
FROM: CHARLES E. M. KOLB
Deputy Assistant to the President
for Domestic Policy
It,
Amy
10/22/9,
Action
Draft Response
FYI
741
Let's Talk
I sent the attached materials around last
year since I thought Mike Horowitz's
suggestions were helpful.
Given recent events, they bear reading again.
Mike asked me to pass this along to you. One
obvious approach to this issue could be
bashing the Congress. Another, more
positive, theme is reinvigorating
participatory democracy at home. The point
here is to stress how unresponsive Congress
has been to the popular will and to make this
case by citing several examples of Congress's
inability to get its work done cooperatively
with the Executive Branch.
Attachment
Withdrawal/Redaction Sheet
(George Bush Library)
Document No.
Subject/Title of Document
Date
Restriction
Class.
and Type
01b. Memo
Charles E. M. Kolb to Roger Porter, et al., Re: Congress. (1
11/27/90
P-S
pp.)
Collection:
Record Group:
Bush Presidential Records
Office:
Speechwriting, White House Office of
Open on Expiration of PRA
Series:
Snow, Robert Anthony (Tony)
(Document Follows)
Subseries:
Subject File
By CAP
(NLGB) on 4/5/05
WHORM Cat.:
File Location:
[Congress / Reform] [1991]
Date Closed:
12/22/2004
OA/ID Number:
13893-004
FOIA/SYS Case #:
S
Appeal Case #:
Re-review Case #:
2005-0485-S
Appeal Disposition:
P-2/P-5 Review Case #:
Disposition Date:
AR Case #:
MR Case #:
AR Disposition:
MR Disposition:
AR Disposition Date:
MR Disposition Date:
RESTRICTION CODES
Presidential Records Act - [44 U.S.C. 2204(a)]
Freedom of Information Act - [5 U.S.C. 552(b)]
P-1 National Security Classified Information [(a)(1) of the PRA]
(b)(1) National security classified information [(b)(1) of the FOIA]
P-2 Relating to the appointment to Federal office [(a)(2) of the PRA]
(b)(2) Release would disclose internal personnel rules and practices of an
P-3 Release would violate a Federal statute [(a)(3) of the PRA]
agency [(b)(2) of the FOIA]
P-4 Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential commercial or
(b)(3) Release would violate a Federal statute [(b)(3) of the FOIA]
financial information [(a)(4) of the PRA]
(b)(4) Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential or financial
P-5 Release would disclose confidential advice between the President
information [(b)(4) of the FOIA]
and his advisors, or between such advisors [a)(5) of the PRA]
(b)(6) Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of
P-6 Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of
personal privacy [(b)(6) of the FOIA]
personal privacy [(a)(6) of the PRA]
(b)(7) Release would disclose information compiled for law enforcement
purposes [(b)(7) of the FOIA]
C. Closed in accordance with restrictions contained in donor's deed of
(b)(8) Release would disclose information concerning the regulation of
gift.
financial institutions [(b)(8) of the FOIA]
(b)(9) Release would disclose geological or geophysical information
PRM. Removed as a personal record misfile.
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
November 27, 1990
MEMORANDUM FOR ROGER PORTER
C. BOYDEN GRAY
EDE HOLIDAY
JIM PINKERTON
BILL KRISTOL
RICHARD PORTER
JOHN SCHMITZ
FROM:
CHARLES E.M. KOLB
CEMK
SUBJECT:
Congress
Mike Horowitz shared with me the attached memorandum on "the
tenured Congress" which he prepared for the 1988 campaign. I
am sure you will enjoy it.
There's something for everyone here: the Truman strategy
appears on page 2, and you'll find a proposal for an Omnibus
Single Standard Bill (treating the Congress the way it treats
the rest of us) on page 21. My favorite factoid appears on
page 6: in 1986, Congress sent out more than 12,000 pieces of
mail for every incoming piece.
I hope these tidbits will tempt you to read the entire
memorandum. If there is a critical mass of interest in
pursuing some of these ideas, I recommend that we convene a
small discussion group in the near future.
Attachment
Withdrawal/Redaction Sheet
(George Bush Library)
Document No.
Subject/Title of Document
Date
Restriction
Class.
and Type
01c. Memo
Mike Horowitz to The [1988] Campaign, Re: The Tenured
n.d.
Congress: An Issue for the Campaign.' (23 pp.)
Collection:
Record Group:
Bush Presidential Records
Office:
Speechwriting, White House Office of
Series:
Snow, Robert Anthony (Tony)
Subseries:
Subject File
WHORM Cat.:
Open on Expiration of PRA
File Location:
[Congress / Reform] [1991]
(Document Follows)
By
CAP
(NLGB) on 4/5/05
Date Closed:
12/22/2004
OA/ID Number:
13893-004
FOIA/SYS Case #:
S
Appeal Case #:
Re-review Case #:
2005-0485-S
Appeal Disposition:
P-2/P-5 Review Case #:
Disposition Date:
AR Case #:
MR Case #:
AR Disposition:
MR Disposition:
AR Disposition Date:
MR Disposition Date:
RESTRICTION CODES
Presidential Records Act - [44 U.S.C. 2204(a)]
Freedom of Information Act - [5 U.S.C. 552(b)]
P-1 National Security Classified Information [(a)(1) of the PRA]
(b)(1) National security classified information [(b)(1) of the FOIA]
P-2 Relating to the appointment to Federal office [(a)(2) of the PRA]
(b)(2) Release would. disclose internal personnel rules and practices of an
P-3 Release would violate a Federal statute [(a)(3) of the PRA]
agency [(b)(2) of the FOIA]
P-4 Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential commercial or
(b)(3) Release would violate a Federal statute [(b)(3) of the FOIA]
financial information [(a)(4) of the PRA]
(b)(4) Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential or financial
P-5 Release would disclose confidential advice between the President
information [(b)(4) of the FOIA]
and his advisors, or between such advisors [a)(5) of the PRA]
(b)(6) Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of
P-6 Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of
personal privacy [(b)(6) of the FOIA]
personal privacy [(a)(6) of the PRA]
(b)(7) Release would disclose information compiled for law enforcement
purposes [(b)(7) of the FOIA]
C. Closed in accordance with restrictions contained in donor's deed of
(b)(8) Release would disclose information concerning the regulation of
gift.
financial institutions [(b)(8) of the FOIA]
(b)(9) Release would disclose geological or geophysical information
PRM. Removed as a personal record misfile
MEMORANDUM
TO:
The Campaign
FROM:
Michael Horowitz MH
SUBJECT:
The Tenured Congress: An Issue for the Campaign
I.
Introduction
Congressional encroachment on the powers of the Presidency,
and the price the country pays for the excesses and inefficiencies
of Congress, was an issue which the Vice President effectively
raised during the primaries.
Campaigning as he properly does as the candidate with broad.
experience in the federal government, I believe that the Vice
President should soon deliver a thoughtful, summing-up speech on
the problems of our gridlocked system. The speech and any
campaign follow-up should focus on the failings of Congress, and
those of the House in particular, rather than dwelling on the
absence of a variety of presidential powers. It should move to
analyses of root causes and proposed solutions that go beyond
Congress-bashing. It should (and can) answer the question: If
the Vice President has so much experience with and knows so much
about the federal government and the presidency, what will he do
as President to make the system work?
Properly done, the issue should work well for the Vice
President in the Presidential campaign:
It allows the Vice President to stress his broad
experience in Congress and the Executive Branch, in
contrast to the lack of any federal experience on
Governor Dukakis' part.
It is an issue which scholars and the media know to be
critical and legitimate; a thoughtful approach by the
Vice President will be treated respectfully by many who
now doubt his substantive qualities.
It can help shift the campaign focus to the performance
of Congress and the House in particular -- a popular
issue with roots in the Truman campaign and the views
of John Kennedy. Moreover, properly put, the issue
fits in well with the Vice President's attacks on Jim
Wright.
Raising the issue ups the ante on a Dukakis vote;
focusing attention on the character and performance of-
the Democratic Congress sharpens the question of
whether the Democratic Party can be trusted with full
political control of the system.
Raising the issue anticipates and can make naive any
Dukakis charge that "cooperation" with Congress is the
key to a more functional government, and that only a
Democratic President can do SO. (If the ground is
properly laid, such a charge will underscore the
Carter-Dukakis parallel; Carter, who knew as little of
Congress as Dukakis does, made the same set of charges
against Ford and even accused him of an "obvious lack
of leadership" for his extensive use of vetoes. By the
end of Carter's term, his sensible White House Counsel
Lloyd Cutler had been so affected by Congressional
intrusions on the Presidency as to lead a national
campaign to replace the Constitution with an Executive
Branch-led parliamentary system).
Finally, the issue is one which the Vice President
knows well and cares deeply about; he views it,
properly, as an exercise in mandate-building essential
to a successful next Administration.
- 2 -
II. The Broad Objective.
I believe it critical for the Vice President to now move
beyond the mere stump speech calls for a line item veto and to
issue more than mere demands that Congress stop itself before it
shoots again. Likewise, he will need to avoid the trap of
legalism -- to make clear that only Presidential leadership in
dealings with Congress, and not even the most striking separation
of powers decisions of the courts can break the gridlock that has
paralyzed the government and hurt the country. Having resisted
repeated calls to support a test case in search of a phantom line
item veto power in the present Constitution -- the Vice President
knows that gimmicks and technical fixes are no substitute for real
leadership and political will.
In the end, the Vice President risks not being taken
seriously if he calls on others to supply leadership that should
come from him, or if he campaigns for wish lists of things which
have no chance of happening.
III. The Basic Theme.
A recent column of David Broder's made the key point
clearly: Today's House incumbents enjoy "something like a
lifetime guaranteed contract," he wrote, which makes "[t]he part
of the federal government which the Founders intended to be most
sensitive to shifts in the political climate
...
the most immune
- 3 -
to change." The effect, wrote Broder, was to "take the House of
Representatives out of competitive politics." He could have added
that the House has been under one party control for 34 years by
reason of the problem, and that the Senate only seems better by
contrast. That analysis, which has increasingly been made in the
national press -- although without any serious proposals for
change -- indicates a basic diagnosis of the system's failings
which the Vice President can address:
Congress in general and the House in particular are now
largely insulated from voter preferences and the
democratic process.
As voter influence over Congress shrinks, it is
increasingly dominated by special interest groups
inside of Washington, by organized groups within the
Democratic Party and by the Party's Congressional
caucus politics.
Congressional staffs are near-tenured, hold
unaccountable, undemocratic powers and have mushroomed
in size over the past twenty years.
These are the systemic problems which the Vice President
should address, and he should be seen as a reformist proponent of
restoring voter influence and democratic choice to the political
process -- particularly insofar as the self-designated "People's
House," the House of Representatives, is concerned. This is a
message far removed and far more powerful than mere calls for a
line item veto, even though it nonetheless targets the same source
of the system's problems -- an adversarial, micromanaging and,
ultimately, undemocratic Congress.
- 4 -
IV. The Failings of Congress and Proposals for Reform.
That Broder is right about the stacked deck election process
grossly favoring incumbents is beyond dispute:
The House incumbent reelection rate in the 1986
elections was 98% -- the highest in American history.
Not since the (Watergate) elections of 1974 has the
incumbent reelection rate fallen below 90%.
In 1964, 4 in 10 House incumbents had reelection
margins below 60%; only 1 in 10 had lesser margins in
the last election.
A recent Stanford University study concluded that:
:
House incumbents are only half as vulnerable to
party tides as were their predecessors in the
50's. (In 1984, President Reagan won majorities
in 370 House districts while Republicans won only
177.)
--
But for post-1964 incumbency advantages,
Republican control of the House would have
occurred in 1966, 1968, 1972, 1980 and 1984
elections.
--
Without reform, Democratic control of the House
will continue without the simultaneous occurrence
of a number of near-impossible conditions.
I believe that the Vice President can point to three basic
causes of the above condition. As to each, a serious reform can
and should be offered.
These critical elements have served to make voters in
Congressional elections increasingly impotent and irrelevant:
- 5 -
--
the Congressional staff and mail explosion;
-- gerrymandering; and
-- campaign finance "reforms."
Each should be addressed, with specific action proposals for
change.
A. The Staff and Mail Explosions.
The facts are stunning:
House and Senate Members are now served by 20,000
personal, committee and administrative staffers --
three times the level of 1970. (The figure can be
doubled if legislative agencies such as CBO and GAO are
included.)
Congress sent out 759 million pieces of mail at
taxpayer expense in 1986, a 1700% increase over the
past thirty years. At the same time, Congressional
mail is self-generated; in 1986 Congress sent out more
than 12,000 pieces of mail for every incoming piece.
The staff explosion has had the most serious effect on the
operation of government. In particular, it has facilitated the
parallel growth of Congressional committees and subcommittees and
the consequent micromanagement of the Executive Branch. Likewise,
it has facilitated the existence of subcommittee fiefdoms on the
part of most senior House Democrats and nearly all Democratic
Senators -- all to the detriment of their historic legislative
roles.
The Vice President has spoken of these matters and should
continue to do SO. But more to the point of the proposed basic
theme, the Vice President needs to make clear that it has been
- 6 -
Congress' desire to create year-round, taxpayer financed
campaigns and campaign staffs that has led to the recent staff and
mail explosions.
Thus, for example, 44% of House staffers work in their
Members' home districts and more than 75% of Congressional mass
mailings take the form of unsolicited "newsletters" and other
forms of what is essentially campaign literature. (While the
Senate in 1985 required the publication of Member mail costs, the
House has refused to take even that minimal step.)
The explosive growth of Congressional budgets has of course
taken place pursuant to Presidential approval of those budgets.
To date, however, no President has seriously examined the
Legislative Branch Appropriations Act and none has played a role
in its formulation -- all because of an alleged policy of "comity"
with Congress. All Legislative Branch Appropriation Acts have
routinely been signed by the President at whatever spending levels
Congress has unilaterally chosen for itself.
The "comity" policy, rooted in concepts of separation of
powers, has long become entirely one-sided and a bad bargain for
the Presidency. Congress routinely determines the size of the
White House staffs, routinely establishes reporting relations
within the Executive Branch and, to the near-penny, sets
appropriations levels for all parts of the Executive Branch. On
the other hand, the President -- an equal party to Congress under
- 7 -
the Constitution in the enactment of appropriations levels and
laws -- has literally ceded of all his policy discretion and
Constitutional authority insofar as Congressional appropriations
are concerned.
Two examples indicate the extreme lengths of Presidential
acquiescence in vesting Congress with the sole authority to fix
its own budgets.
--
By statute, clearly unconstitutional yet wholly
observed to date, the President's budget is
required to "include without change" the
proposed Congressional budget submitted to him by
the Congressional leadership. (To continue the
charade, Congress then cuts "the President's
budget" for itself, and credits itself with having
generated the "savings.")
-- Despite its more than 150 examiners who routinely
review and propose budgets for the smallest of
federal agencies and entities, OMB does not assign
a single examiner to the $2 billion plus
Congressional budget.
A PROPOSAL
Writing recently in the Washington Post about the problems
created by massive Congressional staffs, a former staff aide to
Senator Dole proposed a 50% staff reduction. He wrote:
"This would still leave staffing levels higher than they
were little more than a decade ago. Is it possible that
Congress cannot be adequately sereved by a "core" staff of
20,000 -- an average of 20 staff members for each
representative?
The idea of the 1970s that more staff was needed to
revitalize Congress had the ring of logic, but realities
today belie its promise. For all its resources, Congress
- 8 -
can't pass appropriation bills in a normal and timely
manner. Its answers to the trade and budget crises are
belated, inadequate and sometimes counterproductive. The
tradition of bipartisan foreign policy has been lost in
petty squabbling. How could fewer staff do worse?"
The Vice President should endorse the proposal, and call as
well for limitations on mail franking privileges. He should
announce that the OMB Director in a Bush Administration will be
directed to prepare and analyze legislative branch budgets, and
that while he expects to work with Congress, it should be aware
that its budgets will no longer be immune from vetoes when they
permit excessive spending.
The Vice President should acknowledge that such a step --
which would be of major dimensions -- would be resisted in a
variety of ways by the Congressional leadership. It would be
attacked as historically intrusive and is likely to cause serious
efforts at reprisal budget cuts in areas critical to the
Administration. As would be the case were a line item veto in
effect, the Vice President can also expect that the Legislative
Branch Act would be packaged with other appropriations of major
importance so as to make it more "veto-proof."
No battle involving a major reallocation of authority
between the branches can be expected to come easy. But the Vice
President should note that the battle is one which a determined
President can win. For starters, it would be fought over issues
of legislative waste and budget bloat, where Congress would be in
- 9 -
the unfamiliar position of defending its excesses. And, popular,
informed and editorial opinion are already to the effect that such
excesses are abundant. In addition, the Vice President will also
be speaking in the name of fair democratic process, making clear
that large Congressional staffs and budgets do not serve
constituencies so much as they make them irrelevant to election
outcomes. (Here again, he will have much informed and editorial
support.) Finally, the Vice President will not need
super-majorities to prevail, as in the case of adding a line item
amendment, or even majorities of both Houses as is needed to enact
legislation. For this battle, only one-third plus one of either
the House or Senate will do.
Moreover, such veto strength support can, with proper
leadership, be obtained. Republicans, who particularly in the
House are regularly jobbed on staff allocations and budgets, and
who are comfortable running against Congress, should be a natural
constituency in support of legislative budget reform --
particularly if they are lined up to do so by the Vice President
during the campaign. (Republican dissatisfaction with the status
quo can be understood from such facts as these: With 41% of House
committee seats, House Republicans are allocated but 22% of
committee staff.)
As a final note, it should be understood that the Anti-
Deficiency Act requires Congress to furlough its non-essential
- 10 -
staff during any appropriations hiatus. This will pose for
Congress the unattractive choice of either keeping all staff in
place and engaging in lawless (literally felonious) conduct in
derogation of a clear statutory mandate, or creating the spectacle
of so vast a number of furloughed staff streaming from their
offices as to make the case that large budget cuts for Congress
are clearly in order.
B. Gerrymanders.
A second area in critical need of leadership and reform
results from the fact that a decade's worth of Congressional
districts will be drawn during the next President's watch. There
is widespread understanding of the fact that gerrymandering is
rife and an extraordinary assault on the democratic process such
as to largely predetermine the outcomes of elections. Less well
known is the fact that minority party incumbents often support
gerrymanders, under deals which exchange the creation of safe
seats for permanent minority status for their parties.
The effect of gerrymanders on the Republican Party is
profound.
Since 1972, Democratic candidates for the House have
enjoyed a consistent "seat bonus" (difference between
the percentage of seats and votes won) ranging from no
less than 4.1 to as many as 10.9 percentage points.
- 11 -
O
In California alone, the Democrats have gained 5 seats
as a result of a blatant gerrymander engineered by
Congressman Phil Burton in 1981; the problem is so bad
that Governor Deukmajian asked to be withdrawn from
consideration as a Vice Presidential candidate in order
to be in a position to thwart a repeat performance in
1991.
Gerrymandering has been attacked in the courts, most
recently in a case brought by Indiana Democrats before the Supreme
Court challenging gerrymanders of the dominant Indiana Republican
Party. The Court made important law in the case; although many
gaps remain to be filled. Remarkably, the Justice Department
failed to file a brief in the case, largely out of its
philosophical distaste for active involvement by the courts in
what the Department termed "political questions. "
A PROPOSAL
The Vice President should announce that a Bush
Administration will aggresively attack post-census gerrymanders,
irrespective of which party is advantaged. He should make clear
his intent to use the bully pulpit powers of the presidency to
take on gerrymanders, and that he sharply disagrees with Attorney
General Meese and will instruct his Attorney General to attack in
the courts all gerrymanders that bring undue political advantage
to controlling state parties. He should make clear his view that
when legislatures use their powers to entrench themselves in
office, and do so in a way that makes voter choice impossible,
- 12 -
that courts are essential to the vindication of voter rights and
the democratic process. Thus, he should applaud the Baker V. Carr
"one man, one vote" decision, but express the view that without a
comparable assault on gerrymanders, the courts will have created a
mirror-opposite loophole.
The Vice President should challenge Governor Dukakis to
pledge that he too will use his Justice Department to bring court
challenges against gerrymanders and other forms of unfair
districting, one and all, without regard to party or incumbent
advantage. In fact, the challenge should hit the mark: In 1987,
Governor Dukakis signed a redistricting bill which, in order to
preserve all incumbent seats in the heavily Democratic
Massachusetts House of Representatives, carved up black
communities into large numbers of districts and permitted
21.9%
population variances between districts of as much as 10%. The
redistricting bill -- as blatant a scheme as has recently been
attempted to protect incumbents at the expense of voter choice --
was struck down last year as unconstitutional by the Federal
courts.
C. Campaign Finance "Reforms."
There can be little doubt that campaign finance "reforms" of
the past decade have had the perverse effect of making elections
increasingly one-sided affairs which favor incumbents:
- 13 -
As recently as 1974, a rough parity existed between
resources for challengers and incumbents in
Congressional elections; by 1986, the resource gap was
almost 3 to 1 in incumbents' favor: $334,000 for the
average House incumbent, $124,000 for the average
challenger.
The gap is rapidly growing: in the first 15 months of
the election cycle though March 31, the Federal
Election Commission reported that House incumbents
raised more than $75 million while their challengers
collected only $10 million.
The money advantage, of course, comes largely from the
PAC system; the FEC report on giving by the 4500
registered PAC's not only shows a 34% increase in funds
provided by PAC's between the 1986 and 1988 campaigns,
but further reveals that an astonishing 78% of PAC
funds for Senate candidates and 93% of PAC funds for
House candidates went to incumbents. (Not
surprisingly, no challenger placed within the top 50
PAC donees.)
There is no easy route to campaign finance reforms, no
certain way to reduce incumbency advantages in such a manner as to
guarantee fair elections. Public financing of Congressional
campaigns is a concept almost always associated with companion
spending caps, which translate into even greater incumbency
advantages. To the credit of Republican Congressional incumbents,
their efforts defeated a 1988 Democratic "reform" bill whose
provisions would have strongly protected them against their
campaign opponents. Viewing the bill -- passed by the House and
only defeated in the Senate pursuant to filibuster -- against the
background of the prior, 1986 election, Senator McConnell's
analysis was telling:
- 14 -
of the 1986 Senate challengers, 18 of the 20 who spent
within the limits of the 1988 "reform" bill lost.
All 10 of the 1986 Senate incumbents who spent within
the limits of the bill won.
On the other hand, 5 of the 8 challengers who spent
above the limits of the bill won.
In general, Republicans have tended to oppose all forms of
public financing of campaigns, with or without spending caps, and
have also tended to oppose mandatory government regulation of the
election process. As indicated, Democrats have largely favored
public financing of Congressional campaigns combined with
extensive regulation of the process, most particularly including
spending caps. Both parties have tended to stay away from efforts
to modify the structure and basic nature of PAC's.
A PROPOSAL
The Vice President should call for a major reform package
designed to significantly even the odds between incumbents and
challengers. It should consist of real PAC reform and of public
financing of Congressional candidates, but without any spending
caps. An optional feature of the reform package would require
television and radio stations, as a condition of licensure, to
provide reasonable, free access to Congressional candidates.
As to PAC reform, the Vice President should first indicate
his general distaste for the effect that PAC's have had on the
- 15 -
political process. He should then make clear his particular
concern about the "soft money" loophole which allows corporations
and unions to use their own funds, without any limitation, to
establish and administer PAC operations. Barring the use of
corporate and union funds for such purposes would have a major
effect in reducing the number of PAC's and, even though the net
effect would fall disproportionately on corporate political
activity, its overall effect would be salutary. (Most corporate
PAC money goes to incumbents.) To ensure that high pressure "hat
passing" activities on the part of corporations soliciting their
executives would not unfairly take up the slack, the Vice
President should also call for a strengthened enforcement against
now almost moribund bans on coercive fund solicitations.
In addition, and as a critical element in the reduction of
presently unfair and destructive incumbency advantages, the Vice
President should call for public financing of Congressional
nominees from the two parties whose candidates won the most votes
for the position in question in the prior election. Such support,
which would not carry with it a corresponding obligation to limit
overall spending, would ensure that challengers would have some
opportunity -- when there often is now none -- to present their
case to the voters. Political speech, the Vice President should
say, is a virtue in and of itself. As such, it merits support to
ensure that incumbents are not free, as they often and
- 16 -
increasingly now are, to wholly drown out the voices of their
challengers.
In this regard, the Vice President might also wish to
consider -- or to indicate his interest in having studied -- the
possibility of providing free access to licensed media for
Congressional candidates. This is a controversial policy whose
merits are not entirely certain, and it is one whose mechanics of
implementation may ultimately be problematic. But it is the cost
of television and radio that today most places challengers without
great personal wealth at their greatest competitive disadvantage
-- one that indeed discourages many of the ablest potential
challengers from even running for office.
In the end, whether the federal contribution is large enough
to pay for reasonable media access or whether a smaller federal
contribution is combined with a limited right of free access to
licensed media, the Vice President should make clear that the
paramount need for competitive elections compels bold policy
action.
The above positions would be regarded as striking, and would
be generally well received by commentators if not the media who
employ them. The proposal would further serve to position the
Vice President as a reformist opponent of the Congressional status
quo and would further serve to focus attention on the political
"fix" enjoyed by the Democratic Congress.
- 17 -
V. The Arrogance of Power.
Making voters increasingly irrelevant to election
outcomes is an evil in and of itself, but the Vice President
should conclude by describing ways in which the tenuring of
incumbents (and the one party control it has allowed the House to
maintain for 34 consecutive years) has caused the legislative
process itself to become arbitrary and undemocratic.
A. The Rise of King Caucus.
At the turn of the century, (Republican) Speaker "Uncle Joe"
Cannon was the autocratic ruler of the House. Only bills which he
and his leadership cronies favored ever reached the floor for
vote, and Members who failed to do his bidding were relegated to
inconsequential status. The hold of Speaker Cannon on the
country's political process was only broken when in 1910
Congressman George Norris brought national attention to the
problem and ended "Cannonism" through a series of key
parliamentary divices. Writing of that historic battle in
"Profiles in Courage," John Kennedy described the scene in terms
strikingly applicable to today's Wright-run House:
"The overthrow of Cannonism broke the stanglehold which the
conservative Republican leaders had held over the Government
and the nation Under the 'Czar' the Office of the
Speaker of the House wielded
...
a power that placed party
above all other considerations, a power that fed on party
loyalty, patronage and political organizations. It was a
power which, despite increasing disfavor in [many] parts of
the country
...
had continued unchallenged for years."
- 18 -
The Vice President can rightly charge that in our presently
tenured Congress, King Caucus reigns again -- this time at the
hands of a liberal Democratic majority. Today, through the
operation of the Democratic House Caucus, Congressmen seeking
advancement or those already chairing committees or subcommittees
have more to fear from a majority of their Democratic colleagues
than they do from the voters of their home districts. A good
example which the Vice President can cite is that of Congressman
Les Aspin, whose support of aid to the Contras was replaced by a
promise not to vote his conscience on that critical subject, lest
he lose his Armed Services Committee chairmanship. Thus decreed
the House leadership and its Caucus, and thus was the country's
Central American policy largely fixed. Precisely as was the case,
with Speaker Cannon, national policy was established by party
caucus despite the contrary views of the President, the Senate and
a majority of the House. Whatever one's views of Central American
policy, the Vice President can say, it is wrong to have that
policy decided not by a majority of the Members of the House but
by a mere majority of its majority. This is the means by which
the Les Aspins and many conservative House Members are often not
permitted to vote their consciences or their constituents' views,
and it is wrong. Such an undemocratic outcome, as wrong today as
it was during the period described by John Kennedy, is a function
of stacked elections, and the Vice President can say that King
- 19 -
Caucus will flourish as long as voters have no effective sway over
incumbents.
B. Double Standards.
The arrogance of power of today's largely voter-proof
Congress, the Vice President can further say, is perhaps best seen
through the legislative double standards which Congress feels free
to establish. Whether creating ethics rules, independent counsel
procedures, freedom of information access or "sunshine" rules for
the Executive Branch, or whether establishing minimum wage, civil
rights or environmental statutes for the country at large, one
thing is clear. Congress frees itself from any such constraints,
and ensures that it remains above the law. At the same time,
Congress awards itself and its staff such entitlements as
honoraria payments and gift receipt authority that it denies to
all others.
Critically, the excuse that Congress uses to set such double
standards -- that the conduct of Members is reviewed by voters and
after each election is effectively endorsed by them -- stands
truth on its head. The Vice President should by how have
established the increasingly predictable and meaningless character
of most House and large numbers of Senate elections; his point
should be that Congress only gets away with being above the law
precisely because its work is no longer meaningfully reviewed by
the voters.
- 20 -
The Vice President should announce his readiness to veto
double standard bills sent up by Congress and may even wish to
announce his intention to send up an Omnibus Single Standard bill
applying to Congress a broad range of statutes ranging from the
independent counsel to the civil rights laws.
C Railroad Procedures.
Lord Acton's dictum about the inevitable consequences of
absolute power manifests itself further in the day-to-day manner
in which the House does its business.
Taking the floor last month to complain of such procedures,
the House Republican leadership and many of its key members
detailed a series of abuses which, they pointed out, have
seriously worsened since Speaker Wright has assumed power. Trent
Lott described a variety of "creative rule alteration procedures"
-- to which he gave the acronym "CRAP" -- and by which, he said,
Speaker Wright "is destroying the comity and uniformity so
essential to the proper functioning of the House. "
Thus:
o
Forty-four percent of the bills brought to the House
floor in the current Congress were under restrictive
rules, compared to but 12 percent a decade ago.
As pointed out repeatedly by President Reagan,
appropriations are now routinely presented in fifteen
pound packages, thus largely thwarting the ability of
the President as well as rank and file Members of
Congress to engage in meaningful votes on federal
expenditures.
- 21 -
As previously noted, Republicans are given but 22
percent of House committee staff members despite having
41. percent of all committee seats.
The Democrats are highly vulnerable on this score and an
attack by the Vice President would be well received. Espousing
the cause of Republican House Members, the forgotten people of
American politics, will help cement their loyalty to the Vice
President -- in the campaign and in office.
V.
Conclusion.
The above represents a menu of options which, properly
chosen and presented, can allow the Vice President to:
shift a measure of campaign focus to the generally
acknowledged failings of Congress and to the risks
which will be run if the country wholly turns itself
over to an inexperienced President and his
Congressional party;
serve as a champion of voter rights -- as one
challenging Congress to fairly face the voters as he
does, confident that the cure for the system's failings
is the application of democratic process;
show his capacity for Presidential leadership on a
critical issue which to date has been the subject of
lament, little else;
establish a respectful separation from Administration
actions and inactions (the proposals set forth in this
memo are deliberately crafted to differ with policies
of Stockman-Miller OMB, the Meese Justice Department
and the White House -- although, of course, they
address objectives which the President powerfully
shares) ;
- 22 -
begin to create not only a campaign issue but a needed
mandate following the election.
The terms of any such speech will need to be discussed with
key Republican Congressional leaders -- they and their troops may
also feel threatened by ending many current incumbency
advantages. In all events, such support will add enormous
credibility to proposed policies such as possible legislative
branch appropriations vetoes and campaign finance reforms.
Senator Dole and Congressmen Michel would be powerful and
articulate allies in any effort to shift the focus of debate to
.Congress' failings, and Senators McCain and McConnell should
probably be consulted on any campaign finance reform proposals.
- 23 -