x close  
Congress for Sale
NO ADVERTISING, GOVERNMENT OR CORPORATE FUNDING
DONATE TODAY


  November 10, 2011

Congress for Sale


Tom Ferguson: Congressional committee seats and Chairs appointed based on dollars raised, not seniority
Members don't see ads. If you are a member, and you're seeing this appeal, click here
   



audio

Share to Facebook Share to Twitter



Because news is only as honest as the intentions of those who report it. - Joel L.
Log in and tell us why you support TRNN


transcript

Congress for SalePAUL JAY, SENIOR EDITOR, TRNN: Welcome to The Real News Network. I'm Paul Jay in Washington.

If you're a member of Congress, House or Senate, and you want to be a member of one of the powerful committees, or even more, chair of a powerful committee, how do you get there? Well, it used to be a matter of seniority. Now it's a matter of dollars. And how is this affect the whole issue of money in politics in Congress?

Now joining us to help us understand all this is Tom Ferguson. Tom is a professor of political science at the University of Massachusetts Boston and a senior fellow of the Roosevelt Institute. Thanks for joining us again, Tom.

PROF. TOM FERGUSON, UMASS BOSTON, ROOSEVELT INSTITUTE: Hi there.

JAY: So, first of all, what is the fact basis here? You know, I think most people think, if you watch the movies, you know, the old crusty congressman/senator used to be chair of the committees, and they got there 'cause they were there longest. But that's not the case anymore.

FERGUSON: And they might have a heart of gold. Now they have a pocket of gold, okay, and that's a big shift.

I mean, look, it's relatively straightforward, Paul. In the old days, as you said, you got your—rose in the hierarchy in Washington basically by just sticking around, you know, a very special form of rule by the aged or gerontocracy, though what you measured was your time in the institution, not your calendar age. In the '70s, that collapsed. The Democrats brought it down first, but the Republicans followed. And, you know, for a long while, pieces of that lingered.

But the bottom line was, very quickly, that sort of institutional change in Congress coincided with the big revolution in the American economy that brought finance to the top, you know, taking it to be, you know, a monster percentage of all the profits, you know, in the early 2000s. And very quickly folks started—since, you know, there was no longer any sort of hierarchical structure coming from seniority, or not much of one, folks started in effect paying their colleagues to vote for them. That's—a pay-to-play system starts to develop.

In the 1990s, Newt Gingrich and Tom DeLay—DeLay would actually sit in the meetings selecting committee members and chairs with printouts of members' contributions. Gingrich and the Republicans put in the further requirement that you need to raise money for the congressional campaign committees, the national congressional campaign committee; and the Senate did the same thing at its end. The Democrats copied that system.

Now, what's—the striking implication of this, though, is what happens when you start filling the national campaign committee coffers, because that's not money the individual members control. That's controlled by the leadership. So what you get over time is a huge upward shift in power—maybe not over time in Gingrich and DeLay's thing. It was instantaneous. They got there, they put this system in, and there was no question [crosstalk]

JAY: Tom, so this power that gets concentrated in the hands of the party leadership, I guess indirectly the administration, what significance does that have in terms of democracy?

FERGUSON: Well, look, the first thing it does is it makes the individual members much more cautious about breaking with the party leadership. I mean, that's basically why everybody's index of party-line voting has gone up so much, I mean, the sort of massive concentration of power in the leadership. I mean, you get—it's one checkbook, one party, one message. And so just in the way they behave in Congress, they change. I mean, they act more—a little bit more like the ant colony, as it were, and a little less like the most expensive tropical fish in the tanks. Though, I mean, there are limits. The Senate's different from the House. But even there it's true.

JAY: If you were to—if Occupy Wall Street and others were to make some demands about some kind of reform in Congress that would distribute power more evenly or more fairly within Congress itself, what would that demand look like?

FERGUSON: Well, okay, in the end, any—I mean, I think, first of all, implicitly, I'm not—nobody in Occupy Wall Street's making lots of demands right now, and that seems to me perfectly rational. I mean, when I hear they don't have a program, I just think, hey, you know, the Democratic and Republican parties don't have one either, by the way, and they've been around a lot longer there—at least, any program that'll do much for any ordinary person.

So that—but as you start to formulate demands, you can see already Occupy Wall Street has basically got the most important point exactly right. Yeah, it's about 1 percent of the population that's taken down most of the income gains in the last 30 years. That's the first point.

The second thing is is that the connection between money and politics is just altogether organic at this point. It's basic. When I was down walking around the Occupy Wall Street in Boston the other day, I saw this sign that said, basically, capitalism is socialism for the 1 percent. That's about got it right. There's another sign I saw which I love, which was that congressional representatives should be like NASCAR drivers and tell us who their sponsors are, you know, just wear their sponsors' colors there. I mean, that would be a revolution in financial services, I'll tell you that.

The—and so in that sense, people, I think, have got it. But they need to make this concrete. And, you know, here I think you've got a short and a long problem.

The short problem is do something right away. I would myself insist that if you're on a congressional committee, you can't take any money from any interest that's affected by your decision. That's a—the reason I stress that is Congress absolutely, whatever the Supreme Court has to say, is allowed to make its own rules. They can't take—they don't have to take any dictation from the Supreme Court there. And they could do that in the current state of the law.

They could also enforce. They could direct the Federal Election Commission to actually enforce what looked like the intent of the statute in the—the legislation that people cite as enabling the so-called superPACs to use completely secret money. I mean, that rests in part on court decisions, but the secret part of it also rests on an FEC unwillingness to enforce the law. Now, they are, of course, taking sort of low-key direction from the House and Senate leadership; I mean, the FEC staff knows exactly what's required of them there. But we could change that, I think, if you focused on that.

In the longer run, I think you plainly want a constitutional amendment that makes it clear that corporations are not people and that allows the government to make reasonable rules on limiting money in politics. I mean, the notion that, you know, anybody who's super rich can do anything they want in American politics is ridiculous. It's a travesty.

JAY: Just really concretely, if people were going to ask for one or two very specific pieces of legislation that might help somehow mitigate this, what would that be?

FERGUSON: Okay. But, yeah, can I broaden the question? In the short run, I have to tell you, given that next month is the Supercommittee reporting, it would be tragic and ironic beyond measure if in the middle of the Occupy Wall Street demonstrations what remains of the social safety net is shredded in the United States. You know, I hope that doesn't happen.

And in that sense I think folks got to remember that, you know, Wall Street isn't the only constituency pushing to cut social spending and keep taxes on the rich low, but it's one of the—it's probably the most powerful single force for doing that. And you've got to watch what Wall Street is doing in Washington next month or, you know, you can—it won't matter much what happens in December if in November that Supercommittee report is rolling through, shredding, you know, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and for that matter all domestic spending almost entirely in every program.

And you can crack down on the FEC laxity that allows these supercommittees not to report their contributions, 'cause that's partly court decisions and law, but it's also the enforcement. They are doing no enforcement at all. They're really taking their cues from the congressional leadership. I mean, that committee—pardon me—that agency has a very special relationship with Congress. But, you know, you could fix that, at least in theory. You could do it.

JAY: Right. Thanks very much for joining us, Tom.

FERGUSON: Okay. Bye-bye.

JAY: And thank you for joining us on The Real News Network.

End of Transcript

DISCLAIMER: Please note that transcripts for The Real News Network are typed from a recording of the program. TRNN cannot guarantee their complete accuracy.



Comments

Our automatic spam filter blocks comments with multiple links and multiple users using the same IP address. Please make thoughtful comments with minimal links using only one user name. If you think your comment has been mistakenly removed please email us at contact@therealnews.com

latest stories

Police Kill Unarmed Mentally Ill Black Man As Report Finds Law Enforcement Shootings Reminiscent of Lynchings
Trump and the Social Basis of Fascism
Danny Glover: Upcoming Haitian Election an Opportunity for Self-Determination
Intelligence Agencies Are Gathering Information Against You in Case of Your Dissent
Mexicans Protest on Second Anniversary of Disappearance of 43 Students
Baltimore City Council Candidate: Gentrification is Not A Development Plan
Balochistan: India Opening the Pandora's Box
Clinton vs. Trump Debate: Is One Section of the Oligarchy More Dangerous?
Did America Dodge a Bullet?
24 Arrested Outside Hofstra University While Demanding An Open Presidential Debate
Trump's Position on Jerusalem Puts Him on the Side of the Settler Movement
Comply or Die: What the Shootings in Tulsa and Charlotte Reveal About Policing in America
BDS Town Hall with the Former Green Party of Canada Justice Critic
Corbyn Wins Leadership, But Can He Unite the Labour Party?
Danny Glover on the Struggle for Democracy in Haiti
Should Third Parties Be Included in Televised Debates?
Anti-BDS Campaign Aims to Undermine Academic Freedom and Free Speech on Palestine
Ecuador Proposes Worldwide Elimination of Tax Havens
Did America Dodge a Bullet?
Why the Federal Reserve Needs To Go Beyond Interest Rate Policy
'Hands Dripping with the Blood of the Afghan People': US Agrees to Pardon and Reward Warlord
Recall Referendum on Maduro Moves to Next Phase in spite of "Irregularities"
Gary Johnson Supporters: Privatize Everything, But Not the Commission on Presidential Debates
TPP Will Effectively Kill Climate Treaties
US National Security Policy for Climate Change Seeks Security for Corporate-Controlled Assets
U.S. Policy in Syria: Regime Change or Regime 'Facelift'?
Berlin Election Outcome Signals Merkel's Tenuous Grip on Chancellorship
Charlotte Protests Escalate as Police Refuse to Release Video
Dangers of the Proposed Bayer-Monsanto Merger
Police Killings from Charlotte to Tulsa Spark Calls for Boycotts and Justice

TheRealNewsNetwork.com, RealNewsNetwork.com, The Real News Network, Real News Network, The Real News, Real News, Real News For Real People, IWT are trademarks and service marks of Independent World Television inc. "The Real News" is the flagship show of IWT and The Real News Network.

All original content on this site is copyright of The Real News Network. Click here for more

Problems with this site? Please let us know

Linux VPS Hosting by Star Dot Hosting