Whether you are a conservative or a progressive on economic matters, and whether you agree or disagree with a piece of financial reform or another, two conclusions can be made on the workings of the legislative process from the article.
First, the banks and other financial interests have an advantage in influencing policy at the committee level, not because their ideas are fundamentally better, but because they have more money to contribute to the election and re-election of legislators and can have a strong influence on their career and personal wealth. Second, it corrupts the democratic process because people who got elected running a progressive campaign fail to accurately represent the mandate they got once they are placed on those committees aggressively targeted by lobbyists.
There is, however, some major saving points for the legislative process as a whole. First and foremost, if the more vulnerable committee members are ready to step on their party line for personal advancement, their leaders are ultimately more accountable to their constituents and have the power to rein in members who went astray - and given the ire of the population over big banks and the financial meltdown last year, they have every incentive to do just that since many of their seats will be up for re-election next year. Second, anything that comes out of a committee then has to go through the House and then the Senate where people who were shut out of the process have the power to defeat an outrageously left or right bill.
Nevertheless, the corrosive effect of campaign financing and personal advancement alluded to in my previous post (see Senate Reform and the Source of the Problem) is real and is brilliantly documented in this article.
Here are my notes.
- Many legislators will seek to join a "money committee" instead of another because "joining [one] makes fundraising, especially from donors with financial interests litigated by the panel, significantly easier". Members of money committees are particularly vulnerable to lobbyist pressure. "It creates a culture where people don't have to show up... You just show up to vote... " says freshman Rep. Jackie Speier (D-Calif.)
("Money committees" include the banking committee chaired by Barney Frank as well the tax-policy-writing Ways and Means Committee and the Energy and Commerce Committee.)
- The Steering and Policy Committee assigns seats on the money committees in particular to "frontline members" who need financial bolstering in states that are likely to be hotly contested during the next election. "As a result, leadership made a choice to prioritize fundraising over the passage of strong legislation."
- Legislators and staffers lack experience and knowledge of what they are suppose to legislate on. Those members "don't understand what it is they're tackling -- though they might be able to repeat talking points from lobbyists." ""What they know is people," says a former staffer."
- There is cohesion between the career of a lobbyist, that of a legislator and that of their staff, which further raises questions of conflict of interests (despite a bar of one year for a staffer to join a lobby group). "According to a HuffPost analysis of the 243 people who've worked on the committee -- including clerical and technology staff -- since 2000, almost half of the 126 people who have left registered as lobbyists, mostly for the financial services industry." "Cashing out is using your position to get a significantly greater salary in the private sector," says Ventrone, who now works for the National Association of Realtors.
- This creates a lack of representation for the interests of the general public, and can corrupt progressive politicians. "But then again, banks and other financial interests can afford an army of aggressive and well-connected middlemen, while consumers groups are left with one or two sentries to cover two chambers. It can mean the difference between winning and losing."
- In politics, nothing is ever simple and the strategy of some democrats of voting with the banks could backfire. "But is it all that pragmatic? Waffling centrists can have a hard time holding on to their seats -- especially when a populist wave comes washing over, wiping out pandering politicians. And by pushing for Washington to go soft on Wall Street, the frontline Democrats -- and the leadership that put them there -- have helped create the very storm that could carry them away."
There is, however, some major saving points for the legislative process as a whole. First and foremost, if the more vulnerable committee members are ready to step on their party line for personal advancement, their leaders are ultimately more accountable to their constituents and have the power to rein in members who went astray - and given the ire of the population over big banks and the financial meltdown last year, they have every incentive to do just that since many of their seats will be up for re-election next year. Second, anything that comes out of a committee then has to go through the House and then the Senate where people who were shut out of the process have the power to defeat an outrageously left or right bill.
Nevertheless, the corrosive effect of campaign financing and personal advancement alluded to in my previous post (see Senate Reform and the Source of the Problem) is real and is brilliantly documented in this article.
Here are my notes.
- Many legislators will seek to join a "money committee" instead of another because "joining [one] makes fundraising, especially from donors with financial interests litigated by the panel, significantly easier". Members of money committees are particularly vulnerable to lobbyist pressure. "It creates a culture where people don't have to show up... You just show up to vote... " says freshman Rep. Jackie Speier (D-Calif.)
("Money committees" include the banking committee chaired by Barney Frank as well the tax-policy-writing Ways and Means Committee and the Energy and Commerce Committee.)
- The Steering and Policy Committee assigns seats on the money committees in particular to "frontline members" who need financial bolstering in states that are likely to be hotly contested during the next election. "As a result, leadership made a choice to prioritize fundraising over the passage of strong legislation."
- Legislators and staffers lack experience and knowledge of what they are suppose to legislate on. Those members "don't understand what it is they're tackling -- though they might be able to repeat talking points from lobbyists." ""What they know is people," says a former staffer."
- There is cohesion between the career of a lobbyist, that of a legislator and that of their staff, which further raises questions of conflict of interests (despite a bar of one year for a staffer to join a lobby group). "According to a HuffPost analysis of the 243 people who've worked on the committee -- including clerical and technology staff -- since 2000, almost half of the 126 people who have left registered as lobbyists, mostly for the financial services industry." "Cashing out is using your position to get a significantly greater salary in the private sector," says Ventrone, who now works for the National Association of Realtors.
- This creates a lack of representation for the interests of the general public, and can corrupt progressive politicians. "But then again, banks and other financial interests can afford an army of aggressive and well-connected middlemen, while consumers groups are left with one or two sentries to cover two chambers. It can mean the difference between winning and losing."
- In politics, nothing is ever simple and the strategy of some democrats of voting with the banks could backfire. "But is it all that pragmatic? Waffling centrists can have a hard time holding on to their seats -- especially when a populist wave comes washing over, wiping out pandering politicians. And by pushing for Washington to go soft on Wall Street, the frontline Democrats -- and the leadership that put them there -- have helped create the very storm that could carry them away."
No comments:
Post a Comment