Congress and the Public
Overview
Congress and the Public
Public approval of Congress as an institution has been in steady decline since the mid-to-late 1970’s as Americans wonder whether Congress will have a positive impact on their lives. Whether it is the antagonistic political advertisements the public sees during campaigns or the portrayal of Congress in the media as a corrupt and morally bankrupt institution, it seems that the American people have turned against the body that was put in place by the Founding Fathers to serve as the people’s voice in the national government. Moreover, the intention of the Framers was for Congress to be a slow moving body as a means of protecting citizen rights. Yet in an age where information is accessible by the click of a mouse and society moves at an increasingly fast pace, the public has a difficult time trying to reconcile their desire for instant gratification with how Congress is meant to function—in a slow, laborious and deliberate manner.
Although the public is in general agreement that Congress is broken, there remains much disparity between the public’s ideas for improving Congress, or even pinpointing what the actual problems are. Americans see Congress as a servant of special interests rather than their vehicle for participating in the national legislative process. Ironically, reelection rates for incumbent Congress members remains very high despite the consistently low approval ratings for Congress as a whole. Why does it seem that the public hates Congress as an institution, but seemingly loves their Representative in Congress?
Incumbency Advantage and Casework
Many experts insist that the built-in advantages Congress members have when running for reelection creates too great an obstacle for challengers. The franking privilege allows incumbents to send mail to their constituents free of charge. Also, incumbents tend to have a financial advantage when facing opposition in their reelection campaigns. Due to the drastic increase in the expense of running for Congress, many challengers simply cannot compete with the ability of incumbents to raise large sums of money and to keep their names in the minds of the voters. Moreover, Congressional district office staff has an indirect impact on the campaigning process by fulfillingcasework needs.
Casework, also called constituent service, is usually accomplished through Congressional staff who attempt to resolve issues that constituents face with government agencies (“red tape”). The Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946 (Public Law 79-601) allows funds to be given to Congress members for administrative staff. The 1970 Legislative Reorganization Act (Public Law 91-510) increased the amount of money allotted for Congress members to pay local staff to deal specifically with constituent services. Some of the most common problems that constituents face involve Social Security, Medicare, veterans’ benefits, jobs and other government programs or services. Caseworkers use their knowledge of government agencies and their personal relationshipswith agency personnel to help expedite a successful resolution. However, due to the Privacy Act of 1974 (Public Law 93-579), constituents requesting help from district staff must complete a Privacy Act Release Form giving written consent for staff to gain access to their federal records. The advantages incumbentsenjoy from a well-performing staff provide a significant benefit to their public image. Overall, Congressional district office staffs enable Congress members to spend less time on casework and more time on their legislative duties.
Balancing Duties and Fundraising
Congress members serve on multiple committees as they work to study, debate, amend, and create legislation. Two key terms are often used to describe how Representatives respond to district concerns through the legislative process. “Delegate representation” describes the process where Congress members act according to their constituents’ wishes. “Trustee representation” illustrates when Representatives act according to their beliefs as to their constituents’ best interest.
Besides legislative duties, incumbents must also raise funds for their next campaign as the cost of Congressional campaigns continues to grow. Some scholars have termed this phenomenon as “running in place”, the notion that Congress members use their legislative power to seek favor with voters. Their performance in the legislative arena affects their fundraising ability, suggesting that they are running for office while they serve “in place” (Congress). This perception is especially true for members of the House of Representatives, whose terms of office last just two years.
The increased cost of campaigns has contributed to a negative public perception of Congress. Members of Congress must often generate funds in order to spend money on television commercials defending their record to counterpoint negative advertisements purchased by PACs and other independent groups representing various special interests. Often the public blames Congress for the amount of money permeating the system, even though U.S. Supreme Court rulings interpreting federal campaign finance legislation have had a much more dramatic effect on the role of money in federal elections than the legislation itself.
Conclusion
While the American people seem to hold Congress in low esteem, incumbency re-election rates remains high over time. The 2010 midterm Congressional elections resulted in the defeat of many incumbents, although this was largely due to negative public approval of the president and less connected with public opinion toward individual Congress members.
Advantages in fundraising, the franking privilege, and casework may help explain high re-election rates when the public holds a negative view of Congress.