Bayh-partisanship: Reform Congress

Evan Bayh may be a mediocre legislator but since he’s announced his retirement from the Senate, he’s been a strong voice for Senate reform. He wrote an op-ed that appeared yesterday in the NYT on the subject. He correctly diagnoses the problem with money in politics and the “permanent campaign:”

Perhaps from this starting point, we can move onto more intractable problems, like the current campaign finance system that has such a corrosive effect on Congress. In the Senate, raising in small increments the $10 million to $20 million a competitive race requires takes huge amounts of time that could otherwise be spent talking with constituents, legislating or becoming well-versed on public policy. In my father’s time there was a saying: “A senator legislates for four years and campaigns for two.” Because of the incessant need to raise campaign cash, we now have perpetual campaigns. If fund-raising is constantly on members’ minds, it’s difficult for policy compromise to trump political calculation.

The recent Supreme Court ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, allowing corporations and unions to spend freely on ads explicitly supporting or opposing political candidates, will worsen matters. The threat of unlimited amounts of negative advertising from special interest groups will only make members more beholden to their natural constituencies and more afraid of violating party orthodoxies.

We’re entering election season for the first time since the Citizens United ruling, and I don’t know how this will affect this campaign. Now corporations will be able to run unlimited ads for or against specific candidates up to election day. If you think there’s too many commercials already, just wait. And since there’s no limit now, will we see candidates on TV shows and scripts written just for certain candidates?

Bayh also identifies filibuster abuse as a problem with the functioning of the Senate:

Filibusters have proliferated because under current rules just one or two determined senators can stop the Senate from functioning. Today, the mere threat of a filibuster is enough to stop a vote; senators are rarely asked to pull all-nighters like Jimmy Stewart in “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington.”

For this reason, filibusters should require 35 senators to sign a public petition and make a commitment to continually debate an issue in reality, not just in theory. Those who obstruct the Senate should pay a price in public notoriety and physical exhaustion. That would lead to a significant decline in frivolous filibusters.

Filibusters should also be limited to no more than one for any piece of legislation. Currently, the decision to begin debate on a bill can be filibustered, followed by another filibuster on each amendment, followed by yet another filibuster before a final vote. This leads to multiple legislative delays and effectively grinds the Senate to a halt.

The system wasn’t intended so that each Senator gets a veto. I understand the hesitancy to abolish the filibuster altogether since it is a way for the minority to influence legislation. (I shudder to think what would have happened to Social Security in 2005 without filibuster power). Right now, though, the Senate is unable to do any business at all because Republicans filibuster everything, even bills they support. There were more cloture votes in 2009 (39) than in the Senate between 1949-1970 (30).

The filibuster worked when there were two governing parties. However, Republicans have decided that they will gain politically by blocking all business of the and blaming Democrats for not getting things done. Too few people actually understand what’s happening and are frustrated by the lack of progress.

I’m getting the feeling now that Republicans might have overplayed their hand. It started with Republicans voting against the bipartisan debt reduction committee, with 8 Republicans who supposedly supported it voting against cloture. Now Evan Bayh’s departure is shining a light on the dysfunction of the Senate. So, thank you Evan Bayh for explaining this to everyone in a way they understand. You may have done the country a great service.