 |
Home | Contact Us | Press Room | Site Overview | Help | Login | Register |
 |
 |
| About NCSL | State & Federal Issues | Legislatures | Legislative Staff | Meetings | Bookstore | Legislators & Staff Only |
| NCSL Home > Site Overview > | Add to MyNCSL |
Trust for Representative Democracy
Available in PDF and HTML
PDF Files
HTML Files
IntroductionThe framers of the U.S. Constitution devised a system of representative democracy that has endured for more than 200 years. In Washington, D.C., and in the capitals of the 50 states, the resilience of the legislative institutions and processes that are at the heart of our political system demonstrate the genius of James Madison and his colleagues. However durable and serviceable the system has proven to be, it currently is under assault. Americans like the idea of representative democracy, but they have little liking for the practices, institutions and politicians that make representative democracy work. Nor are they tolerant of the processes, which require debate (viewed as bickering), compromise (viewed as selling out), conflict (viewed as posturing), and stalemate (viewed as obstructionism). They do not trust government to do the right thing, they are cynical about elected public officials who are supposed to represent their interests, and they feel that the legislative system as it operates is wide open to special interests but not to the public. The political system gets low marks from most Americans. It is little wonder that the public is not positive. The virtues of representative democracy are not self-evident. The processes in Congress, state legislatures and city councils are messy and difficult to fathom, even to insiders. What goes on often is like a three-ring circus with action occurring continuously, simultaneously and in many arenas at once. The people who are engaged in politics-professional and citizen politicians alike-seem to be a breed apart, not even as familiar to ordinary people as are aliens from outer space. Skepticism is a normal and healthy characteristic in a democracy. But in the quarter of a century since Watergate, the effects of attack and innuendo have transformed skepticism into outright distrust and cynicism. The media, as principal storyteller about politicians and political institutions, bear considerable responsibility for the trend. In their efforts to draw readers, the media focus on conflict and overemphasize events that cast the political system in a negative light. Increasing competition among the print and electronic media have put a premium on the sordid, sensational and scandalous, whether real or inferred. Even the entertainment media have contributed to the unflattering picture of politics and politicians. Since 1975, with the notable exception of West Wing, three of every four television episodes involving the American political system have portrayed it as corrupt. Politicians themselves cannot escape blame. The widespread use of government as a target in political campaigns also damages public trust. All too often, politicians run against the political system and the people in it. "I'm all right," you will hear them say during the course of an election campaign, "but the system is broken. Elect me and I'll fix it." If both an incumbent and a challenger trash the system, why shouldn't voters conclude that something-indeed, more than something-must be wrong? Add to all this the significant societal changes that have taken place and the culture wars that have broken out in American society. Although expectations of what government can do have risen, notions about why and how government should perform have become more heterogeneous and conflicting. Ethnicity, race, gender, sexual preference and attitudes toward the family, abortion, drugs and immigration polarize opinions nowadays more than in the past. Political institutions are caught in the crossfire. The accumulation of negatives fuels public discontent and disenchantment. No particular incident, specific charge, single newspaper story or television portrayal makes a huge difference, but years of battering have eroded support for the political system. Younger generations probably are most affected, in that their social trust, as well as their political trust, is diminished. They express overwhelmingly cynical views, and they cite their cynicism as a reason for indifference to and disengagement from politics. In the end, many of them simply do not see themselves as part of the American political community. This climate of cynicism is deadly to representative democracy. It hinders the recruitment to elective public office of talented and concerned people, many of whom no longer will risk having their characters assailed and their reputations damaged. It weakens the relationship between voters and elected officials that is at the heart of our idea of representative democracy. It makes consensus more difficult to achieve, because trust is in such short supply. It hinders steady and pragmatic solutions, while encouraging posturing, scapegoating and quick fixes. It erodes the representative assemblies that have served us remarkably well for more than 300 years. It puts our system of representative democracy in peril, even though we have nothing else we would rather have in its place, and nothing that would serve nearly as well. There is much to be said in defense of the political system, but few defenders have come forward. Congress and state legislatures are the engines of representative democracy, and they are under severe assault. Legislators themselves-or even legislative leaders-too rarely rise to the defense of institutions that ought to command their allegiance. Outside the legislative communities of the nation, few people challenge the contemporary criticisms. The few academic experts who study the subject reach very different conclusions than most people about representative democracy and legislative institutions. As political scientists, the authors offer a more balanced and accurate view of the political system. As professionals and as citizens, the four of us believe that the perceptions Americans have of legislators and legislatures do not reflect the reality of actual practice and performance. The overly negative environment for politics represents not only a disservice to the nation's institutions, but a disservice to the nation's citizens as well. People have a right to an alternative to the perspective that prevails today. This guide presents such a perspective. It is designed for people who are (or would like to be) interested and involved in the legislative process: from high school students and legislative interns to corporate and union managers to senior citizen organizations. We are concerned that if citizens come to their involvement in the political process with the perspective held by most people, what they see and experience will take on a very negative cast. The purpose of this guide is to offer engaged citizens an alternative view of representative democracy-a more accurate and positive perspective. We offer here six operating principles of representative democracy as it is practiced throughout the nation. Interested and involved citizens should think about each of these operating principles and decide for themselves if they match the reality of Congress or their state legislature. The first two principles focus on representatives as individuals, and the latter four emphasize representation as a system. Our treatment of each principle includes both a discussion of what the public perceives and a discussion of how politicians and institutions work. At the conclusion of this guide are exercises to help people make up their own minds about representative democracy in America. Naturally, elected public officials vary in their characteristics, just as political systems vary in theirs. Representative democracy operates somewhat differently in the Congress and from state to state- better in some places than in others. We assume that the judgments citizens make about their own political systems will vary as well, but we are confident that, using this guide, they will gain a positive impression of how representative democracy actually works. The authors of this guide believe that the system and its participants work well-by no means perfectly, but well-and better than any realistic alternative. Of course, there are problems with legislatures and with legislators. They have to strive constantly for improvement. Of special concern nowadays are the conduct of political campaigns, the business of campaign finance and conflicts of interest, partisanship and incivility in the legislature. These concerns should not be taken lightly. Yet, they should not detract from an appreciation of a system that, while currently the envy of the world, is misperceived and unappreciated here at home. 1. What Makes Legislators Tick?
Since Watergate in the early 1970s, Americans have believed the worst about their elective public officials. In their view, legislators are in public office strictly to advance their own interests, rather than to serve the constituents they are supposed to represent or the more general public interest that they are supposed to promote. The public generally views politicians as corrupt. A 1996 National Election Study survey reported that more than half of all Americans think corruption is a very important problem and a third say it is somewhat important. Government is corrupt, people believe, because those involved in running it are corrupt. Two of five surveyed say that quite a few people running government are crooked. Among young people it's worse. More than half of all respondents between the ages of 18 and 24 to a 1998 National Association of Secretaries of State poll say that you can't trust politicians because most are dishonest. In a statewide poll, half of all New Jerseyans say that anywhere from 50 percent to 100 percent of all politicians are corrupt. One-third of the New Jerseyans say that between 50 percent and 100 percent of legislators in Trenton take bribes. These national and state polls demonstrate the extent of cynicism and distrust. Citizens do not think elected public officials have good intentions, public-spirited motivations or integrity in office. In short, the public does not trust the legislators it elects. These attitudes should come as no surprise. The negative side is all that citizens hear from the media and the self-designated public interest groups, and it is much of what people hear from political campaigns. To be sure, corrupt and unethical legislators periodically confirm the public's jaundiced view of politicians. These politicians represent a tiny minority-the worst cases. But when Americans hear so much about these individuals, they generalize from the few to the many. What else are they to do? What they see and hear, they believe, is only the tip of the iceberg. The things that remain submerged, people imagine, may be even worse. When asked by pollsters about their own representative, most people respond positively; when asked about legislators generally, however, most respond negatively. Public ratings of Congress and legislatures vary greatly over time and from state to state. However, it is not unusual for polls to show 60 percent to 70 percent of the public think their own legislators are doing a good job, but only 25 percent to 35 percent think the legislature is doing a good job. Why don't citizens generalize from their feelings about their own legislator to other legislators and to the institution, instead of generalizing from the few cases they read and hear about through the media? Their views of politicians would be entirely different if they did. Legislators are different than we imagine them to be. They are neither saints nor sinners, although both categories are represented by a few souls in their ranks. Nothing about legislative behavior is simple, or even obvious, but legislators do what they do for a variety of reasons. What motivates them to run in the first place? Many of them like politics and the idea of public service. Some come from political families. A parent or uncle or aunt serves or has served in office. All of us can think of political families like the Kennedys, Bushes and Gores at the national level. Many states have their own political families that have sent a number of young men and women into politics. Others are drawn to politics as a result of their experiences as volunteers in political campaigns or as interns in legislatures. Still others decide to run for public office after working in state or local civic and advocacy groups, such as the League of Women Voters, the Parent Teacher Association or a statewide taxpayers' association. A few, who have established themselves in their communities, are recruited to run by legislative party leaders. Most, however, are self-starters. For a number of people in states such as California, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Jersey and Ohio, legislative office is not their first public office. They have been mayors or council members in their towns, commissioners of their counties, or members of school boards in their districts. Their careers in public office already are under way. This is even more true for members of Congress, approximately half of whom previously served in state legislatures. People who run for the legislature usually have a commitment to public service. They want to do good. For them, good is service to their constituency, their state, and the public interest as each of them sees it. Legislators bring with them or develop a variety of dispositions regarding public policy issues. As much as anything else, these dispositions provide a basis for how members vote in the legislature. Some legislators are driven by public policy concerns-to improve education, change the health care system or revise tax policy. They have followed these issues and may have worked previously in these areas. They have agendas to propose and goals to accomplish. Others care more about taking care of constituents back home than about particular issue areas. They want to help their people. Most see government as an instrument to accomplish goals; some see government as an obstacle that prohibits citizens from accomplishing their state or local goals or agendas. Everyone in the legislature wants to make a difference. Most believe they do. Few-if any-legislators serve because of financial rewards. In so many other careers, financial income plays an important role in the choices that individuals make. That is not the case for those who enter the ranks of state legislators. Except for Congress and a few states-such as California, Michigan, New York and Pennsylvania-compensation tends to be low, as shown in figure 1. Even in legislatures that provide salaries that are sufficient to make a living, the financial demands of maintaining homes in the capital and the district severely limit the financial gains from legislative service.
In the majority of cases, legislators sacrifice income by serving in the legislature. Although a few attorneys and other professionals may gain business because of their public visibility, service in the legislature hurts lawmakers' private careers more often than it helps. What legislators receive in compensation from the state seldom makes up for what they lose in outside compensation. They are willing to do this because of the objectives they have in seeking public office. Fundamentally, they are in it for the satisfaction the job brings. A few of those who are elected to the legislature do not like the experience and leave after a term or two. Some have to leave because they cannot financially afford to stay. Their children may be approaching college age or a law practice may require more of their attention. Some don't leave until their health gives out. Some retire because they are afraid that they cannot win reelection. A number leave to run for higher office-a congressional seat or a statewide position. In 19 states they now have no choice. Their terms are limited by law and they can serve no longer than six, eight or 12 years in the house or senate, as shown in table 1.
The job that legislators have to do is not an easy one. It demands a lot of time for citizen legislators who must maintain outside occupations. The length of legislative sessions varies from less than two months in a biennium in Kentucky and Wyoming to virtually year-round in California, Massachusetts and Congress. Focusing on the number of days in session, though, is misleading because it does not include the days legislators spend at the capitol during interim periods, when committees meet but there are no formal sessions as such. Nor does it include the time legislators spend dealing with constituents in their districts throughout the year and the all-consuming demands of election season every two, four or six years. Taking into account session time, interim work, constituent service and political work, figure 2 shows the distribution of time commitments in the 50 states. Serving in the legislature is virtually a full-time job in Congress and in 10 states, where members are generally considered to be "professional legislators." In another 10 states, where members are regarded as "citizen legislators," service usually requires less than one-third of their time. The remaining 30 states are somewhere between the two extremes, but time commitments are increasing rather than diminishing.
Legislators must make many different choices. They not only have to decide what bills they want to introduce, but also whether to vote "aye" or "nay" literally thousands of times on bills and amendments in committee and on the floor. It is a huge workload, as indicated by the number of introductions and enactments shown in table 2. All of a legislator's activities are in the public domain. Every decision a legislator makes is subject to challenge and criticism. It is difficult to achieve one's objectives. Even relatively noncontroversial bills can encounter obstacles along the way to enactment. A legislator is under constant pressure and always at risk. The strains are enormous.
Nevertheless, many members remain as long as they can. They like and derive satisfaction from their service. For those who want to learn about government and policy, the experience is fascinating. The learning does not end, because members take on more and different responsibilities. For those who enjoy challenge, the legislative process is about as challenging as anything can be. The politics and the sense of making critical decisions that affect the future of the state are stimulating. "It's great to sit around over dinner, talking policy or strategizing. It's an intoxicating environment," says a California senator. A Nebraska senator comments, "I live for the last three or four weeks of the session-when everything comes together, we're going a mile a minute and things are getting done. It's barely controlled chaos, but somehow it works. It's exciting." Life in the legislature is rarely dull. The power that legislators wield is not unimportant. Legislators appreciate what power can do, but they also have a sense of its limits. A legislator's power, at the very least, is limited by the power of colleagues in the chamber, by members of the other chamber and by the president or governor. And it is accountable, most especially to the voters in the legislator's district. Legislators do have real power to get things done, to make a difference, to advance the public interest, and to be taken seriously. Public service exercises strong appeal for legislators in the states. A former speaker of the Michigan House of Representatives puts it this way: "Most people run [for the legislature] with some level of idealism-to leave the state and the community better for their children than they found it. Why do people teach or go into the ministry? I think it's very much the same thing ... it's the same call to public service." When they find legislative life fulfilling, legislators concern themselves with the next campaign for reelection. They can continue in public service only by winning more votes than their opponent. So, they worry about what their constituents think about them and about the issues. In the larger states-and just about everywhere in competitive districts-the impending campaign is never far from legislators' minds. Fund raising can be an ongoing activity. Is it any wonder that office holders who like their jobs do not want to lose? This means that the next election is just around the corner-every two years for house members in 45 states, senate members in 12 states and the U.S. House of Representatives, every four years for house members in five states and senators in 38 states and every six years in the U.S. Senate, as shown in table 3.
Especially if they come from competitive districts, incumbents cannot afford to relax their reelection efforts, if they want to return. Depending on the state, anywhere from 14 percent (Arizona) to 58 percent (New York) of the districts are competitive, as shown in figure 3. In Congress there is considerable difference between the two chambers. The House of Representatives is like the Arizona Legislature, with only 15 percent of the seats won by close margins. In the more visible U.S. Senate races, 25 percent of the seats are marginal.
Even incumbents from relatively safe districts take little for granted. They feel unsafe, no matter what their previous electoral margins were. They are always looking over their shoulder for a primary election opponent. They have seen colleagues whose districts were even safer than their own struck by electoral lightning, and do not want it to strike them. Without doubt, reelection is an important motivation of legislative incumbents, but it does not preclude other motivations that-in one combination or another-drive all legislators. So they campaign hard. In populous, competitive districts, election campaigns are likely to be exhausting marathons that last several months. Many legislators represent small enough districts that they can campaign door-to-door evenings and weekends. All of them appear at candidate forums and debates. If they can afford it, they buy radio and television advertisements. Most make use of direct mail. Campaigns require not only the time and effort of candidates, they also require financial resources. And money, more than anything else, raises the questions of the integrity of those we elect to public office. People who believe that money explains everything that happens in politics will doubt the honesty of legislators, among other elective politicians. Their doubts are based in part on how legislators are portrayed in the media. In several respects, legislators simply don't look good, even though they may be doing good. Many Americans cannot understand why legislators will spend so much time on public office when the salary is low in most states, and minuscule in a few. Most states have citizen legislators who supplement their legislative incomes with income from private employment. In a citizen legislature, there are always potential conflicts in which the public good can lose to the individual legislator's personal gain. Legislatures have enacted statutes and rules to guard against conflicts, and legislators are expected to abstain from participating on an issue if they feel conflicted. But prohibiting outside employment and getting rid of the citizen legislator is the only way to solve the problem. Few states have been willing to raise legislative salaries to a level high enough to justify preventing legislators from earning outside income. Most people in most states prefer the idea of a citizen legislature. Congress is the only legislature in the United States where members are banned from earning any outside income. Members certainly are influenced by their professional and occupational backgrounds, but not because they stand to gain personally by voting one way or another. It is, rather, that they identify with the professions and occupations that have been part of their lives. They are likely to be sympathetic to that point of view. It is understandable that teachers support bills benefiting education, business people support bills reducing regulation, and doctors favor bills advancing health care. But to the public it may not look right and nowadays an appearance of conflict can be almost as damning as a conflict itself. Moreover, it is far easier to demonstrate, since appearance is in the eyes of the beholder rather than in the actual behavior of the legislator. How can legislators maintain their integrity when they are constantly raising money for political campaigns? Most can and do; a few can't and don't. Many legislators do not raise a lot of money and support their campaigns with contributions from family and friends. Others raise larger amounts, but depend mainly on groups that support them because they already are allies. Campaign contributors are most likely to give money to candidates who are predisposed to support their positions. In other words, money follows the legislator's votes, rather than the votes following the money. Contributions are designed to help reelect friends and allies. What do these contributors get for their money that they wouldn't get otherwise? Not much. They get what any political supporters or local influentials would get-courtesy, an ear and consideration. Perhaps they get it somewhat more readily than non-contributors might. Despite public and media suspicion, there is no evidence that campaign contributions significantly influence legislators' decisions. Some legislators who raise substantial amounts receive contributions from interest groups that are not giving simply to help reelect allies. They are contributing to gain access, or even more. At the least, such contributions (that normally go to well-positioned incumbents who are not likely to lose) may soften potential opposition or activate potential support. And where the issue is of low visibility-both within and outside a legislator's constituency-and where the member has no position of his or her own, a campaign contribution can make a difference. It might cause the recipient to pay more attention to the group's policy justification for its position. After such examination, and without even being aware of the influence of the contribution, a recipient might rationalize support in terms of the merits of a group's policy claims. The effects of campaign contributions on the behavior of legislators are both oversimplified and exaggerated. All sorts of factors besides campaign contributions shape the behavior of legislators:
Of these, the most important are probably their core values and the views of constituents. Party positions and the recommendations of friends and trusted colleagues also weigh heavily. On the big issues, these factors are more important than campaign contributions. This is not to suggest that money has no effects. Contributions matter most on relatively minor issues-that is, issues that matter neither to constituency, party or individual legislator. These issues do matter, however, to the interest groups that are promoting or opposing them. Rarely, however, do contributions affect outcomes on the major issues of public policy, where the other factors play a greater role. Contributions are more likely to influence how active and vocal a legislator is on an issue than they are a legislator's basic position or vote. Finally, contributions may significantly influence the few lawmakers who can be swayed by financial support. Although a few legislators may be corrupt and a few more may be ethically challenged, the overwhelming majority of American legislators are honest men and women who are trying to meet standards that are high and that have become even higher in recent years. Lee Hamilton, a highly respected member who served in Congress for 34 years, says, "People like to dwell on misbehavior. In my experience in Congress probity is the rule, not the exception." Every institution, including every legislative chamber, has a few bad apples. But that is no reason to assume that the entire barrel is spoiled. 2. How Legislators Are Linked to Constituents
Three of five Americans tell pollsters that "public officials don't care much what people like me think." For them, government at both the national and state levels is run by a few big interests and a bunch of politicians looking out for themselves. Almost half the respondents to a National Elections Study poll say that they think members of Congress would pay very little or no attention if they contacted them. State legislators did not fare much better: 41 percent of the public thinks that state lawmakers would pay very little or no attention if contacted. Among young people between the ages of 18 and 24, a National Association of Secretaries of State Survey found that two-thirds of them feel that their generation's voice is important, but no one is listening. If only elected public officials would listen, people believe, the system would work better and things would be better. Whatever their beliefs, however, most Americans are both uninformed about and uninvolved with politics. They are too busy with their jobs, their families and recreation. Anyway, they think public issues are too complicated and politics are too dirty. Furthermore, if no one listens to them, why should they be involved? Ironically, even though they don't want to be involved, they don't trust those who are involved-the politicians, the lobbyists and the organized groups who represent some of their interests. In reality, people's views are far off the mark. Legislators care more about what their constituents think than they care about anything else, save perhaps the dictates of their own consciences. And, more often than not, conscience and constituents are aligned. Legislators' concern for ordinary constituents results from three sets of factors. First, lawmakers resemble their constituents in a number of important respects, even though they differ in having made a serious commitment to politics and public service. Second, they truly believe that the job of the representative is to take into account the desires and promote the interests of those they represent. Third, if they do not do right by their constituency, they run the risk of defeat in the next election. A former member of the highly professional California Legislature characterized the membership, saying, "On the whole, the California Senate and Assembly are a reasonable representation of the people of the state." And a rather likeable bunch as well, he added. In the past, lawyers dominated legislatures; there are fewer lawyers today, but more teachers and other jobholders. Legislators are better educated than the average American, but the educational gap between office holders and voters is not that great. More important, minorities are more adequately represented in the ranks of legislators nowadays, and the proportion of women has increased nationwide in state legislatures from 9 percent in 1977 to 22 percent today, as shown in table 4. Women make up 12 percent of the membership of Congress, up from three percent two decades ago. Legislators do not exactly mirror the populations of their states but, like other people, they have to live on modest salaries, worry about their family budgets, and work at regular jobs outside the legislature.
Legislators identify with their districts. They live there, work there, and have made friends and established connections there. Many have grown up there. If the district has predominant views and attitudes-whether generally conservative or liberal or focused on a given issue-legislators probably share them. The legislator is not an outsider but is very much a part of the community that he or she represents. Even members of Congress, who are often accused of being "inside the beltway," are rooted in their districts. Most return to their districts virtually every weekend. How legislators relate to their constituencies depends on many things. District size is one of the most important. Legislative districts vary enormously from state to state, as shown in table 5. At one extreme are the more populous states, where districts contain relatively large populations. In California, for example, each of the 40 senators represents about 744,000 people. California Senate districts are larger even than U.S. House constituencies, which average 609,000 in population. At the other extreme, the least populous states have comparatively small populations in each legislative district. In New Hampshire, for example, each of the 400 house members has approximately 2,770 constituents (although some districts are multi-member and have larger populations). Representation probably is easier in smaller than in larger districts. Smaller districts are likely to be more homogenous, with fewer competing interests. The legislator does not get pushed and pulled in as many directions. Moreover, in states like South Dakota and Vermont, it is easier for representatives to meet personally with a much larger portion of their district-by attending community group functions, marching in parades, or chatting with constituents at the supermarket-than it is for representatives in states like California and New York or members of Congress. Almost everywhere, legislators reach out one way or another to connect with constituents. They send out mail and newsletters and conduct polls. In the more professional legislatures, they host cable TV talk shows or report via cable to their constituents. In an increasing number of states, legislators have e-mail addresses that facilitate instant access. In about one-quarter of the states, they have district offices and staff that help them keep in contact with constituents and constituency groups.
When they are not actually making laws, legislators spend an increasing amount of time visiting with constituents and listening to their concerns. Their constituents expect them to be on call, and they are. Few legislators are willing to disappoint constituents or risk being perceived as unavailable. During the course of a year, about one in five citizens write to a legislator on an issue or a problem. Just about everywhere, the overwhelming majority of individual constituents are uninvolved (although they may be represented by one or more interest groups). It is up to legislators to reach out to them, and most make a major effort to do so. A Georgia legislator, for example, says that he calls 20 of his constituents every day of the legislative session to ask how they feel about issues that are before the legislature. Legislators reach individuals in their constituencies by providing them service-called casework-in response to individual requests. A constituent may need help with a specific problem-a road repair, traffic light, driver's license, property tax rebate, or just about anything else imaginable. Where legislators have personal staff (such as in Congress and the states indicated in table 6), the legislator is better able to respond to a constituent request. In most states, though, legislators have little or no help to handle the correspondence and phone calls. Some who have their own businesses can draw on those resources to support their casework. A freshman legislator from Georgia says, "When I became a legislator, I saw my insurance business go from selling insurance to solving Joe's prison problem."
There are few lengths to which legislators will not go in order to serve constituents, as is indicated by the experience of an Oklahoma representative. A constituent called him at home to complain about the overgrowth of weeds on the median strip of the local highway. Although the representative tried several times, he could not get the highway department to do anything. So, he drove his own lawnmower to the highway and cut down the weeds himself. That is casework above and beyond the call of duty.
Legislators also try to confer benefits on their constituency as a whole, which is known as "bringing home the bacon." Representatives are expected to direct resources to their districts (and prevent resources from being taken away). Doing so requires that legislators try to ensure that the funding formulas that provide aid to local units of government-and particularly to school districts-benefit their constituencies as much as possible. It also requires that legislators try to get as many projects for their districts as possible. Such "pork barrel" projects, as they often are known, normally have to be funded by items in the state budget. They range from major (such as funds for new government buildings, highway construction or convention centers) to insignificant (such as money to fund the out-of-state trip of the youth sports club drum and bugle corps, buy a van for transporting senior citizens or build a playing field for a high school). Every district can make a case for its own special needs, and usually the district's case has some merit. Representatives are there to go to bat for the individuals and groups who come to them for assistance. It is ironic, therefore, that legislators are accused of trying to get projects for their districts in one breath and of being unresponsive to their constituents in another. When it comes to expressing concern, helping constituents with their government-related problems, or getting state aid and projects for their constituency, the role of the representative is relatively straightforward. Acting as an agent for the constituency on policy matters is more complicated, because few constituents have policy demands other than at a most general and consensual level. Few citizens communicate their demands, if they have them, and most policy demands on legislators come from organized groups, consisting of a relatively small proportion of the total constituency. Moreover, groups within a district frequently do not agree on policy but, rather, come into conflict over what should be done. Constituents disagree, too. Still, legislators are exceptionally sensitive to local opinions and concerns. There is little doubt as to which way they vote when the wind is blowing in one direction on such matters. For example, a legislative leader in Massachusetts fought against the governor and business interests that wanted a new runway at Logan Airport in Boston. His district, which would have been adversely affected, was very much opposed to anything that increased air traffic. Whatever the issue, if district opinion is clear and vocal, the legislator will follow suit. The number of instances in which the constituency feels one way and the representative acts another are few and far between. Seldom does a legislator's conscience, campaign contributions or anything else come between the representative and a mandate from the constituency. Such mandates are rare, however. Usually, legislators must rely on their own judgment-weighing a number of factors that include the merits of an issue; their own beliefs; the arguments of various groups; recommendations from legislative leaders, committees, colleagues and the chief executive; and views of individuals in the district. Representatives ought to act in the interests of their constituents and, insofar as possible, in accord with their wishes. This they certainly do. The problem is not that legislators are unresponsive but, rather, that responsiveness to their constituency sometimes may be at the expense of the general good of the entire state. 3. Where People Stand
Political theorists disagree about whether consensus assists or hinders the functioning of democracy. On the one hand, many contemporary theorists take the view of Rousseau that a substantial consensus is needed for a democracy to work. On the other hand, James Madison offered the view that democracy would work better when divergent views were rampant. Regardless of whether one's vision of the ideal democracy is closer to that of Rousseau or Madison, it is clear that the level of general agreement or disagreement in society is a vital characteristic. If we are to understand a collection of people, one thing we must know is the extent to which they tend to agree on matters of concern to the community. Although they might differ with regard to the details, most Americans believe there is general societal consensus on the major and important matters: on the goals and aspirations for the country, if not on the precise mechanism for achieving those goals. And even with regard to achieving goals, many people believe that hard work by unbiased, reasonably intelligent decision makers will reveal a best (or at least perfectly appropriate) way to proceed. A random national survey of nearly 1,300 American adults conducted in the late spring of 1998 yielded typical results. In that survey, respondents were asked if "the American people agreed on the most important problem facing the country." Notice that this item asks respondents only to identify a problem, not to recommend a solution. Most people responded that there is a substantial level of agreement as to the most important problem. Just one of five respondents said "very few" Americans agreed, while one of three stated that "most" Americans agreed on the most important problem (the rest said "some" agree on the key problem). When attention shifted to the matter of solving whatever problem the respondent identified as the "most important," people admitted that there is somewhat more disagreement, but even then nearly two of three said that either "some" or "most" people agree on the solution. More startling is the response to a different survey item that asked respondents to agree or disagree with the following statement: "The American people disagree with each other so much that the politicians need to compromise." This would appear to be an obvious proposition. Moreover, survey respondents have a bias toward giving "yes" answers, so we would expect a high positive response to this question. But nearly one-half of all respondents disagreed with this statement. Apparently, a majority of Americans believe that compromise in society is not necessary because they think everyone agrees on most things. So the popular wisdom as to the level of public consensus would seem to be that, although not everyone agrees on every issue, general agreement exists on the important core matters. Most people have convinced themselves that, to the extent that disagreement exists, it pertains only to the specifics of policy and that these specifics are unimportant. The truth is very different than this perception of public consensus. In reality, the American people do not even agree on the identification of the most important problem facing society, let alone on the best way of solving that problem. In the same survey, when people were asked to identify the most important problem, the one receiving the most mention was "a decline in values and morals." This was mentioned by only 94 of the 1,263 respondents (7 percent), however. Nineteen other problems were identified as the most important by at least 20 people. This constitutes an amazing range of opinion. Contrary to what Americans tend to believe, as a society we do not come close to agreeing on the most important problem. When attention is shifted to the issue of appropriate strategies for addressing that most important problem, the divisions multiply. For example, 82 people said crime was the most important problem (7 percent), but even those 82 people differed on what to do about it. Although 47 percent of all respondents said that crime should be tackled by "addressing the conditions that cause crime," 34 percent said that we should "get tough with criminals" (and another 19 percent took the safe position of "both"). Among those who saw crime as the most important problem, the tough on criminals strategy, not surprisingly, was slightly more popular. The interesting point, however, is that divisions of opinion on the best strategy for dealing with crime persist even among those who see crime as the most important problem. Of the 82 who said crime was America's biggest problem, 35 favored addressing the conditions that cause crime in the first place and 34 supported getting tough on criminals. The remaining 13 wanted to do both at the same time. Opinion could not be more divided. The evidence presented with regard to crime could be duplicated for virtually every other policy area. People disagree about whether a particular issue is the most important problem facing the country, they disagree on what to do about it, and they have varying intensities of feeling about the benefits of various strategies. Regardless of what the people believe (or want to believe), the level of disagreement among members of the American public is remarkable. This same conclusion is evident in many other soundings of the American public. Every two years, a major investigation of voting behavior and public opinion is conducted by the National Election Studies (NES) at the University of Michigan. In 1998, as in other election years, NES administered a detailed questionnaire to a large random sample of American adults. Several issue-oriented questions were included, and the responses emphasize the extent to which people disagree. One question in that survey asked if people thought we had "gone too far in pushing equal rights in this country." Forty-five percent agreed, but an almost equal 42 percent disagreed (the remaining could not decide). Another question asked if "organized religious groups should stay out of politics or is it important for them to stand up for their beliefs in politics." Forty-seven percent said organized religious groups should stay out of politics and 51 percent said they should stand up for their beliefs. More specific policy proposals also produced about as much division as is possible. "Do you favor or oppose a school voucher program that would allow parents to use tax funds to send their children to the school of their choice, even if it were a private school?" Just over 46 percent favored vouchers and slightly fewer than 48 percent opposed vouchers. Another item read: "Some people have suggested placing limits on foreign imports in order to protect American jobs. Others say that such limits would raise consumer prices and hurt American exports. Do you favor or oppose placing new limits on imports, or haven't you thought much about this?" Not surprisingly, given the nature of this item, a large percentage of respondents (more than 39 percent) confessed they had not thought much about this issue. But the telling point is that, of those who did venture an opinion, 52 percent favored new limits on imports and 48 percent opposed them. More results from other policy-related questions could be presented, but the point is already made. On issue after issue the American public is divided over the proper course of action. Are school vouchers a technicality? Can we gloss over the fact that public opinion is basically split down the middle on this important issue? If government tries to follow the people's wishes regarding equal rights for all, what should it do in light of the fact that 45 percent of the people think we have gone too far and 42 percent think we have not gone far enough? Whatever the people tend to believe, the truth is that actual consensus on most real political issues is quite low. Why do people tend to overestimate the level of agreement in society? In doing so, they are behaving in an explainable and fairly predictable fashion. For some time, psychologists have been aware of people's tendency to engage in "false consensus," that is, to believe the level of agreement is higher than it actually is. The reasons for this tendency are deeply rooted in human nature. First of all, we tend to associate with people who are like us in certain respects. And, if they are like us in certain respects, this increases the odds they will be like us in others. People who live in the same neighborhood, work at similar jobs, have children who attend the same schools, or enjoy the same leisure pursuits are more likely to agree with the political views of their fellow travelers than with those of people with whom they do not come into contact. Therefore, when we discuss politics, it often seems as though people with whom we talk agree with us. Moreover, well-known patterns of personal interaction exacerbate the appearance of agreement. Specifically, a "group-think" process frequently pervades discussions. Group think is when a view stated often and with authority discourages those with contrary views from offering them for group consideration. Those who agree say so, and those who do not will come around to the new position or remain silent. Either behavior gives the appearance that more consensus exists than really does. We are social creatures who prefer to have a sense of belonging, of sharing with our colleagues, and of being a part of something bigger than ourselves. Part of this belonging often includes agreement on political issues of the day, so we have a psychological stake in believing that our views are shared by most other reasonable human beings in our society. This stake may lead us to use perceptual screens to ignore information that provides evidence of dissension and to assume evidence of a consensus among all those of good heart. Although we all know people who delight in being contrary, most of us seek vindication of our own beliefs by viewing others as agreeing with us. When we do acknowledge the existence of disagreement, we often ascribe it to unusual people. A widespread belief is that the "silent majority" is in fundamental agreement on important issues. It is a perfectly understandable human tendency to believe that many others hold our views. After all, if they make sense to us, they probably make sense to others who are reasonable. In fact, it may be that those who do not agree are therefore not particularly reasonable. Agreement becomes a sign of reasonableness and disagreement a sign that the person holding such a view does not agree with popular opinion. The people who disagree with popular opinion are likely to be perceived as under the influence of special interests. Many Americans view these special interests as the embodiment of evil. In a way, the currently popular interpretation of the phrase "special interest" is instructive. Special interests could be accorded a great deal of respect. What could be more important to a democratic political system than making sure that all interests are treated as though they were "special" interests? If our interest is special rather than ordinary, then it is all the more important that we work to make sure the government is aware of it and that government is sensitive to it. But far from being viewed as noble, the term "special interests" in American politics conjures up notions that are quite different. The basic vision of a special interest is of one that receives more attention than it deserves. Americans do not like to think of any interests as special; we like to think of all interests as the same, as being a part of the general interests of the majority, perhaps as part of a Rousseauian general will. The sneering contempt for special interests is perfectly consistent with the people's common interpretation that quiet, silent, majority interests are legitimate, but noisy special interests are not. Although we might all wish for a singular and definitive view of the people, the evidence suggests that we must adjust to the fact that there is no majority opinion with which we can associate ourselves. We are going to have to legitimatize our views in some fashion other than by simply our belief that they are be held by a large segment of the population. Democracy is about giving voice to everyone, not only to those who are convinced that they hold the majority views. There simply is no consensus on important political matters in the United States. Disagreement cannot be assumed to exist only on trivial matters. The devil is in the details, and so allegedly trivial matters quite often are the very core of policy decisions. Disagreement also cannot be written off as the product of a few wild and misguided protestors. Instead, it must be embraced as a vital part of life in a modern, highly populous, differentiated, technologically complex, ethnically diverse, mobile society such as ours. If we do not recognize legitimate diversity in political views, we will not be in a position to understand the challenges facing democratic government as it tries to reconcile those diverse views. With the recognition of diversity firmly in mind, the issue then becomes what to do about it. If we lived in a non-democratic system, the presence of diversity among the people would be irrelevant. Since we live in a democracy, however, working through diversity to achieve proper, acceptable solutions becomes a real challenge. Meeting this challenge is what legislatures do, because they deal daily with the disagreements that exist among their citizens. 4. How Special Are Interests?
One of the most lopsided responses to the 1998 National Election Survey poll came when people were asked to agree or disagree with the statement that "special interests have too much control of what government does." Fully 79 percent of all respondents thought special interests have too much power. When asked, "Would you say the government is pretty much run by a few big interests looking out for themselves or that it is run for the benefit of all people," only one-quarter say it is for the general good. The country's youth are even more disgruntled than their elders are. Those in the 18- to 24-year-old age group are especially suspicious of special interests. According to a National Association of Secretaries of State survey, nine out of every 10 of them agree that a few big interests are running the government. These kinds of responses are to be expected. Perhaps a more surprising one came when the National Election Survey asked if "interest groups should be prohibited from contacting legislators." Even though a majority believed this was not a good idea, it is remarkable that 46 percent supported a complete removal of the right to petition legislators. That so many people are in favor of a concept that is clearly in violation of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution indicates the extent to which people believe special interests control the legislative process. People banding together in groups to advance their interests is a traditional feature of American politics. James Madison, in the Federalist Papers, recognized that individuals organized themselves into factions to promote their passions and interests. For Madison, a faction was "... a number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or minority of the whole, who are united and activated by some common impulse or passion, or of interest..." Factions are natural phenomena, "sown in the nature of man," according to Madison. Farmers, merchants, laborers, veterans and dozens of other groupings of citizens organized themselves as factions or interest groups in the 18th and 19th centuries. As government grew and politics became more complex, citizens have increasingly relied on groups to represent their interests. Congress and the state legislatures today are the focal points of core activities in a democracy. Citizens come to see their legislator, groups like the League of Women Voters and the teachers' union send their leaders and their lobbyists to make their case, and a host of interests-from child advocacy organizations to gambling industry groups-turn to lobbyists to press their respective causes. Still, establishing a group is neither easy nor natural. There are many costs to organizing large groups of individuals, and the benefits that flow to a given individual in a group may not be worth the investment. Conversely, many interests will find taking part in a group and lobbying to be a good investment, given the importance of the decisions made by the legislature. Even the difficult to organize-such as consumers, welfare clients and environmental advocates-form groups and become involved in legislative politics at the state capital. There are groups representing almost every interest imaginable. The Encyclopedia of Associations lists more than 20,000 national organizations-trade, business, legal, educational, social welfare, health, labor and so forth. In a state capital, groups represent American life literally from cradle to grave-from nurse midwives to casket manufacturers. Some are continually active in pressing their claims on the legislature, others are intermittently active, and still others exist but rarely turn to government for help. Table 7 presents a list of groups that are present and active in the states. Similarly, Fortune magazine ranked the top lobbying organizations before Congress. The top 10 included:
Nearly eight of every 10 Americans are members of an organized group with a policy agenda. About 40 percent of Americans are members of more than one group. For just about every view that a citizen has there is one group or another promoting that view. Whether people are members of the relevant groups or not, their opinions have a voice in the policy arena. In short, the so-called "special interests" are not the enemy; they are us. The U.S. Constitution guarantees people a voice-free speech and the right to petition-and groups retain lobbyists to do the speaking for them. Lobbyists come in a variety of forms; some are employed in-house by a group and others are hired on a contractual basis, working on a retainer or issue by issue. Either way, lobbyists are much like attorneys. They know the legislative process as attorneys know the law. They also know the issues in dispute. Lobbyists represent their clients by advocating their interests in the lawmaking process. As citizens, we have no objection to the principles involved and we do not want the expression of our own interests (which we tend to equate with the public interest) stifled, but nevertheless we are mightily suspicious of lobbyists and lobbying. Indeed, two-thirds of respondents to one national poll said that the role of lobbying was either a very serious threat or a somewhat serious threat to American democracy. In a state poll conducted by the University of Connecticut, people were asked: "Do you think lobbyists can be useful to government, or would we be better off in all respects if there were no lobbyists?" Although 50 percent thought that lobbyists could be useful, as many as 40 percent thought that it would be better if there were no lobbyists.
Organized groups and lobbyists contribute in important, even crucial, ways to the legislative process and to the result that emerges. This is far from the perspective most citizens have when they view the legislative process. They see lobbyists as "influence peddlers," heaping gifts, favors and campaign contributions upon lawmakers who are all too willing to do their bidding. Such a perspective has been buttressed during the past decade or so by legislative scandals in a number of states, including Arizona, California, Kentucky and South Carolina. Despite the fact that there are examples of both lobbyists and legislators who are untrustworthy or corrupt, the vast majority of members of both groups are ethical and trustworthy. If there is a driving force behind the most cynical public view of lobbyists and legislators, it comes from the media or from citizens' groups who fear that the worst is always happening and advocate extraordinarily tough standards for controlling dealings between lobbyists and legislators. In a number of states, for example, in reaction to even the appearance of unethical behavior, legislatures passed a "no-cup-of-coffee" rule. That is, a lobbyist cannot spend even a dollar or two on a legislator for fear of creating the appearance of getting something in return. The distrust is not new; it has a long history in American political life, dating to the excesses of the 1870s, the Gilded Age. The nation was industrializing, and all governments-national, state and local-were becoming more powerful as they granted subsidies, determined where roads would be built and laid the structural foundations for urban life. The incentives to influence governmental policies increased rapidly at the end of the 19th century and have grown even faster in the post-New Deal era of governmental expansion. Ironically, although people have long harbored suspicions of lobbyists and so-called special interest groups, they also have clamored for the forceful representation of their own interests. No better example exists than American farmers, who have often expressed a desire to be left alone by the government, but whose organizations-such as the American Farm Bureau Federation-have lobbied hard for particular government benefits. Interest groups either have lobbyists on their staff (in-house lobbyists) or hire consultants (contract lobbyists) to represent them. Experienced, expert lobbyists are valuable because of their knowledge of the issues and their understanding of the legislative process. The lobbyists may call on rank-and-file members to participate in grass roots activities. "Special interests" and lobbyists are a favorite target of the media, whose focus is almost always on questionable behavior and undue influence. In Kansas, for example, the capital media report every three months on the funds spent to influence the Legislature, even though the data are incomplete and expenditures are relatively modest. Indeed, as much as anyone, reporters and editors have generated the story line that equates money-whether given as campaign contributions or spent on socializing-with producing unwarranted influence. This is a much easier story than a complicated narrative that seeks to sort out the intricacies of complex policy decisions, where "white hats" and "black hats" are not so easily identified and where most expenditures go toward informing legislators. Lobbyists and the interests they represent make use of a variety of techniques to persuade the legislature of their point of view. Not only do they contribute to campaigns, usually supporting candidates with whom they already agree, but they also work to build relationships with as many legislators as possible. Relationships contribute to feelings of trust, and trust in the information conveyed and commitments made is important to everyone in the legislative process. Of increasing significance as a lobbying technique is the grassroots campaign in which groups mobilize members, employees and supporters to write to or visit with legislators in order to advance their cause. Probably as vital as anything are the information and justifications that lobbyists provide to legislators about issues. Persuasive technical, substantive, and political information and arguments on the merits make a big difference in the process. Lobbyists know that they dare not mislead legislators for fear that they will lose trust. But lobbyists have their own viewpoints, and they argue them forcefully. Oil company representatives argue from the perspective of their industry, child advocates present their stories and analyses, and teachers make the case for public schools. Legislators and lobbyists interact on issues in a variety of ways. Sometimes legislators may need a quick briefing on an unfamiliar bill. Calling several trusted lobbyists may provide enough information for the legislator to take a position or cast a more intelligent vote. On a more complicated issue like health care reform or telecommunications regulation, lobbyists and groups may provide detailed research, information and expert testimony. Most often, lawmakers obtain information from several lobbyists and groups, which they then use to sort through the complex issues that confront them. Lobbying in Congress and in just about every state is vastly different than it used to be. The days of socializing, entertaining and junketing, with lobbyists picking up the tab and legislators enjoying their generosity, are over. Ethics laws and regulations, a vigilant press corps and public perceptions have commanded an arms-length relationship between legislators and lobbyists. Looking at the variety of groups that come before the legislature, we can ordinarily identify a wide range of interests. It is good that there is representation of a large number of perspectives. But all interests are not equal; far from it. Some interests simply have many more resources than their opponents. In many rural states, for example, agricultural interests such as chemical fertilizer manufacturers or large corporate farms often have prevailed on water quality issues, even though there are lobbyists who advocate on behalf of the environment and recreation interests. Many diverse groups lobby the legislature, but those representing major economic interests often dominate the process. This is partly because those with clear, concentrated interests organize more easily and effectively than do those who represent broad, dispersed interests. For example, electricity producers have a major, immediate concern in legislative outcomes. Consumers of electricity also have a concern, of course, but the stakes for each individual electric customer are quite low compared to those of the utilities. All kinds of resources contribute to the influence of a group. A large membership distributed among many legislative districts is a major resource. That is why teachers' associations have clout. A group that is single-minded and passionate with an appealing program is taken seriously. That accounts for the success of Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD). Corporations that are economically important to a state or a district are given great consideration. This explains the influence of the insurance industry in Connecticut, pharmaceuticals in New Jersey, or Microsoft and Boeing in Washington. Groups that have access to the media also are influential. Organizations like Common Cause and the Public Interest Research Group (PIRG) have had their share of success. And groups with objectives that are limited, costless and noncontroversial fare well in the process. The associations of certified public accountants are examples of groups with modest demands and high success rates. Despite the inequality among interests represented before the legislature, other countervailing forces operate against the concentration of power by a handful of moneyed interests that might dominate the process of providing information to legislators and influencing their decisions. Executive agencies, legislative staff and the press offer alternative sources of information that regularly offer different perspectives from those of organized interests. Most important, legislators have their own beliefs, and they also must respond to the wishes of their constituents. Especially on high-profile issues or those of major concern to their districts, lawmakers may have little political freedom and no inclination to ally themselves with interest groups that run counter to the beliefs or desires of their constituency. Lobbyists, interest groups and individuals have two major avenues to influence legislative decisions. First, they can convince the legislators who are currently in office to make decisions that will produce a favorable policy outcome-e.g., a tax cut, highway expenditures or an increase in education funding. This is ordinary lobbying, although it may take any number of forms. Second, they can seek, through elections, to change the composition of the legislature by replacing adversaries with allies. If they can succeed in doing this, they will be able to deal with lawmakers whose viewpoints are similar to theirs. Groups tend to support their friends in the legislature, even when those legislators do not face strong electoral opposition. Contributions often are based upon lawmakers' past actions, rather than on a desire to influence future decisions. The trial lawyers know that legislators who have voted with them in the past (against restricting the amount of punitive damages in a lawsuit, for example) will continue to support their cause. On occasion, however, the trial lawyers or any other group may desire to unseat enough of their opponents to obtain a majority | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
