If, as opponents to term limits say, more experience equals better and more responsible representation, then why do we see a steady and dramatic decline in the economy and population of what was once considered one of the most attractive places to live in the United States? Possibly, the more pressing question might be; how does a person continually get re-elected to congress when he represents in congress a district that has seen such dramatic decline? A number of issues most certainly factor into such a decline and Representative Conyers is most certainly not responsible for this decline, however, if his representation in congress is not alleviating the situation and no discernible beneficial outcomes from his representation are to be seen, how can he consistently win re-election in the face of such obvious lack of beneficial representation? The CEO or President of any business or organization would most probably be removed from their position should they fail to alleviate a collapse in the company or organization of which they are meant to lead, and most definitely long before fifty years of failure have passed despite their best efforts or intentions.
Aside from a failure to stem or reverse such a decline in his district's economic well-being, Representative Conyers has, over the years, been involved in a number of controversial situations that bring into question his ability to responsibly represent his constituents. In June 2009, Conyers' wife Monica, a Detroit City Council member, pleaded guilty to felony bribery charges and was given a 37 month federal prison sentence. He vocally supported ACORN despite 39 felony charges against the group in relation to voter registration fraud in 2009. He was a vocal supporter of the Nicaraguan Sandinista dictatorship during the 1980s. In the 2014 election he nearly wasn't able to run for re-election due to a failure to qualify for the ballot in his district. In July 2009 he gave a speech at a National Press Club luncheon in which he suggested that it was unimportant whether or not legislators read the 2,000-page health-care bill that was then being debated by Congress. And these are only a few of the controversies he's been involved with, the majority of which do not directly relate to his district or the constituents who continually vote him into office.
How then, has Mr. Conyers continually run for and won his seat in Congress? The answer, it seems, lies in campaign funding. According to the Federal Elections Commission, Mr. Conyers raised a total of $181,249 from individual contributions, $584,436 from PAC contributions, and $12,984 from "other" for the 2013-2014 election cycle. According to maplight.org, between Jan 2005 through Dec 2007, Mr. Conyers received $1,256,617 in total Campaign contributions. Interestingly, of that amount, 99% of those campaign contributions ($1,243,492) came from outside his district and 91% of those campaign contributions ($1,140,514) came from outside his state. This information begs a couple of questions. Firstly, why would anyone outside the district he represents, much less outside his state, contribute to his re-election? Secondly, if 99% of his campaign funds come from outside his district, is he really motivated to vote in congruence with the wishes of the people he represents inside his district? Thirdly, if he did not receive so much funding from outside his district and his state, then would his state and district have generated enough support to return him to his seat in Congress? Finally, and possibly more importantly, what do those from outside his district and state want from him in return for their support of someone that doesn't represent their own district or state?
1% of $1,243,492 is $12,434.92. It seems unreasonable that anyone from that district who wished to oppose Mr. Conyers for his seat in congress would be unable to raise more than $13,000 from constituents within that district. This leads us to believe that anyone opposing Mr. Conyers for that seat in Congress is fighting not for the votes of those people who that districts seat represents, but instead, for special interests from outside that district who have reasons for supporting Mr. Conyers that have nothing to do with the betterment of that district and the people in it. THIS is exactly the reason that term limits are necessary. Mr. Conyers, as the longest serving member of the U.S. House of Representatives has an enormous amount of influence on the rest of the House of Representatives and the people who serve in that house of Congress. These special interests that support Mr. Conyers for his re-election bids would not be nearly as likely to spend such large amounts if he did not have the influence that special interest campaign funding has bought him over the half a century he's been in Congress. They have no interest in the people of Mr. Conyers district or the betterment of that district itself. They support Mr. Conyers for the simple reason that their support will influence his vote on legislation they favor or oppose and his influence over other members of Congress when they too vote on legislation upon which they wish to have some influence. Simply put, those special interests are buying influence over the legislation upon which the U.S. House of Representatives is voting.
By limiting the term of service within the U.S. Congress to a maximum of twelve years for any one person, we can severely curtail such outside influence and return the election of representatives within the U.S. Congress to those it is meant to be managed by, the citizens of the districts under which these congressmen serve. Twelve years is more than long enough for any congressmen to achieve forward movement on any legislation that their constituents favor. After all, the The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), commonly called the Affordable Care Act (ACA) or Obamacare was passed in just over one year from the time it was first presented to Congress. While that probably isn't enough time to ensure that legislation passed is responsible and effective, it does indicate that an extended length of time is not necessary for the passage and institution of legislation.
We have to wonder just how Detroit, or at least the district that Mr. Conyers represents would be faring now had he only been limited to twelve years in that seat. That district would now be on it's fifth representative in that seat had there been a twelve year limit on the time served in congress and that is assuming that each of those representatives was re-elected into that position each time their seat came up for re-election. Much has changed in the last twelve years, indeed we've had two U.S. Presidents in that time, and the world is a completely different place than it was since Mr. Conyers first took his seat in congress in 1965. Would not Mr. Conyers district and the people in it be better served by someone with fresh eyes in that district? Someone who has been closer to the people who live in that district and who have a more contemporary view of the needs of the people within that district? These are the questions we must ask when considering limiting the terms of those sitting in the U.S. Congress.
To find out more about term limits, political action committees and how you can help the movement toward more responsible representation in our government, you should visit www.rrcpac.org today. Share this article, share that website, take control of our government back from special interests and donate today!
No comments:
Post a Comment