Speaker resignations, Congressional Pugilism, Ideological Grandstanding and NO Benefit for the People.

It was announced this morning that Speaker of the House John Boehner (R-OH) will be resigning from both the leadership of the U.S. House of Representatives AND his seat in that body as well.  This might just be the best move Boehner has made in his career as Speaker of the House. It has become clear over the past few years that Congressional effectiveness and representation of the people who that Congress are supposed to represent has been severely lacking.  Boehner claims to have wished to retire in 2014 but the failed election bid of Eric Cantor, who was perceived at the time to be the next Speaker of the House, caused Boehner to put off his retirement and to step up to fill the leadership role that Cantor would then be unable to fill. His time as Speaker of the House has been filled with turmoil and controversy and the ineffectiveness of the House since that time has caused many to claim Boehner as the least effective Speaker in modern history. But, is it really Boehner who has been the one lacking, or is Congress as a whole spinning it's wheels in a quagmire of partisan conflict, ideological stubbornness and special interest influence?

     The Congress, both those sitting in the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate are supposed to represent the will of the American Public, specifically the people from those representatives home states and districts. But polls say that this is far from the reality of congressional activity. Rasmussen Reports from September 10, 2015 states that only 9% of likely U.S. Voters think the Congress is doing a good or excellent job overall and 63% rate the current Congress as doing poorly. Only 26% of voters believe that their own representatives in Congress are the best possible person for the job. 47% say their own representative doesn’t care what they think, and 68% say that most members of Congress don't care what they think. This is very disturbing information considering that those elected into the U.S. Congress are elected exactly for the purposes of representing the views of the American citizenry who vote them into office.

     How then, do these people not only get elected into those offices, but also RE-ELECTED? The answer lies in campaign funding. Congressional elections are money pits and it is party backing, special interest contributions and SuperPac funding which provide the means for candidates to get their names and platforms out in front of the voters who ultimately vote them into office. The average voter really only knows who is running and why they should vote for a particular candidate based on media sources and political advertising. A candidate whose views and platforms for office run counter to party line and or against the big-money corporate interests has very little chance of reaching the voters who might vote for them.  However, a candidate who is willing to forego the wishes of his constituency (and possibly his/her own beliefs) in return for the backing of either party or special interests easily gain the financial backing to promote themselves to the voting public.

     How can this corruptive influence on candidates and the voters who elect them be minimized? Campaign reform would be the ultimate solution, with legislation that restricts such malfeasance in our elections, but in order for such legislation to be passed, it would require the votes of those congressmen who benefit from exactly that kind of activity which they would be asked to vote against and that is most likely a no-win situation. Term Limits however, require an amendment to the U.S. Constitution and as such, no vote by those Congressmen whose terms would be limited are required due to Article V of the U.S. Constitution.

     How would term limits minimize the graft and undue influence on congressional elections? The majority of party fundraising is done by the longest serving members of those parties. Their influence over a variety of issues and their connections with special interests who contribute large amounts of money are what allow them to coerce other members of the party and other congressmen and a wide variety of special interests into contributing to various election campaigns. If career Congressman A wants candidate B to be elected, he simply uses his influence on Congressmen C through L to get them to vote for the legislation Special Interest Z wants enacted in return for Z's contributions to their own campaigns. It's a high stakes game of Monopoly that these congressmen are playing and its the houses and hotels (businesses) of the American people that get wiped off the board.
     
     Additionally, special interest groups are less likely to make contributions to campaigns where the influence they buy with those contributions has a 12 year limit. These corporate interests, trade associations and labor unions want long term payoffs from the money they spend and millions of dollars in campaign contributions just does not seem justified if the return on that investment ends twelve years down the road instead of being a 30, 40 or 50 year investment.  With new faces filling the seats every 2 years who they have to re-invest in, those who now spend that kind of money in return for influence are less likely to reach as deep into their pockets.


     The result of a 12 year limit on any one person serving in Congress would be a higher turnaround in who sits in those seats and that would mean a fresher perspective on the wishes of the voting public as most of those new faces would be moving up from state level legislation where they have much closer ties to the people of their constituencies and a better view of their wants and desires. With less huge money coming from parties and special interests, the financial playing field for candidates is more balanced and the 'little guy' running for office has a much better chance than he currently does against the career politicians with their deep-pocket connections.

     If we, the people of the United States of America, band together and urge our state legislatures to call for an Article V convention for the purposes of amending the U.S. Constitution with a 12 year limit on those serving in congress, and get it passed, we can make drastic changes in how our congress acts. More representation of the people who are truly supposed to matter and whom they are supposed to be representing rather than ideological party line grandstanding, bi-partisan  combat and ineffective representation. Visit our website at http://rrcpac.org, share our blogs and the website and go to our Get Involved page to donate! Take back our country from those who would use it to further the agendas of anyone other than the people they're supposed to represent!