Date: Thu, 22 Sep 1994 18:22:10 -0400 Subject: Congressional Reform Platform Congressional Reform Briefings 9/22/94 [To subscribe to Congressional Reform Briefings send the message: "subscribe CONG-REFORM your name" to listproc@essential.org] Here is the Congressional Accountability Project's Congressional Reform Platform for 1994: Campaign Finance Reform Public campaign financing, reduce PAC contribution limits, limit total congressional campaign spending, reduce individual contributor limits, prohibit soft money contributions. Our system of campaign finance is morally bankrupt for five reasons: 1. It provides overwhelming financial resources to incumbents while leaving challengers bereft of the financial resources they need to mount adequate campaigns. (In 1992, the average House challenger spent only 28 cents for every dollar that the average House incumbent spent. For the Senate the comparable number was 47 cents to the incumbent's dollar of spending.) 2. Wealthy and corporate elites are able to influence the legislative process through PAC and individual contributions, which ordinary citizens cannot afford. This makes our system of campaign finance fundamentally inegalitarian, and profoundly unfair to the vast majority of American taxpayers. 3. The cost of a successful run for Congress is so prohibitively high that most ordinary Americans are effectively prevented from becoming a member of Congress. (The average House winner spent $543,599 in 1992. The average Senate winner spent $3,930,638.) Consequently, the wealthy can become members of Congress while working class Americans remain shut out of the halls of Congress. 4. Without competitive elections, there is no real debate or dialogue over the pressing issues of our time. Consequently, there is little true public deliberation or competition between ideas which is critical to the functioning of a healthy democracy. 5. Most congressional candidates and members of Congress spend so much time fundraising that they do not have sufficient time to study issues, meet with citizens, and reflect upon how to lead our country. Both the Senate and the House passed versions of campaign finance reform (the Senate passed S.3 on June 17, 1993 by a vote of 60-38, and the House passed H.R. 3 on November 22, 1993 by a vote of 255-175), but the bills have languished in a conference committee because of the House leadership's unwillingness to reduce PAC contribution limits, currently set at $10,000 per PAC per election ($5,000 each for both primary and general election.) Reduce Congressional Pay from $133,600 to $89,500 Reduce Congressional Perks, Pensions Members of Congress are regally compensated -- with $133,600 yearly salaries and generous perks such as gifts of Epicurean meals and lavish vacations, and the personal use of campaign funds to purchase meals, gifts, vacations, and other luxurious items. Many members of Congress live in such opulence that they become out of touch with the lifestyle of ordinary Americans. They are unable to lead by example, and this leads to legislative outcomes which benefit corporate and wealthy elites at the expense of the majority of hard-working American taxpayers. H.R. 212, introduced by Representative Andy Jacobs (D-IN) would cut the pay of members of Congress form $133,600 per year to $89,500 per year. H.R. 212 was referred jointly to five House Committees (Post Office and Civil Service, House Administration, Judiciary, Ways and Means, and Rules) to ensure that it would never become law. The House has not acted on this bill during the 103rd Congress. There is no Senate companion to H.R. 212. It is common for members of Congress to retire with annual pensions of $60,000-$100,000 per year, and with expected lifetime benefits of $1-3 million dollars. (The average retired worker's annual Social Security benefit is $8,088 in 1994.) H.R. 1524 would eliminate the congressional pension for members of Congress whose pensions are not yet vested. The House Committee on Post Office and Civil Service has not acted on this bill during the 103rd Congress. Term Limits Limit Terms of Office for Members of Congress to 12 Years : H.J. Res. 38. and S. J. Res. 34 The halls of Congress are inundated with political careerists -- long-reigning members of Congress who have developed extensive and little checked power to affect government policy. These members of Congress remain in power by doing the bidding of corporate and wealthy interests, and receiving their PAC and individual campaign contributions in return. Reelection rates are extremely high in Congress, and particularly in the House of Representatives. The percentage of House members who ran and won re-election has not dropped below 87 percent since 1950. House re-election rates for the 1984, 1988, 1990 and 1992 elections are 95.4, 97.7, 98.3, 96.0, and 88.3 percent. Since 1966, at least 65 percent of all House incumbents running for re-election have won at least 60 percent of the major party vote. Re-election rates in the Senate are typically lower than in the House: for the 1984, 1988, 1990, and 1992 Senate elections the reelection rates were 89.6, 75.0, 85.2, 96.9, and 82.1 percent. Most congressional elections are uncompetitive because incumbents utilize vast political and financial resources -- supplied by corporate and wealthy elites -- which are available only to incumbents. Ralph Nader said that "as public service becomes a highly paid career, rather than a civic duty to be briefly and effectively rendered, legislators solicit job security from wealthy special interests who can finance campaigns and defeat opponents. The needs of voters are soon replaced by the wants of corporate lobbies." Incumbent members of Congress are extremely difficult to defeat in electoral contests. Only 25 percent of Representatives and 40 percent of Senators in the 103rd Congress won their seats by defeating an incumbent member of Congress. Incumbents are rarely defeated because they are able to raise a great deal of PAC and individual contributions from corporate and wealthy elites. In the House, the average incumbent spent $578,475 in the 1992 election cycle, while the average challenger spent only $148,127. According to Common Cause, 98 percent of all PAC contributions between January 1993 and March 1994 were given to congressional incumbents; only 2 percent went to challengers. H. J. Res. 38 proposes to amend the constitution of the United States to limit the terms of office for members of Congress to less than 12 years. It has received no action within the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Civil and Constitutional Rights. S. J. Res. 34 proposes to amend the constitution of the United States to limit the terms of office for members of Congress to less than 12 years. It has received no action within the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution. Congressional Gift Reform Ban gifts of golf, ski, or tennis trips, meals, entertainment, and vacations. Many members of Congress frequently receive gifts of Epicurean meals, lavish vacations, golf, ski or tennis trips, and other generous perks from corporate and wealthy special interests. Examples include: * A recent study by Public Citizen showed that U.S. Senators took 680 privately-funded trips during the 102nd Congress (1991- 92), many paid for by business and other groups lobbying Congress. * A 1991 study by Public Citizen showed that Members of the House of Representatives went on nearly 4,000 privately funded trips during the 101st Congress (1989-90). * "Inside Edition" in February documented the "Senators Ski Cup" -- an all-expenses-paid vacation provided to senators, and paid for by 34 corporations, many of which have legislation pending before the Senate. * ABC's "Prime Time Live" recently documented an all-expenses- paid trip by six members of Congress to a resort in Florida sponsored by U.S. Tobacco and other corporations. Both the House and the Senate have passed versions of congressional gift reform (Senate passed S. 349 on May 6, 1993 by a 95-2 vote, Senate passed S. 1935 on May 11, 1994 by a 95-4 vote, House passed S. 349 on March 24, 1994 by a vote of 315- 110), but the bills have been stalled in a conference committee. Congressional Ethics Reforms Replace the Senate Ethics Committee and the House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct with an independent investigative body which carries out public, thorough investigations. Repeated congressional scandals have obliterated public confidence in the willingness of members of Congress to conduct full and thorough investigations of ethics violations committed by their peers. In addition, the Senate Ethics Committee has a history of seemingly incomplete and slipshod investigations (for example, the 1990 and 1994 investigations of Senator Phil Gramm, or the 1991 investigations of Senator Al D'Amato.) Members of Congress must cede investigatory powers to an independent investigatory group to restore public confidence in congressional ethics investigations. Prohibit the Personal Use of Campaign Funds Federal law states that campaign funds may not be "converted by any person to any personal use, other than to defray any ordinary and necessary expenses incurred in connection with his or her duties as a federal officeholder." However, many members of Congress regularly divert thousands of dollars of campaign funds to personal uses. Some examples include: * Senator Dan Inouye spent $106,894 of campaign funds on restaurant meals during the last six years. * Senator Al D'Amato spent $156,729 to lease two Lincoln town cars over a six year period ending in 1992. * Former Representative Robert Davis paid himself $163,000 from his campaign funds for personal expenses from 1986-90. * Former Representative Bill Alexander spent $16,200 in campaign funds on a personal per diem allowance over two years, according to his 1990 and 1991 tax returns. The conversion of campaign funds to personal use should be prohibited because: 1. Members of Congress develop a high-flying lifestyle which is out of touch with the economic concerns of ordinary Americans. 2. The purpose of campaign contributions is to promote a candidate's campaign, not their lifestyle or their greedy habits. By permitting the personal use of campaign funds, the Federal Election Commission allows a destructive permissiveness about law when applied to the powerful. 3. Many citizens are demoralized, dispirited, and less willing to involve themselves in civic pursuits when members of Congress use their privileged positions for their own gaudy benefit instead of furthering the best interests of the country in a dignified manner. The Federal Election Commission is currently pursuing a rule-making on the personal use of campaign funds. Congress Should be Subject to the Same Laws it Passes For Others Support the Congressional Accountability Act: H.R. 349 and S. 2071 Since 1935, Congress has exempted itself from at least twelve important laws which broadly affect the vast majority of ordinary Americans, such as the Occupational Safety and Health Act and the National Labor Relations Act. When Congress exempts itself from laws which apply to others, it creates the appearance that there are two separate legal structures: one for the elected political elites, and another for the vast majority of Americans. It undermines legislators' moral authority to govern, and increases the public cynicism about the democratic process in America. Congress should not place itself above the law. Though there are certain special situations which may require Congress to live under different laws, Congress should not abuse the ability to exempt itself. There must be an compelling reason, such as national security concerns, to justify congressional exemption from law. But there is no compelling reason for Congress to partially exempt itself from the Family and Medical Leave Act, or the Age Discrimination in Employment Act. Congress should pass the Congressional Accountability Act, which would remove the congressional exemption from the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Americans with Disabilities Act, Age Discrimination in Employment Act, Occupational Safety and Health Act, Fair Labor Standards Act, Family and Medical Leave Act, Equal Pay Act, and the National Labor Relations Act. The House of Representatives passed the Congressional Accountability Act (H.R. 349) by a vote of 427-4 on August 10, 1994. A companion bill is still awaiting action in the Senate. The Senate companion to the Congressional Accountability Act (S. 2071) is awaiting action in the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee. Strengthen the Federal Election Commission (FEC) Increase the investigative and campaign audit resources of the FEC, and make the FEC more independent by revising the current system for appointing FEC commissioners. The Federal Election Commission is an utter failure. Born of post-Watergate election reforms, it has been crippled by moribund leadership, congressional subversion, partisan bickering, weak statutory authority, and insufficient resources. It needs a major overhaul to become capable of executing its mission of policing the nation's campaign laws. The list of FEC horror stories is seemingly endless. In December 1993, overwrought by its administrative burdens, the FEC dismissed 137 pending cases. After ten years of work, in June 1994 it fined Senator John Glenn's presidential campaign $65,000 for improperly reporting $780,000 of interest on $2 million of loans. After six years of work, in May, 1994 it fined George Bush's 1988 presidential campaign $40,000 for violating spending limits for the Iowa Caucuses and the New Hampshire primary, and accepting $200,000 in excess campaign contributions. According to Rolling Stone, the FEC usually requires five years to finish an audit of a presidential campaign. The FEC is currently undertaking a rulemaking to define the personal use of campaign funds -- a definition arising out of legislation that has been on the books for 14 years. The FEC is statutorily prohibited from conducting random audits of congressional campaigns (2 U.S.C 438(b)). In 1976, the FEC audited ten percent of House elections, and found that one-third of incumbents had illegally accepted corporate or union contributions. Members of Congress grew angry over the FEC's successes in uncovering congressional violations of law, and passed the statutory prohibition against random audits. The effects of this statutory prohibition against random audits are predictable -- can you imagine what would happen to the collection of tax revenues if the Internal Revenue Service were prohibited from conducting random audits? To make matters even worse, even when FEC staff recommends that an audit take place, it is rarely completed. Of the 100 staff recommended audits of campaign committees during 1991-92 election cycle, only 20 will be completed by end of 1994, according to National Journal. Although Commissioners of the FEC are appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate, in practice appointments are alternated between the House and Senate, with Democrats and Republicans holding three Commissioner seats each. This has become a recipe for gridlock and inaction within the FEC. During 1989-93, the FEC deadlocked on a 3-3 vote 50 times on issues such as proposed audits, enforcements, and advisory opinions. When the Commission deadlocks on a 3-3 vote, no action is taken. Forty-four of these were 3-3 splits along partisan lines. [To subscribe to Congressional Reform Briefings send the message: "subscribe CONG-REFORM your name" to listproc@essential.org] Gary Ruskin Congressional Accountability Project | Internet: gary@essential.org P.O. Box 19446 Washington, DC 20036 Phone: (202) 296-2787 Fax: (202) 833-2406