Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Congress Information & Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Congress Links at HealthHaven.com
advertise
add site
services
publishers
database
health videos
Bookmark and Share

search wiki for    ?
web dir firms image gallery news pdf wiki shop video 
about
toolbar
stats
live show
health store
more stuff
JOIN/LOGIN
Featured Results:
Sample Letter to U.S. Congress and Senate
Sample Letter to U.S. Congress and Senate
feministwomenshealth.org		 Talking Watch, Talking Watches, Talking Clock, Talking Bible, Talking...
Talking Watch, Talking Watches, Talking Clock, Talking Bible, Talking...
independentliving.com		 & Advocacy - Federal Resources? - U.S. Congress
& Advocacy - Federal Resources? - U.S. Congress
ascp.com		 Lilly in Settlement Talks With U.S. - La Leva di Archimede (ENG)
Lilly in Settlement Talks With U.S. - La Leva di Archimede (ENG)
laleva.org		 
   MAIN        Talk        To do        Mem        Ord        Dist        Cmtee        Assess        Bio        Img        WikiList        COTW      
WikiProject U.S. Congress (Rated Project-Class)
US Congressional Seal.svg This page is within the scope of WikiProject U.S. Congress, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United States Congress on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Project page Project  This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.

See also:

Contents

[edit] Tracking recent changes

Some of the best pages to track are trackable via your favorite RSS or atom reader. See Wikipedia:Syndication.

Recent changes RSS feed atom feed
Recent changes to 110th United States Congress RSS atom
Recent changes to 109th United States Congress RSS atom
Recent changes to United States Congress RSS atom
Recent changes to United States House of Representatives RSS atom
Recent changes to United States Senate RSS atom

[edit] Article alerts

This is a notice to let you know about Article alerts, a fully-automated subscription-based news delivery system designed to notify WikiProjects and Taskforces when articles are entering Articles for deletion, Requests for comment, Peer review and other workflows (full list). The reports are updated on a daily basis, and provide brief summaries of what happened, with relevant links to discussion or results when possible. A certain degree of customization is available; WikiProjects and Taskforces can choose which workflows to include, have individual reports generated for each workflow, have deletion discussion transcluded on the reports, and so on. An example of a customized report can be found here.

If you are already subscribed to Article Alerts, it is now easier to report bugs and request new features. We are also in the process of implementing a "news system", which would let projects know about ongoing discussions on a wikipedia-wide level, and other things of interest. The developers also note that some subscribing WikiProjects and Taskforces use the display=none parameter, but forget to give a link to their alert page. Your alert page should be located at "Wikipedia:PROJECT-OR-TASKFORCE-HOMEPAGE/Article alerts". Questions and feedback should be left at Wikipedia talk:Article alerts.

Message sent by User:Addbot to all active wiki projects per request, Comments on the message and bot are welcome here.

Thanks. — Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 09:47, 15 March, 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Special elections

Currently, House special elections for a given Congress are handled in two articles: "United States House of Representatives special elections, [odd year]" and "United States House of Representatives elections, [even year]". I see two problems resulting from this set up. First, the elections for a single two-year Congress are divided between two articles. Second, the even-year-election articles end up with a section of special elections that disrupts the flow of the article. I propose combining all special elections to a Congress in a single article with one of the following names (using the current Congress):

  • "Special elections to the 111th United States Congress"
  • "United States House of Representatives special elections in the 111th Congress"
  • "United States House of Representatives special elections, 2009–2010"

The first would include Senate specials not occurring on the same day as the regular November election. Examples include the 1996 Oregon special, the upcoming 2010 Massachusetts special, and the anticipated 2010 Texas special. Either of the others would exclude those elections. That name has two benefits: it is short, and gives the article sufficient flexibility to take in the Senate special elections. On the negative side, there are not that many special elections for Senate that don't occur at the normal November election, which weakens adding Senate specials as a justification. Using this name is my weak preference at this point because there is currently nowhere to put odd-year elections if more than one occurs in year, and putting the even-year elections in "United States Senate elections, [even year]" has the same problem as I mentioned for House articles. As between the other two, the first is more accurate, but the second one conforms to other election articles better. -Rrius (talk) 02:35, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Hones Abe FA

I'm trying to get Abraham Lincoln up to FA, and his article is within the scope of your wikiproject. It's a big job, but the article is in pretty good shape. Anyone want to help? Drop by the talk page if you're interested. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 04:26, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Appointed Senators and the Infobox

Please add your comments at Template talk:Infobox officeholder#Appointed U.S. Senators. I have proposed adding some parameters that would allow us to provide the appointment and anticipated oath dates to the infobox to avoid some of the trouble we seem to have every time a new senator is appointed. -Rrius (talk) 05:03, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] United States Senate elections, 2010

The article talks about November 2nd elections in 2010 I think it is on a Tuesday November 3rd 2010 can anyone verify and correct? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.76.124.170 (talk) 15:12, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Gordon Smith page move

Editors here may be interested in a discussion about moving Gordon Smith to Gordon Smith (politician) or as I have suggested Gordon H. Smith. The discussion is at Talk:Gordon Smith#Requested move -Rrius (talk) 19:52, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Need to find resolution from 1961 regarding progenitor of Uncle Sam

I'm trying to find a Congressional resolution from September 1961 which states that Samuel Wilson is declared the progenitor of Uncle Sam. Uncle Sam has this quote: "Resolved by the Senate and the House of Representatives that the Congress salutes Uncle Sam Wilson of Troy, New York, as the progenitor of America's National symbol of Uncle Sam." When you google it, Wikipedia is the top hit. I have an NRHP nomination that confirms this information (page 12), but it doesn't cite its source (and it's not a good enough sorce for my taste to make such a bold statement). Is there a place online that would host Congressional resolutions from the 1960s where I can find this quote? upstateNYer 02:18, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism section

Part or all of the discussion below has been transferred from Talk:United States Congress/sandbox to this space below.
Please continue the discussion here.

[edit] Sandbox Way-station page

Welcome to this sandbox page for use by Wikipedia editors working on United States Congress, United States Senate, and United States House of Representatives. It is a work-in-progress. Editors put material here for possible consideration. Is it worthy? Please vote In (and where it should go) or Out for each fact or section with your brief reason why. Please don't indent article-bound passages; indent our comments using ":"s. Stuff we like then goes in; stuff we don't we dump. The whole idea is to avoid stupid edit-warring by battling over stuff here. Let's not erase anything from this page.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:34, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Example (format)

Congress is a bicameral organization meaning it has four humps (assuming two camels with two humps each). (no indentation since it may go in an article)

Out. Stupid idea. Our comments get indented. (Just an example)--Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:34, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Out. It's six humps since camels have three humps (and 2x3=6).--Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:34, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Out. The official animal of Congress is the llama.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:34, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
In. But it belongs to the page Bizarre unfunny jokes page.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:34, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Stuff for consideration

[edit] Congressional pay

Congresspersons earn $169,300 annually.[1] Supreme Court justices earn $208,100.[1] The Speaker of the House earned $212,100 in 2008.[1] Majority and minority leaders of House and Senate earned $188,100 in 2008.[1] The vice president earned $221,100 in 2008.[1] President Bush earned $400,000 in 2008.[1] Congresspersons earned $136,673 annually in 1997.[2] The pay raise was "tucked into a large appropriations bill" and "hastily pushed through the House by the leadership" according to one report.[2]--Tomwsulcer (talk) 01:35, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Cmt. What was it when Cong 1st sat? Also, is it worth a mention how the avg Cong pay is >U.S. working avg? (I'd put it in.) TREKphiler hit me ♠ 21:06, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Congress and voters

Congress has approval ratings about 25% according to a December 2007 poll.[1]--Tomwsulcer (talk) 01:35, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

In. Also, how much has this changed a) since formation b) since 1940s? TREKphiler hit me ♠ 21:06, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] American Government today

Divisive partisanship within government is an issue. Two former secretaries of State, one Republican, one Democrat, described America in 2009 as "riven with partisan bickering as we confront a range of serious threats — economic, political and military."[3]--Tomwsulcer (talk) 01:35, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] References for Congressional powers to compel testimony

Congress has the power to compel testimony when "investigating issues over which it has the power to legislate."[4] Congress can order the sergeant-at-arms to take recalcitrant witnesses into custody and hold them "until they agree to cooperate". Technically, a witness could be imprisoned in the Capitol, but historically the sergeant-at-arms has "turned defendants over to the custody of the warden of the D.C. jail."[4]--Tomwsulcer (talk) 01:35, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

In. If we can include it under "Powers". Also, I'd include "contempt of Congress", & ref/link to HUAC & Hollywood 10. TREKphiler hit me ♠ 21:06, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
Status. I added a phrase plus the reference to the place in the article where there was discussion about power to compel testimony.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 18:45, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Cmt good idea about ref/links to HUAC and Hollywood 10 didn't even think of that. In general I'm thinking certain parts need more research like you suggest; I'm working on the bottommost section in the sandbox now but I'm thinking it's too long, somehow.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:45, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Presidential power eclipsing Congressional authority

In 2009, President Obama has been described as having unprecedented power since Democrats control the presidency, Congress, and may soon control the Supreme Court.[5] While Congress technically has the power to "declare war", the presidency has made decisions to go to war in numerous instances. Presidential war-making power has increased steadily over time.[6] Presidents asked for and received formal war declarations from Congress for the War of 1812, the Spanish-American War, the Mexican War, World War I, and World War II.[6] Congress did not assert authority over President Theodore Roosevelt's military move into Panama in 1903.[6] Presidents initiated war without Congressional war declarations for the Korean War, the Vietnam War.[6] "All told, it has been calculated, U.S. presidents have ordered troops into position or action without a formal congressional declaration a total of 149 times" before 1970.[6] Newspaper reporters have noticed shifts of power from Congress to the executive. President Obama has appointed a "virtual army of 'czars' -- each wholly unaccountable to Congress yet tasked with spearheading major policy efforts for the White House" in the first six months of office.[7] While campaigning, Obama accused President George W. Bush of "trying to bring more and more power into the executive branch and not go through Congress at all."[7] "Vesting such broad authority in the hands of people not subjected to Senate confirmation and congressional oversight poses a grave threat to our system of checks and balances," according to this account.[7] Congress has a pattern of deferring to presidential authority in matters of foreign policy.[8] The President has "always had the power to act quickly when he needed to ... Congress, a deliberative body, moves more slowly and cautiously."[8] "With rare exceptions the President has taken the lead in foreign and military policy while Congress has tagged along often grumbling."[8] Administration officials have refused to hand over documents to Congress or prevented administration officials from testifying before Congressional committees.[9] During the George W. Bush presidency, officials argued for an "expansive view of presidential power."[9] There have been requests for broader presidential power; in 2009, a treasury secretary asked Congress for "unprecedented powers to initiate the seizure of non-bank financial companies, such as large insurers, investment firms and hedge funds, whose collapse would damage the broader economy."[10] "Congress's war power has become the most flagrantly disregarded provision in the Constitution," according to one writer.[11] The writer explained that the "real erosion (of Congressional authority to declare war) began after World War II.[11] President George H. W. Bush claimed he could begin Operation Desert Storm and launch a "deliberate, unhurried, post-cold war decision to start a war" without Congressional approval.[11] One critic called the Capitol Building a "tomb for the antiquated idea that the legislative branch matters."[12] The columnist wrote: "On Friday the president gave the two automakers access to money Congress explicitly did not authorize" and elaborated that this was more evidence of the "marginalization" of Congress.[12] He sees an "increasingly swollen executive branch" and "the eclipse of Congress" and said that this process has been continuing "for decades."[12]--Tomwsulcer (talk) 01:35, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Cmt. "Presidential war-making power" seems to need rewording to "war-declaring", since the Constitution expressly grants Pres power to wage war. I'm also a bit concerned over phrasing; it seems to emphasize Pres powers, not Cong powers. TREKphiler hit me ♠ 21:06, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
Cmt. Yes good point I think the whole issue of war-declaring vs war-making needs clarification.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 18:47, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Congressional oversight, or lack thereof

President George W. Bush issued a secret order in 2002 to permit the National Security Agency to do domestic surveillance on citizens without warrants, on the basis that one of the parties might be an al Qaeda operative; Congress studied in 2005 whether it should act.[13] Foreign intelligence gathering is not one of Congress' responsibilities.[13]--Tomwsulcer (talk) 01:35, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Growing federal power

Generally, the Supreme Court has had a pattern of interpreting "the Congress's power expansively" according to such cases as Wickard v. Filburn (1942) and Gonzales v. Raich (2005).[14] However, in two cases, United States v. Lopez (1995) and United States v. Morrison (2000), the Supreme Court rejected arguments that the commerce clause allowed Congress to "regulate noneconomic activities merely because, through a chain of causal effects, they might have an economic impact."[14]--Tomwsulcer (talk) 01:35, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Congressional elections -- the necessity of attack ads

Attack ads which smear an opponent's reputation or make unfounded accusations are unpopular with the public but effective; "the messages tend to stick."[15] Attack ads are prevalent in most Congressional races today.[16][17][18][19][20][21] The 2002 McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform law limited campaign donations for broadcast TV and radio ads, but didn't limit contributions from corporations, unions and wealthy individuals, commonly known as soft money.[22] Candidates spend heavily to get elected; races cost millions of dollars.[23] For candidates running for Congress, negative advertising is often a necessity.[24][25][26] Some districts are so heavily Democratic or Republican that they are called a safe seat; any candidate winning the primary will almost always be elected, and don't need to spend money on advertising.[27][28] When a Congressional seat becomes vacant, then both parties may spend heavily on advertising in these so-called "competitive races"; in California in 1992, only four of twenty races for House seats were considered "highly competitive".[29]--Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:27, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Cmt. Fold in with elections. Also, add ref to PACs & PAC $$, which finance ads (all kinds) & resulting lo turnover. Ref posited term limits? If so, also include fact term limits will give more power to lobbyists, who know their way around, not less... TREKphiler hit me ♠ 21:06, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
Cmt. This detail about term limits is a good one, forgot to put it in; as well as balance point that term limits may make lobbyists more powerful; I'll try to get around to this.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:33, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Americans and Congress -- a disconnect; apathetic voters

Prominent Founding Fathers writing in the Federalist Papers believed that it was "essential to liberty that the government in general should have a common interest with the people," and felt that a bond between the people and the representatives was "particularly essential."[30] They wrote "frequent elections are unquestionably the only policy by which this dependence and sympathy can be effectually secured."[30] In 2009, however, few Americans were familiar with leaders of Congress.[31] Voter apathy is widespread and growing.[32][33] The percentage of Americans eligible to vote who did, in fact, vote was 63% in 1960, but has been falling since.[32] One Los Angeles county had less than 31% of registered voters voting; "among the reasons cited for the poor turnout are public distaste for dirty campaigning, limited media coverage, uninspiring candidates and a general inability of electoral organizations to rile up the voters."[34] Problem with America is voter apathy.[35][36] One pattern is that competitive elections tend to increase turnout; but since most elections aren't competitive, turnout tends to be low.[37] Vanderbilt professor Dana D. Nelson in her book, Bad for Democracy, argues that all citizens seem to do, politically, is vote for president every four years, and not much else; they've abandoned politics.[38] In good economic times, voter apathy continues, but voter anger towards Congress is less, such as during the boom years of the late 1990s.[39] Apathy was less in the 2008 election which featured a competitive election for president.[40] Voter turnout in 2008 (62%) was the highest since 1968.[37] --Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:42, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

In. Can we explain why elections aren't competitive, with sources? (Offhand, I'd guess PAC $ & attack ads leave people feeling their votes don't count.) TREKphiler hit me ♠ 21:06, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Low Public Approval Ratings of Congress

In recent times, public approval ratings of Congress have been low, although this has varied somewhat. The low ratings suggest the majority of Americans believe Congress is doing a bad job. From 2006 to 2009, Congressional approval ratings have hovered in the 25% range, with a high of 37% in early 2007, and a all-time low of 14% in late 2008.[41][31][42][43] --Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:42, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

In. If available, contrast them with historic rates ('20s, '30s, '50s, '60s). Also, contrast striking disconnect between hi approval for "my" Congresscritter, v Congress as a whole. TREKphiler hit me ♠ 21:06, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] High Cost of Running in a congressional election

In 1994, the cost to run for a congressional seat was about $500,000 on average; in 2004, it costs much more; one congressional race cost $4.5 million. "Largely because of the ever-increasing cost of television advertising, the average price tag for waging a winning campaign is likely to zoom past the million-dollar mark this year for the first time, analysts say," according to one report.[44] One source suggested the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform law failed to rein in excessive campaign money, since so-called soft money contributions remained legal.[44] The cost of running for Senate has climbed within last 30 years; for example, in 1978, one Senate race cost $1 million; in 2006, it cost $20 million.[45] In 1971, the cost of running for congress in Utah was $70,000; much more in "hotly contested urban" district; but in 1971, while money was a big factor, it was not always a determining one.[46] Since then, campaign costs have kept climbing.[47] The average Senate race in 1986 cost $3 million; average House races cost $350,000.[48] The biggest campaign expense is television ads, although campaign staff and materials are expensive too.[49] One essayist noticed that in 1971 that the "growing dominance of TV on every level of political salesmanship has raised campaign costs astronomically."[46][49] Money plays a huge role in congressional elections.[49] Since fundraising is vital, "members of Congress are forced to spend ever-increasing hours raising money for their re-election" and "Campaign costs continue to skyrocket."[50] The Supreme Court has treated campaign contributions as a free speech issue.[47] Some see money as a good influence in politics since it "enables candidates to communicate with voters and parties to organize efforts to get out the vote."[47] In the 2008 election, spending for all campaigns (including presidential) were nearing $2 billion in early 2008.[51] Running for re-election can be a grueling process of distant travel, fund-raising, which prevents representatives from paying attention to governing. University of Virginia professor Larry Sabato, author of A More Perfect Constitution, wants an amendment to organize primaries to prevent a "frontloaded calendar" long before the election to prevent a "race by states to the front of the primary pack" which subverts the national interest, in his view.[52]--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:42, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

In. Fold in with attack ads, approval ratings, incumbency %: IMO, all are related. TREKphiler hit me ♠ 21:06, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Incumbents have big advantages over challengers

One reporter noted "nearly all incumbents raise far more (money) than do their challengers" which brings a huge advantage to incumbents.[53] "PAC's give most of their money to incumbents because they are more likely to win; incumbents win largely because PAC's heavily finance them."[48] "Election to Congress ... is therefore like getting life tenure at a university," wrote one critic.[48] In 1986, of 469 House and Senate elections, only 12 challengers succeeded in defeating incumbents.[48] Most challengers are at a huge disadvantage in terms of fundraising.[54]--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:48, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Cmt. If included, I'd add something about "vote-buying" thru things like earmarks & needless projects (e.g., C-130Js USAF neither wants nor needs). TREKphiler hit me ♠ 21:06, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism of Congress by academics

Richard Labunski sees small rural states as having an unfair advantage in Congress: "If the 26 least populated states voted as a bloc, they would control the U.S. Senate with a total of just under 17% of the country’s population," he wrote.[55] University of Texas law professor Sanford Levinson has similar concerns about a "steady redistribution of resources from large states to small states."[56]--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:48, 2 October 2009 (UTC)--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:48, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Gerrymandering

Academics have criticized the politically-driven redistricting process popularly known as gerrymandering.[57]--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:48, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

In. Bears on approval ratings & incumbency rates. May also say something about expansion of Cong powers over what Framers intended. TREKphiler hit me ♠ 21:06, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Wealth of Senators and Representatives

One analyst in 1971 noticed a trend that "politics really is a rich man's game."[46] Another observer wrote in 2008 that "the Senate is increasingly becoming a club of multimillionaires who can finance their own campaigns."[45] One analyst noted a pattern of people running for Congress as a "stepping stone" to a high-paying lobbyist's job. "There is growing evidence that men and women are running for Congress as a stepping stone for the really cushy Washington job—as a high-paid lobbyist. Congressmen earn $170,000 a year; ex-congressmen lobbyists make three, four, five times that amount. More than half of all congressmen become lobbyists now when they retire from Congress."[45]--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:48, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

In. May also help explain lo approval %. TREKphiler hit me ♠ 21:06, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Political Action Committees or PACs have big influence

Republican congressional candidates received $42 million in 2005 and 2006 from political action committees or PACs. Money is important for winning elections.[58] One source suggests post-Watergate laws amended in 1974 meant to reduce the "influence of wealthy contributors and end payoffs" instead "legitimized PACs" since they "enabled individuals to band together in support of candidates."[59] Bipartisan groups have tried to reduce the influence of PACs, generally unsuccessfully.[59] From 1974 to 1984, the number of PACs grew from 608 to 3,803, and PAC donations leaped from $12.5 million to $120 million.[59] PACs ask candidates to answer detailed questionnaires about their positions on issues; if the PAC likes these positions, they'll contribute campaign funds.[59] Different industries have their own PACs; for example, the National Beer Wholesalers Association has a "little known but influential advocacy group" which contributed $8.6 million to federal candidates from 1999 to 2006, and as a result, have "lots of leverage" to thwart states trying to tighten drunk-driving laws.[60] After the lobbying, Congress deleted sections of a pending bill calling for bans on alcohol advertising during sportscasts.[60] This PAC made payments of $10,000 to 135 lawmakers, mostly Republicans.[60] The biggest PACs include the Association of Trial Lawyers of America with 56,000 members, and International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers with 750,000 members, and the National Association of Realtors with 1.4 million members.[60] There have been discussions in Congress from time to time about laws to limit campaign contributions. One reporter wrote in 1990: "In the current political climate, many lawmakers feared going home without being able to tell their constituents that they had confronted the special-interest groups ... But they were wary of causing self-inflicted wounds by cutting off the sources of campaign money on which they have become so dependent."[53] But reform efforts have been stymied because of perceptions that changes may benefit one political party or the other.[53] From 2007 to 2008, PACs spent $416 million on the federal election; 175 members of Congress received "half or more of their campaign cash from political action committees in 2007-08."[61] In 2009, there were 4,600 business, labor and special-interest PACs; most can give $5,000 to each candidate per election.[61] Both Republicans and Democrats get PAC money; for example, in 2007-2008, Republican Representative Mitch McConnell of Kentucky got $3,754,331 from PACs while Democratic representative Max Baucus of Montana got $3,257,396.[61] There were reports that some of the federal bailout money in the TARP program to distressed banks during the economic downturn of 2007-2008 was being doled out as campaign contributions to lawmakers who oversee the TARP program.[62] PAC money influences the votes of congresspersons.[63] According to an article in Time Magazine in 1982, "Critics charge that PACs have distorted the democratic process by making candidates beholden to narrow interests rather than to their constituents."[63] One Congressman said: "You can't buy a Congressman for $5,000 ... But you can buy his vote ... It's done on a regular basis."[63] In 1988, Joseph A. Califano, Jr. wrote in the New York Times that since "government regulation is more pervasive than ever" since the US economy is large and varied; and this encourages government officials to get "more and more involved in every aspect of our lives" which spurs special interests to use money to influence legislation.[48] Some PACs members feel resentful of congresspersons yet "go along with their demands for contributions for fear of losing vital access in Congress."[64] Critics of PACs say it allows special interests to wield too much influence in Congress; proponents dispute the assertion that PACs represent narrow constituencies.[64] Campaign spending for Congress seats rose in 1992; according to one report, PACs gave only slightly more in 1992 than in previous elections, possibly because of the recession of 1991-1992.[54]--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:48, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

MUST in. IMO, this is the most corrosive factor in Congress' function today. It also bears on pork-barrel politics, which is another biggie. Also, do we have room (& sources) on cost of running a Congressional office? Between staffers & franking privileges, I've read it runs over US$4.5 million/yr each... TREKphiler hit me ♠ 21:06, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] References

  1. ^ a b c d e f g Associated Press (1/9/2008). "Congress gets $4,100 pay raise". USA Today. http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2008-01-09-Raise-me_N.htm. Retrieved 2009-09-28. 
  2. ^ a b "A Quiet Raise -- Congressional Pay -- special report". Washington Post. 1998. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/pay/pay.htm. Retrieved 2009-09-28. 
  3. ^ James A. Baker III, (US secy of State 1989-92) with Warren Christopher (US secy of State 1993-97) (March 03, 2009). "War act would ensure that president, Congress consult". USA Today -- Editorial opinion. http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2009/03/war-act-would-e.html. Retrieved 2009-09-28. 
  4. ^ a b Frank Askin (July 21, 2007). "Congress's Power To Compel". The Washington Post. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/20/AR2007072001802.html. Retrieved 2009-09-28. 
  5. ^ Steve Holland (May 1, 2009). "Obama revelling in U.S. power unseen in decades". Reuters UK. http://uk.reuters.com/article/idUKTRE5406CF20090501. Retrieved 2009-09-28. 
  6. ^ a b c d e "The Law: The President's War Powers". Time Magazine. Jun. 01, 1970. http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,878290,00.html. Retrieved 2009-09-28. 
  7. ^ a b c Eric Cantor (July 30, 2009). "Obama's 32 Czars". The Washington Post. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/29/AR2009072902624.html. Retrieved 2009-09-28. 
  8. ^ a b c "Time Essay: Where's Congress?". Time Magazine. May. 22, 1972. http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,879072-1,00.html. Retrieved 2009-09-28. 
  9. ^ a b Bob Woodward (January 20, 2005). "[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/01/20/AR2005040314621.html Cheney Upholds Power of the Presidency Vice President Praises Bush as Strong, Decisive Leader Who Has Helped Restore Office]". The Washington Post. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/01/20/AR2005040314621.html. Retrieved 2009-09-28. 
  10. ^ Binyamin Appelbaum and David Cho (March 24, 2009). "[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/23/AR2009032302830.html U.S. Seeks Expanded Power to Seize Firms Goal Is to Limit Risk to Broader Economy]". The Washington Post. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/23/AR2009032302830.html. Retrieved 2009-09-28. 
  11. ^ a b c Michael Kinsley (Mar. 15, 1993). "The Case for a Big Power Swap". Time Magazine. http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,977990,00.html. Retrieved 2009-09-28. 
  12. ^ a b c George F. Will -- op-ed columnist (December 21, 2008). "Making Congress Moot". The Washington Post. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/12/19/AR2008121902929.html. Retrieved 2009-09-28. 
  13. ^ a b Elizabeth B. Bazan and Jennifer K. Elsea, legislative attorneys (January 5, 2006). "Presidential Authority to Conduct Warrantless Electronic Surveillance to Gather Foreign Intelligence Information". Congressional Research Service. http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&ct=res&cd=12&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.washingtonpost.com%2Fwp-srv%2Fnation%2Fspecials%2Fangler%2Fcrsreview-2006.pdf&ei=XVTBSryLI5intgfHvcjlBA&usg=AFQjCNGRMQX1N7KS0-1UFXJfkO_obAykVg&sig2=JQdMZxKM8cJpvb-APtJB6w. Retrieved 2009-09-28. 
  14. ^ a b David B. Rivkin Jr. and Lee A. Casey (August 22, 2009). "Illegal Health Reform". The Washington Post. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/21/AR2009082103033.html. Retrieved 2009-09-28. 
  15. ^ Howard Kurtz (January 6, 2008). "CAMPAIGN ON TELEVISION People May Dislike Attack Ads, but the Messages Tend to Stick". Washington Post. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/05/AR2008010502196.html. Retrieved 2009-09-30. 
  16. ^ LESLEY CLARK (10.18.2008). "Attack ads knock out issues in Lincoln Diaz-Balart/Raul Martinez race -- The issues get short shrift in the blizzard of ads and mailers in the nationally watched race between U.S. Rep. Lincoln Diaz-Balart and Raul Martinez.". The Miami Herald. http://www.miamiherald.com/news/politics/florida/story/731011.html. Retrieved 2009-09-30. 
  17. ^ Brooks Jackson and Justin Bank (Feb 5, 2009). "Radio, Radio -- New Democratic ads attacking House Republicans in the lead-up to the 2010 midterm elections don't tell the whole story.". Newsweek. http://www.newsweek.com/id/183328. Retrieved 2009-09-30. 
  18. ^ Fredreka Schouten (9/19/2008). "Union helps non-profit groups pay for attack ads". USA Today. http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-09-18-union-money_N.htm. Retrieved 2009-09-30. 
  19. ^ Ruth Marcus (August 8, 2007). "Attack Ads You'll Be Seeing". Washington Post. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/07/AR2007080701287.html. Retrieved 2009-09-30. 
  20. ^ Chris Cillizza (September 20, 2006). "Ads, Ads Everywhere!". Washington Post. http://voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix/ohio-river-ramble/ads-ads-everywhere.html. Retrieved 2009-09-30. 
  21. ^ SAMANTHA GROSS Associated Press (September 7, 2007). "Coming Soon: Personalized Campaign Ads". Washington Post. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/07/AR2007090701573_pf.html. Retrieved 2009-09-30. 
  22. ^ Nick Anderson (March 30, 2004). "Political Attack Ads Already Popping Up on the Web". Los Angeles Times. http://articles.latimes.com/2004/mar/30/nation/na-online30. Retrieved 2009-09-30. 
  23. ^ JEAN MERL (October 18, 2000). "Gloves Come Off in Attack Ads by Harman, Kuykendall". Los Angeles Times. http://articles.latimes.com/2000/oct/18/local/me-38161. Retrieved 2009-09-30. 
  24. ^ Shanto Iyengar -- Director, Political Communications Lab, Stanford University (August 12, 2008). "Election 2008: The Advertising". Washington Post. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2008/08/10/DI2008081001615.html. Retrieved 2009-09-30. 
  25. ^ DAVE LESHER (September 12, 1994). "COLUMN ONE - TV Blitz Fueled by a Fortune - Once obscure, Huffington now is pressing Feinstein. His well-financed rapid-response team has mounted an unprecedented ad attack.". Los Angeles Times. http://articles.latimes.com/1994-09-12/news/mn-37700_1_tv-ads. Retrieved 2009-09-30. 
  26. ^ Howard Kurtz (October 28, 1998). "Democrats Chase Votes With a Safety Net". Washington Post. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/campaigns/keyraces98/stories/ads102898.htm. Retrieved 2009-09-30. 
  27. ^ John Balzar (May 24, 2006). "Democrats Battle Over a Safe Seat in Congress". Los Angeles Times. http://articles.latimes.com/2006/may/24/local/me-harman24. Retrieved 2009-09-30. 
  28. ^ "The Congress: An Idea on the March". Time Magazine. Jan. 11, 1963. http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,873000-5,00.html. Retrieved 2009-09-30. 
  29. ^ staff writer (October 25, 1992). "Decision '92 - SPECIAL VOTERS' GUIDE TO STATE AND LOCAL ELECTIONS - THE CONGRESSIONAL RACES". Los Angeles Times. http://articles.latimes.com/1992-10-25/news/ss-1279_1_congressional-races. Retrieved 2009-09-30. 
  30. ^ a b Alexander Hamilton or James Madison (February 8, 1788). "US Constitutional Documents: The Federalist Paper No. 52". http://www.college-cram.com/study/usgovernment/presentations/1101. Retrieved 2009-10-01. 
  31. ^ a b "Congress` Approval Rating at Lowest Point for Year". Reuters. Sep 2, 2009. http://www.reuters.com/article/pressRelease/idUS95973+02-Sep-2009+BW20090902. Retrieved 2009-10-01. 
  32. ^ a b "THE CONGRESS: Makings of the 72nd (Cont.)". Time Magazine. Sep. 22, 1930. http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,740313,00.html. Retrieved 2009-10-01. 
  33. ^ JONATHAN PETERSON (October 21, 1996). "Confident Clinton Lends Hand to Congress Candidates". Los Angeles Times. http://articles.latimes.com/1996-10-21/news/mn-56229_1_clinton-campaign. Retrieved 2009-10-01. 
  34. ^ MAKI BECKER (June 17, 1994). "Informed Opinions on Today's Topics - Looking for Answers to Voter Apathy". Los Angeles Times. http://articles.latimes.com/1994-06-17/local/me-5121_1_motor-voter. Retrieved 2009-10-01. 
  35. ^ Daniel Brumberg (October 30, 2008). "America's Re-emerging Democracy". Washington Post. http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/postglobal/needtoknow/2008/10/america_our_re-emerging_democr.html. Retrieved 2009-10-01. 
  36. ^ KAREN TUMULTY (July 08, 1986). "Congress Must Now Make Own Painful Choices". Los Angeles Times. http://articles.latimes.com/1986-07-08/news/mn-22496_1_painful-choice. Retrieved 2009-10-01. 
  37. ^ a b Associated Press (December 15, 2008). "Voter Turnout Rate Said to Be Highest Since 1968". Washington Post. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/12/14/AR2008121402295.html. Retrieved 2009-10-01. 
  38. ^ interview by David Schimke (September-October 2008). "Presidential Power to the People -- Author Dana D. Nelson on why democracy demands that the next president be taken down a notch". Utne Reader. http://www.utne.com/2008-09-01/Politics/Presidential-Power-to-the-People.aspx. Retrieved 2009-09-20. 
  39. ^ JANET HOOK (December 22, 1997). "As U.S. Economy Flows, Voter Vitriol Ebbs". Los Angeles Times. http://articles.latimes.com/1997/dec/22/news/mn-1214. Retrieved 2009-10-01. 
  40. ^ Guy Gugliotta (November 3, 2004). "Politics In, Voter Apathy Out Amid Heavy Turnout". Washington Post. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A20054-2004Nov2.html. Retrieved 2009-10-01. 
  41. ^ "Congress' Approval Rating Jumps to 31%". Gallup. February 17, 2009. http://www.gallup.com/poll/114670/Congress-Approval-Rating-Jumps.aspx. Retrieved 2009-10-01. 
  42. ^ John Whitesides (2007-09-19). "Bush, Congress at record low ratings: Reuters poll". Reuters. http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSN1844140220070919. Retrieved 2009-10-01. 
  43. ^ Seung Min Kim (2/18/2009). "Poll: Congress' job approval at 31%". USA TODAY. http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2009-02-17-congress-poll_N.htm. Retrieved 2009-10-01. 
  44. ^ a b Jeffrey H. Birnbaum (October 3, 2004). "Cost of Congressional Campaigns Skyrockets". Washington Post. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A2935-2004Oct2.html. Retrieved 2009-10-01. 
  45. ^ a b c Evan Thomas (Apr 4, 2008). "At What Cost? -- Sen. John Warner and Congress's money culture.". Newsweek. http://www.newsweek.com/id/130441. Retrieved 2009-10-01. 
  46. ^ a b c "Time Essay: CAMPAIGN COSTS: FLOOR, NOT CEILING". Time Magazine. May. 17, 1971. http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,944351,00.html. Retrieved 2009-10-01. 
  47. ^ a b c Barbara Borst, Associated Press (10/29/2006). "Campaign spending up in U.S. congressional elections". USA Today. http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-10-29-campaign-spending_x.htm. Retrieved 2009-10-01. 
  48. ^ a b c d e Joseph A. Califano Jr. (May 27, 1988). "PAC's Remain a Pox". The New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/1988/05/27/opinion/pac-s-remain-a-pox.html. Retrieved 2009-10-02. 
  49. ^ a b c Dan Froomkin (September 15, 1997). "Campaign Finance -- Introduction". Washington Post. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/longterm/campfin/intro.htm. Retrieved 2009-10-01. 
  50. ^ PR Newswire (May 19, 2009). "Campaign Finance Groups Praise Rep. Welch for Cosponsoring Fair Elections Now Act". Reuters. http://www.reuters.com/article/pressRelease/idUS184834+19-May-2009+PRN20090519. Retrieved 2009-10-01. 
  51. ^ James Oliphant (April 9, 2008). "'08 Campaign costs nearing $2 Billion. Is it worth it?". Los Angeles Times. http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008/04/campaignexpense.html. Retrieved 2009-10-01. 
  52. ^ By Larry J. Sabato (September 26, 2007). "An amendment is needed to fix the primary mess". USA Today. http://www.usatoday.com/printedition/news/20070926/opcomwednesday.art.htm. Retrieved 2009-09-20. 
  53. ^ a b c Richard E. Cohen (August 12, 1990). "PAC Paranoia: Congress Faces Campaign Spending - Politics: Hysteria was the operative word when legislators realized they could not return home without tougher campaign finance laws.". Los Angeles Times. http://articles.latimes.com/1990-08-12/opinion/op-739_1_campaign-finance-laws. Retrieved 2009-10-02. 
  54. ^ a b ADAM CLYMER, (October 29, 1992). "CAMPAIGN SPENDING IN CONGRESS RACES SOARS TO NEW HIGH". New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/1992/10/29/us/campaign-spending-in-congress-races-soars-to-new-high.html. Retrieved 2009-10-02. 
  55. ^ Richard Labunski interviewed by Policy Today's Dan Schwartz (18 October 2007). "Time for a Second Constitutional Convention?". Policy Today. http://www.policytoday.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=258&Itemid=148. Retrieved 2009-09-20. 
  56. ^ Reviewed by Robert Justin Lipkin (January, 2007). "OUR UNDEMOCRATIC CONSTITUTION: WHERE THE CONSTITUTION GOES WRONG (AND HOW WE THE PEOPLE CAN CORRECT IT)". Widener University School of Law. http://www.bsos.umd.edu/gvpt/lpbr/subpages/reviews/levinson0107.htm. Retrieved 2009-09-20. 
  57. ^ Macedo, Stephen (August 11, 2008). "Toward a more democratic Congress? Our imperfect democratic constitution: the critics examined". Boston University Law Review (Boston University Law Review) 89: 609-628. http://docs.google.com/gview?a=v&q=cache%3AQ33mcnJC4pkJ%3Awww.bu.edu%2Flaw%2Fcentral%2Fjd%2Forganizations%2Fjournals%2Fbulr%2Fvolume89n2%2Fdocuments%2FMACEDO.pdf+%22our+undemocratic+constitution%22+critic%3F+review%3F&hl=en&gl=us&pli=1. Retrieved 2009-09-20. 
  58. ^ Brian Kalish (5/19/2008). "GOP exits to cost party millions". USA TODAY. http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-05-18-PAC_N.htm. Retrieved 2009-10-01. 
  59. ^ a b c d Susan Tifft, Richard Homik, Hays Corey (Aug. 20, 1984). "Taking an Ax to the PACs". Time Magazine. http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,954335,00.html. Retrieved 2009-10-02. 
  60. ^ a b c d Thomas Frank (10/29/2006). "Beer PAC aims to put Congress under influence". USA TODAY. http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-10-29-beer-lobby_x.htm. Retrieved 2009-10-02. 
  61. ^ a b c John Fritze (3/2/2009). "PACs spent record $416M on federal election". USA Today. http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2009-03-01-pacmoney_N.htm. Retrieved 2009-10-02. 
  62. ^ Michael Isikoff and Dina Fine Maron (Mar 21, 2009). "Congress -- Follow the Bailout Cash". Newsweek. http://www.newsweek.com/id/190363. Retrieved 2009-10-02. 
  63. ^ a b c Walter Isaacson, Evan Thomas, other bureaus (Oct. 25, 1982). "Running with the PACs". Time Magazine. http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,953584-2,00.html. Retrieved 2009-10-02. 
  64. ^ a b RICHARD L. BERKE (February 14, 1988). "Campaign Finance; Problems in the PAC's: Study Finds Frustration". New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/1988/02/14/us/campaign-finance-problems-in-the-pac-s-study-finds-frustration.html. Retrieved 2009-10-02. 

[edit] POV Inappropriate

Most of this entire sandbox is POV. I can't imagine it being included in the real article.—Markles 00:37, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Can you be specific what your problems are with the above material? This is all stuff by mainstream publications (NY Times, Time, Newsweek, Reuters, etc). It's all highly referenced. It's all about Congress. I feel the current Congress article (which has few references) is highly POV because it has virtually NO criticism of a Congress that clearly about 75% of the public feels is doing an unsatisfactory job. The current article doesn't address issues such as campaigning, the link between the people and the Congress, many other issues.. Please help me understand where you're coming from?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 02:15, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
This is an encyclopedia. Please treat it as such. It is not a sounding board, regardless of how many people in a certain poll feel about the subject of the article. This is a fact-based article describing the subject, not a discussion forum for pros and cons. —Markles 12:53, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
I fully agree this is an encyclopedia. And I'm treating it as EXACTLY that. The sandbox material above is all based on FACTS, solid secondary research from respected publications. It's not my personal political opinions; it's what the mainstream press writes about the Congress. I didn't make it up. You can CHECK these facts. And there are tons more facts along these lines. Notice there are MORE references in this sandbox than in the current article. I sincerely think the current US congress article is highly POV with few inline references with virtually no criticism of Congress, no discussion about PACs, no discussion about incumbency and re-election rates, low approval ratings, zilch. It glosses over numerous serious issues. Perhaps it's what the current Congress (or lobbyists) might write. My purpose in creating this sandbox is to encourage other editors to have a look over the material, to gauge whether it belongs, where it might go (DCMacnut thinks there are ancillary articles where perhaps some material should fit in, and sees the Congress article as a "summary overview".) If you have specific problems with specific information, say what they are; or if you have opinions that such-and-such belongs in such-and-such an article, say what you think.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:48, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
  • I was oversimplifying by calling it "POV." I'm sorry, I was being lazy. These "FACTS" may all be true and well-referenced, but that doesn't mean they belong in Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a collection of everything that is "true." Just because it is supported by a so-called "mainstream" media source doesn't mean that it should be included somewhere. That's the support for a proposition, not the reason for it. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia for research and not a comprehensive list of all things pro and con. Many of the ideas you propose to add are critical of the current Congress; perhaps true and well-researched. But this article is about how Congress functions. This is an encyclopedia, not a soapbox, no matter how well supported. Please see Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. Perhaps you can find an alternative outlet? —Markles 12:46, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I fished the following off the What Wikipedia is Not page and I fully agree Wikipedia should not be...

1. Propaganda, advocacy, or recruitment of any kind, commercial, political, religious, or otherwise. Of course, an article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to describe the topic from a neutral point of view. You might wish to start a blog or visit a forum if you want to convince people of the merits of your favorite views.
2. Opinion pieces. Although some topics, particularly those concerning current affairs and politics, may stir passions and tempt people to "climb soapboxes" (i.e. passionately advocate their pet point of view), Wikipedia is not the medium for this. Articles must be balanced to put entries, especially for current events, in a reasonable perspective, and represent a neutral point of view. Furthermore, Wikipedia authors should strive to write articles that will not quickly become obsolete. However, Wikipedia's sister project Wikinews allows commentaries on its articles.
I fully agree WP should not be a soapbox, propaganda, opinion pieces. But what I'm saying is that the article about Congress, in its present state, IS like a soapbox with the proposition that Congress functions, that Congress works. The article looks as if it was written by congresspersons and lobbyists. I'm saying the strong consensus by experts, newspaper writers, political commentators is that there are serious problems with Congress. It's not my soapbox POV. It's what they're writing. I've listed strong well-researched facts which suggests Congress has serious problems. I suggest you list strong well-researched facts from reputable sources supporting your POV that Congress functions. For example, the article maintains that congresspersons are representatives of the people -- please use FACTS to support this supposition (which I see as highly POV); I'm finding evidence of a general disconnect between people and congresspersons -- people don't know who their congresspersons are or what positions they hold and that Americans in general are highly divorced from politics in many ways (all people seem to do is vote for president, argues academic Dana D. Nelson, and even then only about 50% even bother to vote -- once elected, congresspersons are in office for life (over 90% reeelection rates among those congresspersons seeking reelection) -- huge influence of PAC money -- the facts suggest that congresspersons don't heed what voters think, but what lobbyists think. Please show me facts that congresspersons LISTEN to their supposed "constituents" and DO what voters want them to do. Show me facts that lobbying money is a NEGLIGIBLE FACTOR in determining what Congress does. Prove your case with facts and evidence.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:03, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed section

Below is a section being proposed to be added to the US Congress article at the bottom -- it's easier for us to handle since it's all in one clump. It's essentially reorganizing the material above.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 18:55, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism of the United States Congress

The United States Congress has been subject to controversey and criticism throughout its existence. There were battles between federalists and anti-federalists about the scope, power, role, and authority of Congress even before ratification of the Constitution. In 2009, criticism generally falls into one of several categories.

  • Congressional pay. Some critics feel congresspersons, who have the power to determine their own salaries, has overpaid itself. In 2008, congresspersons earned $169,300 annually.[1] The Speaker of the House earned $212,100.[1][1] But others have suggested that congressional pay is commensurate with other branches, and note that the vice president earned $221,100 [1] and president earned $400,000.[1] Some have criticized Congress for trying to conceal pay raises by slipping them into a large bill at the last minute.[2] One analyst in 1971 noticed a trend that "politics really is a rich man's game."[3] Another observer wrote in 2008 that "the Senate is increasingly becoming a club of multimillionaires who can finance their own campaigns."[4] One analyst noted a pattern of people running for Congress as a "stepping stone" to a higher-paying lobbyist's job. "There is growing evidence that men and women are running for Congress as a stepping stone for the really cushy Washington job—as a high-paid lobbyist. Congressmen earn $170,000 a year; ex-congressmen lobbyists make three, four, five times that amount. More than half of all congressmen become lobbyists now when they retire from Congress."[4]
  • Low approval ratings. Public opinion polls asking people if they approve of the job Congress is doing have, in the last few decades, generally been low. Approval ratings in December 2007 were 25%, meaning 3 out of 4 Americans disapproved of Congress.[1] Approval ratings have varied somewhat. From 2006 to 2009, Congressional approval ratings have hovered in the 25% range, with a high of 37% in early 2007, and a all-time low of 14% in late 2008.[5][6][7][8]
  • Partisan gridlock. Some critics have charged that fierce political infighting between Democrats and Republicans has prevented lawmakers from tackling tough issues such as global warming and deficit spending and prevented them from finding acceptable bipartisan compromises on issues. In 2009, two former secretaries of State, one Republican, one Democrat, described America in 2009 as "riven with partisan bickering as we confront a range of serious threats — economic, political and military."[9]
  • Congressional power to declare war. Some critics charge that the executive branch has usurped too much authority which should belong to Congress under the doctrine of the unitary executive.[10][11] While Congress technically has the power to "declare war", critics charge that the presidency has assumed greater war-making power over time.[12] There is evidence that presidents tend to initiate the process for going to war; over time, presidents asked for and received formal war declarations from Congress for the War of 1812, the Spanish-American War, the Mexican War, World War I, and World War II.[12] But Congress did not assert authority over President Theodore Roosevelt's military move into Panama in 1903.[12] And critics charge that presidents have initiated war without Congressional war declarations for the Korean War, the Vietnam War,[12] and described these conflicts as "police actions". In 1970, Time magazine noted: "All told, it has been calculated, U.S. presidents have ordered troops into position or action without a formal congressional declaration a total of 149 times" before 1970.[12] "Congress's war power has become the most flagrantly disregarded provision in the Constitution," according to one writer in 1993, who explained that the "real erosion (of Congressional authority to declare war) began after World War II.[13] President George H. W. Bush claimed he could begin Operation Desert Storm and launch a "deliberate, unhurried, post-cold war decision to start a war" without Congressional approval.[13] Critics charge that President George W. Bush largely initiated the second Gulf War II with little debate in Congress or consultation with Congress. Congress has a pattern of deferring to presidential authority in matters of foreign policy.[14] The President has "always had the power to act quickly when he needed to ... Congress, a deliberative body, moves more slowly and cautiously."[14] "With rare exceptions the President has taken the lead in foreign and military policy while Congress has tagged along often grumbling."[14]
  • Legislative and budgetary powers. Some critics charge that the presidency has assumed important legislative and budgetary powers which should normally belong to Congress. One critic charged that President Obama has appointed a "virtual army of 'czars' -- each wholly unaccountable to Congress yet tasked with spearheading major policy efforts for the White House" in the first six months of office.[15] "Vesting such broad authority in the hands of people not subjected to Senate confirmation and congressional oversight poses a grave threat to our system of checks and balances," according to one critic.[15] While campaigning, Obama accused President George W. Bush of "trying to bring more and more power into the executive branch and not go through Congress at all."[15] So-called signing statements are one way in which the president can "tip the balance of power between Congress and the White House a little more in favor of the executive branch," according to one account.[16] Presidents, including Ronald Reagan, George H. W. Bush, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush[17] have made a public statement when signing congressional legislation about how they understand a bill or plan to execute it, and academic critics and political commentators have described this practice as against the spirit of the Constitution.[10] There is some evidence that President Barack Obama intends to limit but not abandon this practice.[18] Critics have charged that in some cases, administration officials have refused to hand over documents to Congress or prevented administration officials from testifying before Congressional committees.[19] During the George W. Bush presidency, officials argued for an "expansive view of presidential power," according to one critic.[19] There have been requests for broader presidential power; in 2009, a treasury secretary asked Congress for "unprecedented powers to initiate the seizure of non-bank financial companies, such as large insurers, investment firms and hedge funds, whose collapse would damage the broader economy."[20] In 2008, critic George F. Will called the Capitol Building a "tomb for the antiquated idea that the legislative branch matters."[21] He wrote: "On Friday the president gave the two automakers access to money Congress explicitly did not authorize" and elaborated that this was more evidence of the "marginalization" of Congress.[21] He sees an "increasingly swollen executive branch" and "the eclipse of Congress" and said that this process has been continuing "for decades."[21]
  • Congressional oversight. Some critics have charged that Congress has in some instances failed to do an adequate job of overseeing the other branches of government. In the Valerie Plame Wilson episode, some critics, including congressperson Henry A. Waxman, charged that Congress was not doing an adequate job of oversight in this instance.[22] Congress did investigations into whether President George W. Bush issued a secret order in 2002 to permit the National Security Agency to do domestic surveillance on citizens without warrants, on the basis that one of the parties might be an al Qaeda operative; Congress studied in 2005 whether it should act[23] but there was no evidence that it came to a definitive conclusion in this regard. Lawyers investigating concluded that foreign intelligence gathering was not one of Congress' responsibilities.[23]
  • Growing federal power. Some critics charge Congress has sided with other branches of the federal government in a general plan to undermine the authority of individual state governments to regulate their respective economies. Critics suggest the Supreme Court has had a pattern of interpreting "the Congress's power expansively" according to such cases as Wickard v. Filburn (1942) and Gonzales v. Raich (2005).[24] However, in two cases, United States v. Lopez (1995) and United States v. Morrison (2000), the Supreme Court rejected arguments that the commerce clause allowed Congress to "regulate noneconomic activities merely because, through a chain of causal effects, they might have an economic impact."[24]
  • Congressional elections. Critics often point to attack ads which smear an opponent's reputation or make unfounded accusations without discussing issues as being unpopular with the viewing public. The consensus is that negative advertising is effective since "the messages tend to stick."[25] Attack ads are prevalent in most Congressional races today.[26][27][28][29][30][31] The 2002 McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform law limited campaign donations for broadcast TV and radio ads, but didn't limit contributions from corporations, unions and wealthy individuals, commonly known as soft money.[32] Critics charge that candidates must spend heavily to get elected; races often cost millions of dollars.[33] For candidates running for Congress, negative advertising is often a necessity.[34][35][36] Some districts are so heavily Democratic or Republican that they are called a safe seat; any candidate winning the primary will almost always be elected, and don't need to spend money on advertising.[37][38] When a Congressional seat becomes vacant, then both parties may spend heavily on advertising in these so-called "competitive races"; in California in 1992, only four of twenty races for House seats were considered "highly competitive".[39]
  • Apathetic voters. Prominent Founding Fathers writing in the Federalist Papers believed it was "essential to liberty that the government in general should have a common interest with the people," and felt that a bond between the people and the representatives was "particularly essential."[40] They wrote "frequent elections are unquestionably the only policy by which this dependence and sympathy can be effectually secured."[40] In 2009, however, few Americans were familiar with leaders of Congress.[6] Voter apathy is widespread and growing.[41][42] The percentage of Americans eligible to vote who did, in fact, vote was 63% in 1960, but has been falling since.[41] One Los Angeles county had less than 31% of registered voters voting; "among the reasons cited for the poor turnout are public distaste for dirty campaigning, limited media coverage, uninspiring candidates and a general inability of electoral organizations to rile up the voters."[43] Problem with America is voter apathy.[44][45] One pattern is that competitive elections tend to increase turnout; but since most elections aren't competitive, turnout tends to be low.[46] Vanderbilt professor Dana D. Nelson in her book, Bad for Democracy, argues that all citizens seem to do, politically, is vote for president every four years, and not much else; they've abandoned politics.[47] In good economic times, voter apathy continues, but voter anger towards Congress is less, such as during the boom years of the late 1990s.[48] Apathy was less in the 2008 election which featured a competitive election for president.[49] Voter turnout in 2008 (62%) was the highest since 1968.[46]
  • Campaign costs. Critics have commented that the cost of campaigning has risen steadily over time, and that this might have adverse consequences. In 1971, the cost of running for congress in Utah was $70,000; much more in "hotly contested urban" district; but in 1971, while money was a big factor, it was not always a determining one.[3] Since then, campaign costs have kept climbing.[50] The average Senate race in 1986 cost $3 million; average House races cost $350,000.[51] The biggest campaign expense is television ads, although campaign staff and materials are expensive too.[52] One essayist noticed that in 1971 that the "growing dominance of TV on every level of political salesmanship has raised campaign costs astronomically."[3][52] By 1994, the cost to run for a congressional seat was about $500,000 on average; in 2004, a decade later, the cost was significantly higher.[53] One congressional race (2004) cost $4.5 million. "Largely because of the ever-increasing cost of television advertising, the average price tag for waging a winning campaign is likely to zoom past the million-dollar mark this year for the first time, analysts say," according to one report.[53] One critic suggested the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform law failed to rein in excessive campaign money, since so-called soft money contributions remained legal.[53] The cost of running for Senate has climbed within last 30 years; for example, in 1978, one Senate race cost $1 million; in 2006, it cost $20 million.[4] As a result, money plays a huge role in congressional elections.[52] Since fundraising is vital, "members of Congress are forced to spend ever-increasing hours raising money for their re-election" and "campaign costs continue to skyrocket."[54] The Supreme Court has treated campaign contributions as a free speech issue.[50] Some see money as a good influence in politics since it "enables candidates to communicate with voters and parties to organize efforts to get out the vote."[50] In the 2008 election, spending for all campaigns (including presidential) were nearing $2 billion in early 2008.[55]
  • Constant re-election efforts. Running for re-election can be a grueling process of distant travel, fund-raising, which prevents representatives from paying attention to governing, according to some critics. University of Virginia professor Larry Sabato, author of A More Perfect Constitution, proposed an amendment to organize primaries to prevent a "frontloaded calendar" long before the election to prevent a "race by states to the front of the primary pack" which subverts the national interest, in his view.[56]
  • Advantages of incumbency. One reporter noted "nearly all incumbents raise far more (money) than do their challengers" which brings a huge advantage to incumbents.[57] "PACs give most of their money to incumbents because they are more likely to win; incumbents win largely because PAC's heavily finance them."[51] "Election to Congress ... is therefore like getting life tenure at a university," wrote one critic.[51] In 1986, of 469 House and Senate elections, only 12 challengers succeeded in defeating incumbents.[51] Most challengers are at a huge disadvantage in terms of fundraising.[58] Advantages such as access to campaign contributions, free mailings also known as franking privileges, and gerrymandering give incumbents an unfair advantage, according to some critics; as a result, re-election rates of congresspersons seeking repeated terms hovers around 90% according to many sources.[59] Academics such as Stephen Macedo have proposed solutions to fix gerrymandering.[60]
  • Rural states versus urban states. Professor Richard Labunski sees small rural states as having an unfair advantage in the Senate: "If the 26 least populated states voted as a bloc, they would control the U.S. Senate with a total of just under 17% of the country’s population," he wrote.[61] University of Texas law professor Sanford Levinson has similar concerns about a "steady redistribution of resources from large states to small states."[62]
  • Political action committees. Critics have charged that political action committees, also known as PACs, exert too much influence over Congress. There is strong consensus among political analysts that money is important for winning elections.[63] And PACs provide substantial funds for campaigning. One source suggests post-Watergate laws amended in 1974 meant to reduce the "influence of wealthy contributors and end payoffs" instead "legitimized PACs" since they "enabled individuals to band together in support of candidates."[64] From 1974 to 1984, the number of PACs grew from 608 to 3,803, and PAC donations leaped from $12.5 million to $120 million.[64] PACs ask candidates to answer detailed questionnaires about their positions on issues; if the PAC likes these positions, they'll contribute campaign funds.[64] Different industries have their own PACs; for example, the National Beer Wholesalers Association has a "little known but influential advocacy group" which contributed $8.6 million to federal candidates from 1999 to 2006, and as a result, have "lots of leverage" to thwart states trying to tighten drunk-driving laws.[65] After the lobbying, Congress deleted sections of a pending bill calling for bans on alcohol advertising during sportscasts.[65] This PAC made payments of $10,000 (each) to 135 lawmakers, mostly Republicans.[65] The biggest PACs include the Association of Trial Lawyers of America with 56,000 members, and International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers with 750,000 members, and the National Association of Realtors with 1.4 million members.[65] From 2007 to 2008, PACs spent $416 million on the federal election; 175 members of Congress received "half or more of their campaign cash from political action committees in 2007-08."[66] In 2009, there were 4,600 business, labor and special-interest PACs; most can give $5,000 to each candidate per election.[66] Both Republicans and Democrats get PAC money; for example, in 2007-2008, Republican Representative Mitch McConnell of Kentucky got $3,754,331 from PACs while Democratic representative Max Baucus of Montana got $3,257,396.[66] There were reports that some of the federal bailout money in the TARP program to distressed banks during the economic downturn of 2007-2008 was being doled out as campaign contributions to lawmakers who oversee the TARP program.[67] PAC money influences the votes of congresspersons.[68] According to an article in Time Magazine in 1982, "Critics charge that PACs have distorted the democratic process by making candidates beholden to narrow interests rather than to their constituents."[68] One Congressman said: "You can't buy a Congressman for $5,000 ... But you can buy his vote ... It's done on a regular basis."[68] In 1988, Joseph A. Califano, Jr. wrote in the New York Times that since "government regulation is more pervasive than ever" since the US economy is large and varied; and this encourages government officials to get "more and more involved in every aspect of our lives" which spurs special interests to use money to influence legislation.[51] Some PACs members feel resentful of congresspersons yet "go along with their demands for contributions for fear of losing vital access in Congress."[69] Critics of PACs say it allows special interests to wield too much influence in Congress; proponents dispute the assertion that PACs represent narrow constituencies.[69] Campaign spending for Congress seats rose in 1992; according to one report, PACs gave only slightly more in 1992 than in previous elections, possibly because of the recession of 1991-1992.[58] Bipartisan groups have tried to reduce the influence of PACs, generally unsuccessfully.[64] There have been discussions in Congress from time to time about laws to limit campaign contributions. One reporter wrote in 1990: "In the current political climate, many lawmakers feared going home without being able to tell their constituents that they had confronted the special-interest groups ... But they were wary of causing self-inflicted wounds by cutting off the sources of campaign money on which they have become so dependent."[57] But reform efforts have been stymied because of perceptions that changes may benefit one political party or the other.[57]
End of section --Tomwsulcer (talk) 18:55, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

With this section, the references for the US Congress article will more than double, bringing it closer to FA status in my opinion. What do others think?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 18:55, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] OK to delete this page

I'm done with it; it was used as a trial page to get stuff ready for the US Congress article; but that's been added now and it's no longer needed. Is it okay to erase stuff from this page? It's possible the page may be used in future by other editors, but I'm a nooB and don't know what the protocols are here, that is, whether I can erase stuff here in the sandbox, or whether the page itself should be archived or deleted. --Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:29, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

  • Yes check.svgY Done.—Markles 14:23, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Hey thanks Markles! I didn't know how to do this stuff; I didn't even know about this WikiProject U.S. Congress (section) page here. Maybe I should have put the experimental stuff here first. Still learning.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 16:57, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Articles for Deletion

Wikiproject members are invited to discuss the following proposals to delete Articles:
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_U.S._Congress"



Product Results (view all...)

search wiki for    ?
web dir firms image gallery news pdf wiki shop video 



↑ top of page ↑about thumbshots