"New" idea to curb lobbying

[bigbadberry3]

I'm not sure if this has been discussed previously but something has to be done to address the money in Congress.

My thought, what if we multiplied the amount of people in Congress by 4 across the board?

400 Senators and 1740 Representatives.

Besides buying new desks, chairs, and chambers any thoughts on this?

[stebo0728]

Its funny you mention that. In Georgia, our July ballot had a "non-binding" item on that would limit lobbyist contributions to $100 a month per representative. It passed with flying colors, unfortunately it was non-binding, therefore the actual idea will probably go nowhere.

Personally, I treat the issue the way a business would treat it. Im in purchasing, and I get "lobbied" all the time by sales reps. I don't take any personally enriching handouts, instead I tell them, if they want to get my business, they offer competitive reasons why I should buy from them, such as better pricing, or free freight deals, or delayed billing. I turn down lunch offers, free i-Pads on certain sized orders, those sorts of things. Similarly, I think the only lobbyist contributions that should be acceptable are those that enrich the representatives constituency, not the representative personally.

[IBCoupe]

I've suggested that in the past. The major hurdle would be fitting them all into one space. But with advances in communication technology, I don't see why they would all have to be in one building. I think we should leave the Senate alone, though.

If memory serves, the last time we upped the number of representatives was in 1912, and that meant that each Representative served roughly 70,000 Americans. We've tripled our population since then.

[stebo0728]

Upon further reflection, I like the idea. I can agree with IB here, halfway. Our population has expanded far beyond 1912 numbers. A larger sampling of congressman, I believe, would go along way to reproportion the congress, and would result in a much greater conservative majority. In fact, it might just lead to getting some REAL conservatives back into the house.

The half I have to disagree with, is the "leaving the Senate along" half. True, it should not change in size, its always been 2 per state, and until the state count changes to 57 as in Obama's world, then the Senate size should not change. However, why is the proportion 2 per state? That certainly does not place a fair balance on the disproportionate populations between states. Its because the Senate is not supposed to represent the population. Its supposed to represent the state government, and its interests. And not just the interests that intersect with the people's, but purely the state government's interests. For this reason, the 17th amendment needs to be repealed, and the Senate needs to once again answer to the state governments. Sure, the state governments may call a senator to the carpet occasionally, but they have no power, only a bark. The people have too much power against their state, even if they've not availed themselves of it. This balance needs to be fixed. We can address corruption, but popular vote was NOT the correct answer.

[themadscientist]

An interesting idea. The more I ponder it, the more it makes sense. I don't think they should get extra space, though. f*** em, stand up.

[IBCoupe]

I don't think we need to repeal the 17th Amendment, and I think that's another issue for another thread. Suffice it to say that you're conflating two very different things: the policy purpose behind having two Senators per State has to do with balancing out the direct representation of the Senate, and to keep less populous States from being drowned out by the more populous States. The 17th Amendment addressed how Senators were chosen, not how many Senators we had.

I swear to God I proposed this very thing a while back, and I don't recall you guys being so receptive to it then. Not complaining, just curious as to what's changed.

[themadscientist]

I would like to see the 17th repealed. It would put a lot of emphasis on state elections since that would then influence federal ones. That would pay dividends at the local level and move people's focus closer to home which is how it used to be.

As far as packing the senate, no, two per is not an accident and it should stay there.

[stebo0728]

I don't think we need to repeal the 17th Amendment, and I think that's another issue for another thread. Suffice it to say that you're conflating two very different things: the policy purpose behind having two Senators per State has to do with balancing out the direct representation of the Senate, and to keep less populous States from being drowned out by the more populous States. The 17th Amendment addressed how Senators were chosen, not how many Senators we had.

I swear to God I proposed this very thing a while back, and I don't recall you guys being so receptive to it then. Not complaining, just curious as to what's changed.

Yes I agree, the 17th Amendment DID NOT affect the size, but thats not the point I'm making. And your response tells me that you don't understand the purpose of the Senate. The Senate was NEVER intended to be any sort of representation for the people. The policy purpose of 2 per state was NOT intended to rebalance population, because the population was never intended to be the constituency of the Senate. What you seem to miss, is that state government interests are not synonymous to the interests of the people. To some extent they run parallel, but lets not forget, you've never lived in a time where the constituency of the Congress and the Senate were separate. The interests of the state governments are perfectly valid interests, and are a separate entity from the interests of the people. You've been spoiled by an age of observance where the Senate and Congress both act at the behest of the people, thats because they aren't stupid, they know who votes. You've also been spoiled by the fact that, indeed in a great many of cases state interests and people interests do run rather parallel, but this is NOT the case, and the Senate should NOT be beholden to the people. Thats the job of the Congress.

[bigbadberry3]

I like the idea too! One issue that would arise though is the electoral college as I believe it is based on the number of representatives and senators. Can we overhaul that too

[IBCoupe]

I don't think we need to repeal the 17th Amendment, and I think that's another issue for another thread. Suffice it to say that you're conflating two very different things: the policy purpose behind having two Senators per State has to do with balancing out the direct representation of the Senate...

The policy purpose of 2 per state was NOT intended to rebalance population, because the population was never intended to be the constituency of the Senate.

I wrote "Senate" when I meant to write "House." The purpose of having a fixed number of Senators per state is to balance out the direct representation in the House. The rest of your comment is nonsense - there is no real reason to suppose that a State's legislators are best served by two Senators, as opposed to a number of Senators assigned by population. The 17th Amendment is entirely a side-issue here, which addressed how Senators were chosen, and has absolutely no relation to a discussion about how many Senators each State should have.

What you seem to miss, is that state government interests are not synonymous to the interests of the people. To some extent they run parallel, but lets not forget, you've never lived in a time where the constituency of the Congress and the Senate were separate.

I didn't miss any of that issue. I simply didn't address it. You can tell because I wrote, "...and I think that's another issue for another thread."

[stebo0728]

The rest of your comment is nonsense - there is no real reason to suppose that a State's legislators are best served by two Senators, as opposed to a number of Senators assigned by population.

Really? There is no disproportion in the amount of state legislatures in each state. There is no need, assuming you let the Senate do its intended job, to have a varying number of Senators based on population. Each state has one state legislature, and is represented in Washington by 2 appointed Senators. In fact, if you were to try and proportion Senators based on population, then you would be giving one state advantages over another. For instance, lets say a bill was being considered that would force all states to be "right to work" states. If union states decided to team up, and had a disproportionate amount of Senators because of population differences, then the bill would be easily killed. Or say the tables were turned, and the bill sought to force all states to be union states, the same disproportion may be able to easily force this bill upon the disapproving states. There in lies the problem, even now, a large portion of PEOPLE in a "right to work" state could force their Senator to vote against the interests of the state, because they are beholden to he who votes.

I didn't miss any of that issue. I simply didn't address it. You can tell because I wrote, "...and I think that's another issue for another thread."

Fair enough, but I was basing my comment on prior discussions we've had, and you usually seem to take about the same line, which is why I questioned you're understanding of the issue.

[IBCoupe]

Ugh. I didn't want to have to go through this in this thread, Stebo, but you force my hand.

Really? There is no disproportion in the amount of state legislatures in each state. There is no need, assuming you let the Senate do its intended job, to have a varying number of Senators based on population. Each state has one state legislature, and is represented in Washington by 2 appointed Senators.

The Senate, as originally created, served two masters.

1. Antimajoritarian principles.
2. State governments as governments.

The Seventeenth Amendment eliminated the latter, but the former is alive and well.

In fact, if you were to try and proportion Senators based on population, then you would be giving one state advantages over another. For instance, lets say a bill was being considered that would force all states to be "right to work" states. If union states decided to team up, and had a disproportionate amount of Senators because of population differences, then the bill would be easily killed. Or say the tables were turned, and the bill sought to force all states to be union states, the same disproportion may be able to easily force this bill upon the disapproving states. There in lies the problem, even now, a large portion of PEOPLE in a "right to work" state could force their Senator to vote against the interests of the state, because they are beholden to he who votes.

What you just identified is the first master, not the second. Yes, there is a purpose served by limiting the number of Senators to two per State, and that is to balance out the power of the most populous states, which is most clearly present in the House of Representatives. But it doesn't really matter who elects those Senators - the vote will be the same no matter what in your example, because you're talking about regional interests. That's why I'm fine with leaving the Senate the way it is, because there's little gained by increasing the number of Senators.

A better example of the the second master would be if Congress sought to pass an Amendment to the Constitution that required States to participate in the creation of air quality standards, on a national board. It might just be that the People want that, and they might want it overwhelmingly in each State. But the State legislatures, knowing that they are not prepared to make these kinds of determinations, and aren't capable of footing that kind of bill, might kill it in equally overwhelming levels of force. The difference between this example and the last example is that we're not talking about regional differences, and the protection of less populous states (ensured by the equal number of senators per state), but we're talking about institutional interests, which were, prior to the Seventeenth Amendment, preserved by the appointment of Senators by State legislatures.

Because of the commandeering doctrine, as developed by the Supreme Court over time, and because of the relative rarity of successful constitutional amendments, I don't see how the State legislatures need that much more protecting from the federal government. Congress cannot regulate the States as States, cannot require State legislatures to pass laws it demands, cannot require State executive officers to enforce the laws it makes, and, just this term, placed new limits on how Congress may enforce its "power of the purse" against States.

The risk of cronyism, on the other hand is certainly worth warding off, and I see no reason to suppose that the Seventeenth Amendment hasn't been successful in warding off that kind of corruption, or that there's the political will in taking action against it after the Seventeenth Amendment is repealed. After all, who's going to make the law to stop it?

Fair enough, but I was basing my comment on prior discussions we've had, and you usually seem to take about the same line, which is why I questioned you're understanding of the issue.

I think at this point, my understanding of the issue should no longer be in question.