|
United States Congress and citizens describes the relation between the public and lawmakers. Essentially, American citizens elect members of Congress every two years who have the duty to represent their interests in the national legislature of the United States. All congressional officials try to serve two distinct purposes which sometimes overlap––representing their constituents (local concerns) and making laws for the nation (national concerns). There has been debate throughout American history about how to straddle these dual obligations of representing the wishes of citizens while at the same time trying to keep mindful of the needs of the entire nation. Often, compromise is required.〔 ==Challenges of reelection== Every two years a congressperson faces reelection, and as a result there is a strong tendency for a congressperson seeking reelection to focus their publicity efforts at their home districts.〔 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. After each ten year census, states are allocated representatives based on population, and states can choose how to draw the congressional district boundaries. A law in 1967 abolished all ''at-large'' elections (when representatives are chosen by voters in the entire state rather than an electoral district) except in less populous states entitled to only one Representative. Nevertheless, congresspersons in office, or incumbents, have strong advantages over challengers. One reporter noted "nearly all incumbents raise far more (money) than do their challengers," which brings a huge advantage to incumbents. Incumbents get the majority of PAC money according to the logic that "PACs give most of their money to incumbents because they are more likely to win; incumbents win largely because PACs heavily finance them."〔 There is consensus among political analysts that money is important for winning elections. "Election to Congress ... is therefore like getting life tenure at a university," wrote one critic.〔 In 1986, of 469 House and Senate elections, only 12 challengers succeeded in defeating incumbents.〔 Most challengers are at a huge disadvantage in terms of fundraising. Advantages which incumbents enjoy over challengers, and which have been a source of criticism and controversy, are access to campaign contributions as well as gerrymandering〔 which give incumbents an unfair advantage, according to some critics. As a result, re-election rates of members of Congress seeking repeated terms hovers around 90% according to many sources.〔 Sometimes members of Congress are seen as a "privileged class" with cozy relations with lobbyists and free use of official resources.〔 Academics such as Princeton's Stephen Macedo have proposed solutions to fix gerrymandering. Campaign costs have risen steadily over time. In 1971, the cost of running for congress in Utah was $70,000. Since then, campaign costs have climbed. The biggest campaign expense is television ads, although campaign staff and materials are expensive too.〔〔 By 1986, the average Senate race cost $3 million; average House races cost $350,000. 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.〔 "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. Money plays a huge role in congressional elections.〔 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." Nevertheless, the Supreme Court has treated campaign contributions as a free speech issue.〔 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."〔 In the 2008 election, spending for all campaigns (including presidential) approached $2 billion in early 2008. Few members retire from Congress without complaining about how much it costs to campaign for reelection.〔 Further, after being reelected, congresspersons are more likely to attend to the needs of heavy campaign contributors than to ordinary citizens. Some political scientists speculate there is a ''coattail effect'' when a popular president or party position has the effect of reelecting incumbents who get dragged along to victory as if they were "riding on the president's coattails", although there is some evidence that the coattail effect is irregular and possibly has been declining since the 1950s.〔 To be reelected, congresspersons must advertise heavily on television; unfortunately, this almost always requires so-called negative advertising which is considered by political operatives as necessary. Critics often point to attack ads that smear an opponent's reputation or make unfounded accusations without discussing issues as being unpopular with the public. The consensus is that negative advertising is effective since "the messages tend to stick." Attack ads are prevalent in most Congressional races today.〔 * * * * * * 〕 Critics charge that candidates must spend heavily to get elected and races often cost millions of dollars.〔 * * * * 〕 In recent years, the average victor in a Senate race spent close to $7 million, and the average House victor spent over a million dollars.〔 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. 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". So why is there such apathy on the part of voters, particularly towards Congress? 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." They wrote "frequent elections are unquestionably the only policy by which this dependence and sympathy can be effectually secured."〔 In 2009, however, few Americans were familiar with leaders of Congress. Numerous reports suggest voter apathy is widespread and growing. The percentage of Americans eligible to vote who did, in fact, vote was 63% in 1960, but has been falling since.〔 * * * * * 〕 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 only 1 out of 4 Americans approved of Congress. Approval ratings from 1974 to 2009 have varied within a range from 20% to 50%, with variation, with a spike of over 84% in October 2001 after the 9/11 attacks. From 2006 to 2009, ratings have hovered in the 25% range, with a high of 37% in early 2007, and an all-time low of 14% in late 2008.〔 * * * * 〕 Vanderbilt professor Dana D. Nelson in ''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. Apathy was lower in the 2008 election, which featured a competitive election for president. However, voter turnout in 2008 (62%) was the highest since 1968. Why explains public attitudes towards Congress? Scholar Julian E. Zeliger suggested that the "size, messiness, virtues, and vices that make Congress so interesting also create enormous barriers to our understanding the institution ... unlike the presidency, Congress is difficult to conceptualize." And scholars Steven S. Smith, Jason M. Roberts, and Ryan J. Vander Wielen suggest that despite the criticism, "Congress is a remarkably resilient institution ... its place in the political process is not threatened ... it is rich in resources." They contend that "Congress is easy to dislike and often difficult to defend." Many challengers running for Congress run ''against'' Congress which is an "old form of American politics" which further undermines Congress's reputation with the public as a whole.〔 They write: But the political scientists believe that the large majority of today's members behave ethically.〔 An additional factor which confounds perceptions of Congress is that the "issues facing Congress are becoming more technical and complex," according to one source.〔 They require expertise in areas such as science, engineering, and economics.〔 As a result, Congress often cedes authority to experts at the executive branch, although this can enhance the executive branch's power over the details of public policy.〔 When Congress deals with complex issues, complex unwieldy bills can result.〔 Political scientists have noted how a prolonged period marked by narrow majorities in both chambers of Congress has affected partisanship. There is speculation that the alternating control of Congress between Democrats and Republicans will lead to greater flexibility in policies, more pragmatic choices, and greater civility within the institution, and possibly greater public support. There is hope that this will be an improvement from the partisanship of the past few decades. 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「U.S. Congress and citizens」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|