Blogcritics: Comments on Welcome to the Age of Autonomy

Comment by Phillip Winn

Wed, 7 May 2003 08:05:54 EDT

I don't think lobbyists are promising reelection now. I think the something most often promised has little or nothing to do with the job, and everything to do with off-the-books perks (all expense paid trips) or after-retirement perks (a paid position doing nothing for some firm somewhere) or things of that nature. if they don't, they certainly would. 8^) Besides, it's probably easier for a lobbyist to own a few legislators than to own a large segment of the voting public, so job retention might be an easier thing to promise under a legislature-drivien system. Still, I'm all in favor of returning it to the system originally defined by the Constitution, I just don't see it as the solution to...well... anything.

Comment by Howard Owens

Tue, 6 May 2003 20:13:50 EDT

What would be the incentive for the senator to accept something (obviously a very vague term) from a lobbyist? The lobbyist can do nothing to help the senator retain his job.

Comment by Phillip Winn

Tue, 6 May 2003 17:31:33 EDT

You're far more optimistic than I am. Since a Senator would no longer be responsible to the voters, they might be less responsive to hot button issues, but sometimes that might not be a good thing. And if you think a Senator is ever going to tell a lobbyist "no thanks" when offered something, you've definitely got a better image of human nature than I do. 8^)

Comment by Howard Owens

Tue, 6 May 2003 14:29:34 EDT

I don't see how it cannot but improve. Sure, a senator might (and probably should) do campaigning on behalf of the legislators who vote for him, but that wouldn't be a major focus of his time. In a state like California, a senator needs several million dollars to credibly run for re-election. That makes the senator nearly a full-time fundraiser year around. Also, senators (all elected officials really) are supposed to represent, not legislate by polls. Since senators would be relieved of the burden of appealing directly to voters, they would have the ability to move beyond expediancy and take a longer-term view of policy issues. The idea is to insulate the senate from the electoral emotions of the day, make them less responsive to hot button issues and more responsive to good policy. Yes, the senators will be answerable to their state legislators and will need to do some limited pandering there, but it would take a far more powerful block than any legislature could probably muster to make a senator a total patsy to a narrow interest. I just can't see how a senator, under such a system, wouldn't be more free to vote his conscious rather than vote according to poll numbers or lobbyist's dollars. You can argue, well he's still going to be raising money for legislators, but since he's no longer personally dependent on those dollars, he's in a stronger position to tell a lobbyist to piss off.

Comment by Phillip Winn

Tue, 6 May 2003 12:30:35 EDT

Hmmm, I'm not sure I buy it. Isn't it equally likely that they would still need to raise campaign funds, this time campaigning for the legislators instead of the people of their state? Heck, with that sort of limited group of "voters," wouldn't it be much easier to "buy votes" and just provide a direct quid pro quo to the legislators in exchange for the appointment? I don't see how they would really be more immune from the influence of special interests as well. It might be a touch harder for lobbyists to give them cash, since there would theoretically be no campaign finance funds to launder it through, but that's already somewhat limited, and the lobbyist groups are still managing to get their lobbying done. Like I said, I'm not against the idea, but I fail to see how things might really improve.

Comment by Howard Owens

Tue, 6 May 2003 12:11:40 EDT

The Senate is supposed to be a body of elder statesment removed from the fray of electoral politics. They would be more immune (though no system would make them totally immune) from the influence of special interests. They wouldn't need to raise campaign funds. Their only office-keeping concern would be keeping half+1 of their home-state legislature happy. They could focus, then, more on long-term concerns rather than exclusiviely the politics of the moment. They would be the adult supervision for the more rambuncious House.

Comment by Phillip Winn

Tue, 6 May 2003 11:07:59 EDT

A coworker and I spent some time debating some of these very issues yesterday. I have been preaching the "democracy is not freedom" mantra for a while now, so I'll have to pick up the book to see how it substantiates or suborns my own views. I'm curious, though. How would restoring the Senate to a legislature-appointed body make any difference? I've heard this before, but I haven't studied anything to describe what the practical difference would be.