Friday, June 16, 2017
How does one measure influence and the effectiveness of legislators? This is not a trivial question, as voters have to make sense of competing claims during election years when deciding whether to return an incumbent for another two or six year term. Of course, incumbents seek to inflate their importance and influence, while their opponents attempt the opposite. Justin Grimmer wrote a fascinating account of how legislators attempt to puff up their credentials in press releases, claiming credit for government spending and appropriations which are routine--the legislator likely had little role in procuring.
I am drawn again to the topic of legislative effectiveness and influence by a recent post by Don Pogreba at his new website, The Montana Post. Pogreba contrasts the legislative accomplishments of Senator Tester with those of Senator Daines, suggesting that Tester is far more accomplished than Daines—inferring that Daines has little influence in Washington and does nothing of substance in the U.S. Senate.
Unfortunately, I thought the piece trivializes an important issue to sell a partisan point. Both parties are guilty of simplifying this issue to create a narrative useful to them. Let’s elevate the conversation, and see what political science can offer. Who is more effective: Daines or Tester?
I addressed the issue of influence and effectiveness in Battle for the Big Sky, as a key argument Team Tester made about Congressman Rehberg was that he had accomplished little of substance during his decade plus in the House of Representatives. I wrote this in evaluating the effectiveness of Tester and Rehberg as lawmakers:
“On average, House members passed less than one bill in the 109th through the 111th Congresses that became law, according to data compiled by the Congressional Bills Project. In the Senate, it isn’t much better: Senators passed fewer than two bills on average that were signed by the president over the same period.17 Of the 42 bills and resolutions sponsored by Tester during his first four years in office, two passed. Rehberg passed seven of the 82 bills and resolutions he introduced between 2001 and 2010.18 In neither case do Rehberg nor Tester stand out as successful legislators, but their efforts are less reflective of their individual abilities than they are of governing in an era of polarization and divided government. Senior members of both chambers tend to be more successful because they often have committee chairmanships that provide them with the opportunity and responsibility to advance legislation central to their party’s legislative agendas.”
A couple of points are important. First, it’s really hard to pass a bill. Second, it’s really hard for House members to be effective in sponsoring bills—but it is “relatively” easier for Senators to get their legislation made into law. Third, appropriators don’t often sponsor bills and exert influence through earmarks instead. Finally, seniority matters: Freshmen simply don’t pass bills they sponsor in either chamber often.
Let’s compare apples to apples. In 2007, Senator Tester was a part of the new Democratic majority. According to GovTrack, the same source Pogrebra uses to assess Senator Daines’ performance, Senator Tester did not have a bill sponsored by him (not counting co-sponsored bills) pass that year. In 2015, Senator Daines was also in his first year in the Senate as part of a new Republican majority. And, no surprise, he did not have a single bill sponsored by him become law.
But sponsoring bills is only one way to think about legislative effectiveness. Indeed, it is a measure that is not terribly useful when looking at freshmen legislators. I noted in Battle for the Big Sky that the Senate gives far more opportunities for senators to participate directly in the legislative process through floor amendments. This is the similar tactic that my Georgia State colleague, Jeff Lazarus, employed to compare the legislative effectiveness of Senators Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders. Read the piece here; Lazarus concluded that Clinton was the far more effective legislator, owing in part to the support she marshalled for her amendments.
Tester effectively used amendments to advance his legislative priorities, particularly for a freshman Senator in the majority. While he ranked second to last among his class in the passage of sponsored bills (in the first four years of his first term), he was the second most successful Senate amender among the cohort elected in 2006. Of the 38 amendments he sponsored, eleven were adopted on the floor. Again, this data is from my book.
Senator Daines, in the 114th Congress, sponsored 55 floor amendments (Data for this analysis was obtained from Congress.gov). Only five were adopted by the chamber—for a success rate of nine percent. How does that rank among Republican freshmen?
Eleven Republican freshmen were elected in 2014. Six had higher amendment passage rates than Daines, five had lower success rates. Senators Rounds and Sullivan had 32 percent of their amendments agreed to (about Tester’s success rate), but both sponsored fewer amendments (19 and 41 respectively). At the bottom end of the scale, Oklahoma Senator James Lankford sponsored 34 amendments and had only one receive Senate assent (for a passage rate of 3 percent). Among freshmen, Daines also sponsored the most amendments—eight more than Colorado Senator Corey Gardner (17 percent success rate).
Legislative effectiveness is tricky to measure and must be placed both in career and institutional context. Daines’ inability to pass legislation sponsored by him should not surprise given his relative junior status—and Tester found himself in precisely the same boat when he arrived in Washington. Looking at amendments, Daines is less effective than Tester was early in his career. Tester’s experience as a successful legislator in the Montana Senate has carried over to the U.S. Senate. Daines, whose experience was in the private sector and not in politics prior to arriving on Capitol Hill, likely has had a steep learning curve when it comes to legislative maneuvering on the Senate floor.
One final and related point: political scientists have long argued that term limits are bad for legislatures. As David Mayhew notes in America’s Congress, some of the country’s most important, historic legislative measures were drafted and passed by members of Congress late in their careers. As the above analysis and discussion demonstrates, passing laws is the business of seasoned legislators and not those new to Capitol Hill. It is also not a particularly useful way to measure whether a legislator is effective or not earlier in their careers—especially not in isolation. There are also other ways to think about legislative effectiveness, including casework and pork brought back home. Both of these are hard to measure, and in the case of pork, ever more difficult to obtain given the recent ban on earmarks. Legislative effectiveness is multi-faceted and needs to be placed into comparative contexts.
Friday, February 10, 2017
Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren rose Tuesday night to register her objections to Senator Jeff Sessions’ nomination to the Attorney Generalship. In the course of reading a letter from the late Coretta Scott King (widow of Martin Luther King) about her objection to his appointment in 1986 to the federal bench, Majority Leader Mitch McConnell issued an objection saying that Senator Warren had violated Rule 19. That rule states, in part:
“No Senator in debate shall, directly or indirectly, by any form of words impute to another Senator or to other Senators any conduct or motive unworthy or unbecoming a Senator.”
Senator Daines ruled Senator Warren out of order, telling her to take her seat. Warren challenged that ruling, but Senator Daines was sustained on 49-43 party-line vote. Senator Warren was then effectively barred from the remainder of the debate.
|Senator Daines ruling Senator Warren out of order|
The video of the incident quickly spread across social media. Democrats, liberals, and regular women were furious at a white, male senator suppressing the free speech of a female colleague. Even more galling, they indicated, was that Warren’s male, Democratic colleagues were later allowed to read King’s letter from the floor without interruption, let alone official reprimand.
As a professor of political science, I appreciate Senator Daines’ commitment to civil discourse. It is something that I try to model for my students at Montana State, and it’s a value which has evaporated during these hyper-polarized times. I agree that Senator Daines’ interpretation of Rule 19 falls within the letter of the rule. Senator Warren did charge Senator Sessions with conduct unbecoming of a Senator, even if Senator Warren was quoting someone else.
Daines was right. According to the letter of Rule 19, that is.
But it’s the spirit of the rule—and the intention behind it—that matters. And in that respect, Senator Daines and Senate Republicans erred greatly in ordering the honorable member from Massachusetts to take her seat.
Consider first why something like rule 19 exists: To provide a “safe space” for the difficult and often contentious disagreements about policy and the direction of our nation. Political debates should confine themselves to substantive matters without devolving into attacks on personal character. As we know from the literature on international relations, repeated interactions in negotiations encourages cooperation and long-term thinking. By encouraging elevated discussions whilst removing name-calling, the Senate pushes its members to engage in a battle of ideas and not personalities (Side note: Refusing to engage in personalities was one of President Eisenhower’s keys to successful leadership). At the same time, this encourages the development of relationships that go beyond the disagreements of the moment—relationships essential to the institution functioning well and the production of good policy. In this case, Rule 19 is a good thing to have handy for officers presiding over debate.
While Rule 19 encourages elevated discourse, its use on Tuesday evening conflicted with the constitutional responsibility of the Senate; that is, to provide its advice and consent in the nomination process.
It would seem that a rule of the chamber concerning decorum should be subordinate to the pursuit of an important constitutional check on the executive branch.
When Senator Sessions became President Trump’s nominee to head the Justice Department, he was no longer just a Senator. He had become a potential member of the executive branch and therefore subject to the advice and consent process. It would seem, then, that a full consideration of the previous actions and record of that nominee—including the judgment of those who are in a good position to assess that record—is fair game for consideration during the process of advice and consent. Even if those allegations include remarks that might be perceived as impugning the character of a sitting U.S. Senator.
Beyond this technical point, however, it’s hard to buy that Senator Warren’s reading of the King letter impugned the character of Senator Sessions. First, the letter was an account of his behavior not as a U.S. Senator but in his position as a U.S. Attorney. And, perhaps more directly, the views expressed by Mrs. King assessed the actions of an officer of the executive branch—the same branch Sessions would serve as head of the Justice Department.
Even if we accept the notion that Senator Warren’s reading of the letter was out of line under a strict application of Rule 19, consider if that same letter were written about Betsy DeVos. Senator Warren could have freely read the letter without fear of rebuke. DeVos was not a sitting senator at the time of her confirmation, therefore, Rule 19 simply does not apply.
In 1989, the former U.S. Senator John Tower’s nomination to lead the Department of Defense was rejected after senators openly discussed documented allegations of womanizing and alcohol abuse. Although Tower was not an active member of the Senate at the time of his nomination by President George H.W. Bush, the Senate did not shy away from this important and difficult discussion about a former colleague. It defies reason, therefore, that the Senate chose to silence one of its members rather than have a complete and full discussion of Sessions’ qualifications to serve as Attorney General—simply because he is an active U.S. Senator. This is, quite simply, a dereliction of its constitutional duty.
At the end of the day, it is not a surprise that Senator Daines upheld McConnell’s objection and the Republican majority supported his ruling. As University of Maryland Professor Frances Lee documents, senators increasingly vote along party lines not just on issues of policy and ideology, but on routine procedural matters. Why? Because the parties are more interested in building a mentality of teamsmanship at the expense of cross-partisan collegiality and cooperation.
While that teamsmanship might yield electoral benefits in the short-term, it comes at great expense to Madison’s carefully constructed system of checks and balances.
The rise of teamsmanship along with the weaponization of congressional oversight (which Matt Dull and I have documented a few articles), leaves Congress vulnerable to the continued expansion of the executive branch accruing more and more power. Without congressional ambition vigorously countering executive ambition, we risk the rise of a majority tyranny running roughshod over our individual liberties.
Monday, September 12, 2016
I guess I should be used to folks taking the work that I do out of context. It comes with the territory when you are a scholar engaged in the public realm. Normally, I shrug it off because both sides can be guilty of it. But I take particular exception when the work I do to help inform the public and to elevate the public discourse gets twisted beyond all recognition to score cheap political points that bear no relation to the facts.
Back in the spring, MTN agreed to move Face the State to a weekly format through the election. I thought it would be wonderful to use this opportunity to hold debates on the show for the statewide offices receiving less attention: Auditor, Secretary of State, OPI, Attorney General, and Supreme Court. I reached out to all the major party candidates offering the opportunity to debate. Nearly everyone was excited for the opportunity to share their candidacies with Montana on statewide television.
In late August, Mike Dennison and I taped a Face the State segment with Jesse Laslovich, the Democratic candidate for state auditor. You can watch it here. That segment was supposed to be a debate. We had invited Matt Rosendale, the Republican candidate, to join us. He chose not to attend or offer other dates/times that would work with his schedule, which disappointed us. Laslovich was one of the first candidates to agree to debate back in June. Given Mr. Rosendale’s decision not to debate, we gave Mr. Laslovich the whole half hour to share his vision for the state auditorship with Montanans.
Today, the Montana Republican Party sent out a press release calling Laslovich a “socialist” (I actually laughed out loud when I read this) and, using a clip from our interview on Face the State, intimated that he supports single-payer healthcare as “evidence” of their claim. Mr. Rosendale sent out a tweet with that same clip saying Mr. Laslovich supports more big government to destroy healthcare.
First, Mr. Laslovich did NOT say he supported replacing the Affordable Care Act with a single-payer option. He said our existing healthcare system was still broken despite the positive gains made by the Affordable Care Act, and that the single-payer idea should be taken seriously in any future discussions of healthcare reform. That’s it. He did not say he supported single-payer. He did not advocate for it. He simply said a candid discussion was necessary.
Finally, and this is perhaps the most distressing, single-payer healthcare already exists in the United States and has received support from the Republican Party. It’s called Medicare—you know, that single payer plan providing healthcare for elderly Americans. If single-payer programs are socialist, then any Republican supporting Medicare must be a socialist, too. At least, if we are to simply employ the “logic” expressed in the Montana Republican Party’s press release.
Montanans deserve a fair and vigorous debate between their parties, both of which have different ideas for moving our state forward. That means candidates should debate one another, their views should be publicly scrutinized, and the conversation should be based upon facts rather than distortions. The Republican Party’s characterization of our interview with Mr. Laslovich is simply unfair and mischaracterizes Mr. Laslovich's position. They should issue an immediate retraction and apologize.
Sunday, June 19, 2016
I have been watching politics unfold for a long time—first as a young idealist hopeful to make the world a better place, later as a student of history interested in understanding the stories of our past, and now as a scholar and analyst helping others to understand the process and its intricacies. But today I write as a father concerned for the future of our political discourse. I’m specifically concerned when I see certain American politicians turn to fearmongering as a way to manipulate the electorate.
During this political season, I have seen candidates both nationally and here in Montana resort to the divisive language of “us” versus “them,” pretending that they are leaders for “telling it like it is.” These candidates purport to say what regular politicians refuse to voice, and because of that, they argue, we should lend them our support. They are not corruptible, they claim, because they are “one of us” and not “one of them.” They come from outside the contemptible, “broken” political system. They can make America, and Montana, great again because only they have the will to do the tough things the venal politicians in the pocket of special interests refuse to stomach.
These candidates aren’t tough and principled. They are master manipulators asking us to give in to our basest fears. They are unscrupulous charlatans selling us bill of goods.
That’s not leadership. It calls to mind the Red Panic following World War I, or the McCarthyism of the 1950s. Have we lost all decency?
Leaders don’t play on people’s fears. They acknowledge our fears, but inspire us to overcome them. They ask us to move beyond fear and bind us together. They do not push us apart. Leaders, like all of us, are not perfect. They make mistakes. But they fundamentally strive to bring out the best in us as a people, together.
Make no mistake: Political disputes are healthy and good in a republic. We should disagree and do so vigorously. The problem is when that discourse becomes poisoned by a desire to win a political argument at all costs. This mentality encourages doubling down on fear to marshal our darkest doubts against our perceived enemies. It fosters and deepens divisions between us. It is especially dangerous when that fear encourages a majority “us” versus a minority “them”—stoked by too cute by half political framing that skews facts to make a convenient argument.
All is not yet lost. We—the people—are at a time of choosing, Ronald Reagan once said. We can chose candidates that manipulate our fears to advance their campaign, or we can chose candidates who wish to overcome them. We can chose hucksters who have no fidelity to truth or civil discourse.
Or we can choose leaders.
May Americans be inspired to act together this election season “by the better angels of our nature” rather than give into our fear. If we choose to surrender to the “nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance,” then not only is our republic imperiled, but we really have lost our collective national soul.