Meet the House of Unrepresentatives

Congress convenes this week for its first official day of business. It's a fitting time to take a look at the men and women whose job is to represent the rest of us in the day-to-day process of government. Most members of Congress are well-meaning people, who hold true to their personal beliefs about what is good for the country. But that doesn't mean that they accurately represent America or that they can effectively govern in the name of the people.

At least 42 members of the U.S. Senate are millionaires, with many of those worth tens of millions. Even in the House, some 25 percent make bank with seven digits or more compared to less than one percent of Americans.

There aren't many plumbers, teachers, secretaries or software engineers in Congress. On the other hand, there are reportedly more than 220 lawyers. While ordinary Americans are concerned about education, jobs, and health care, Congress seems more interested in privatizating of social security, tax cuts for the wealthy, and making it harder for consumers who've been hurt by drug companies or other corporations to seek justice in court.

Congress fails to prioritize the issues that citizens care about because members of Congress are more accountable to the cash constituents who fund their campaigns than they are to the voters who elect them. It's not hard to understand why. The candidate who outspends his or her opponent wins more than nine out of ten times.

You don't need to be a political genius like Carl Rove to realize that candidates who take on issues that aren't popular with wealthy donors are less likely to raise lots of money than those who don't ruffle any feathers. A report by the U.S. Public Interest Research Group, appropriately titled Look Who's Not Coming to Washington, confirms this by interviewing candidates who lost or dropped out of the race after facing the realities of competing against an opponent who was favored by the fat cats.

Janice Bowling, a Republican congressional candidate in Tennessee explains why Congress does not look like the voters when she says, "the sad thing is that in America today if it's going to take $2 million to win, then normal people can't run anymore. You either have to be very, very wealthy or very, very bought."

A Democratic candidate in Washington state laments that our system is "not what Jefferson had in mind . . . It's impossible for real people [to run for Congress] and it shouldn't be. People should feel that you can grow up to be president, and that's gone."

Most general elections for congress are little more than a joke these days, thanks in no small part to congressional districts that were drawn by state legislatures with the goal of insulating incumbents of both parties from serious competition. But even in these so-called "safe" seats, democracy would benefit from a rigorous debate of ideas that is best achieved when challengers are on equal financial footing with incumbents. But when incumbents have already proven themselves to be dependable lackeys of major contributors, those donors have little incentive to fund a challenger.

While we might expect districts where constituents strongly tilt toward either the Republican or Democratic Party to have landslide victories in general elections, these districts should see vigorous primary elections where ordinary voters have the chance to hold their incumbent accountable. But U.S.PIRG reports that nearly two-thirds of congressional primaries go uncontested and that campaign funding is a big reason why.

If donors who give hundreds or even thousands of dollars had political priorities that reflected average citizens, maybe congress would still represent the values of mainstream America. On some social issues like abortion there are large donors who are willing to fund both sides of the debate. But on issues like cutting the capital gains tax, cleaning up air pollution, or allowing the re-importation of prescription drugs from Canada, narrow economic interests are much more likely than widely held public interests to fund both Democrats and Republicans.

Campaign finance is why the members of congress fail to accurately represent the wishes of the voters on too many bread and butter issues. If we want to change the people who rule in our name, we must first change the system that gets them elected.