Skip Navigation

Gridlock in Washington

Every morning, for six weeks this summer, I made the short walk from Union Station in Washington, DC to the Hart Senate Office Building, among a wave of other well-groomed Hill staffers and interns. As we checked our phones and strutted expeditiously to our offices, we passed by the array of panhandlers and homeless individuals in front of the station. Supposedly through our work we had the power, resources and responsibility to take action on behalf of those individuals and the many like them. Yet, I knew that no such action was forthcoming, nor was much else of substance.

The potential and pitfalls of Congress as an institution evoke a range of emotions — frustration chief among them. This is on track to be the single least productive Congress in the history of the United States, leading experts of all stripes to debate the causes of gridlock. A closer look at the place reveals that conditions new and old, including the prominence of fundraising, the brevity of the Congressional workweek, the ideological calcification of the electorate, and elections laws, create incentives that discourage legislative productivity.  

While you’d assume (or, perhaps, hope) that members of Congress devote most of their time in Washington to fulfilling their occupational description as legislators, the reality is somewhat different. In both parties, at home and in Washington, members are expected to set aside “call-time” to speak with potential donors, which can be highly time consuming. A leaked memo from the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee in 2013 advised members to spend four hours a day on call-time, more than any other activity — and this didn’t even include in-person fundraising events. Typically, members arrive in Washington late on Monday and attend one “bed-check” vote in the evening. On Tuesday and Wednesday, they attend — or skip — hearings, all while running to and from votes, floor speeches, meetings, presiding in the chamber and squeezing in the call-time. On Thursday afternoon, they return home, where there will be more calls and fundraisers.

The biggest problem with this approach is that it’s far easier to avoid the tough and unsavory work of governing when you’re only expected to show up three days a week. The congressional calendar is not new, but the demands of fundraising and the complexity of governing the nation that has grown as large and unruly as the United States has are. It’s been noted that these pressures have negatively impacted the congressional workweek, and congressmen spend less time in the capital than ever. For these reasons, proposals like that supported by bipartisan nonprofit No Labels — which advocates for the creation of a “three and one” workweek for Congress, wherein members spend three straight weeks in Washington and one week at home per month — seem like a no-brainer.

And while some members of Congress have raised valid concerns about potential First Amendment infringements of campaign finance propositions currently on the table, the severity of the situation — in the wake of the Citizens United and McCutcheon Supreme Court decisions that have minimized federal fundraising limits — warrants such a response. Unfortunately, it’s an issue that is as divisive as ever. Recently, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) and Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) sat next to each other, testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee on a constitutional amendment that would grant Congress the explicit power to regulate spending in elections. Reid told the committee that, “the flood of dark money into our nation’s political system poses the greatest threat to our democracy that I have witnessed during my time in public service.” McConnell deadpanned it as a “political exercise” geared at revving up the Democratic base in the upcoming elections. Whether you consider Reid’s words posturing or McConnell’s response sheer cynicism, what is clear is that consensus is a term absent from either’s present vocabulary. Without question, it will take significant pressure from outside activists before Congress changes long-enshrined protocol from within. It may take well over a decade before a constitutional amendment is ratified, but this is a fight worth digging in for.

While campaign finance as an idea divides our political class, the reality of fundraising is uniform across it — coinciding with an increasing sense among congressmen that their jobs are threatened by the outsized influence of ideological constituencies. Voters may be pushed to extreme ideologies by broader societal trends, but current election laws also amplify the voice of some voters over others. Consider the role of primary elections in US politics. This summer, House Majority Leader Eric Cantor’s (R-VA) unexpected primary defeat jolted a political class that had already seen several high profile incumbents lose primaries in recent years. No one in Washington wants to emulate Cantor and be unseated by an unknown zealot.

It’s not an entirely irrational fear, as primaries appear to be more potent and important than ever. A 2012 study by researchers at Harvard and Columbia found that 60 percent of all voting districts in the United States should be considered “safe” and that in those districts primaries are of greater consequence than general elections. Few people vote in them — turnout of eligible voters in 2014 primaries ranged from just 10 to 25 percent. In low turnout or off-cycle elections, the most likely to vote are those that are dedicated and motivated enough to keep track of obscure election dates and low-profile candidates. Consequently, it is not hard to see how the fate of many politicians is determined by a small number of ideologues.

Members of the House of Representatives face an added wrinkle: districts drawn to clump or disperse voters of certain demographics or ideologies. In states such as Texas and Florida, courts have invalidated redistricting maps on the basis that they were improperly drawn for partisan purposes. For this reason and others, House Democrats allege they actually won over a million more votes than House Republicans in 2012, yet did not see this advantage converted into a majority in the chamber.

Elected representatives, like all humans, respond to incentives.  If the 10 to 25 percent of the electorate that votes in primaries determines their fate, they must be most attuned to the desires of that group. If a gerrymandered district will reward a politician not for legislative achievements, but for maintaining ideological purity, then that politician won’t be incentivized to grease legislative wheels. Similarly, if politicians cannot survive without constantly appealing to donors, it should come as no surprise if the policies they support are influenced by the whims of those donors.

A hearing in June of this year to discuss an amendment to the 1965 Voting Rights Act (VRA) made this situation abundantly clear. This followed the recent Shelby County v. Holder Supreme Court case, in which the Court ruled that a formula used to designate areas of the US for special scrutiny in elections due to histories of discrimination was too outdated to be valid. Senior Republican senators, like Chuck Grassley (R-IA) and Jeff Sessions (R-AL), voted in favor of that formula in 2006, but voiced opposition at the hearing to any attempt to update and revive pre-clearance. They were not alone, as in 2006 the bill passed a Republican-majority Senate with 98 votes in favor — but no Senate Republicans have indicated a desire to take up the issue now. While it’s possible that senators like Grassley and Sessions have legitimate reasons to oppose a new bill — and they did cite some — it’s harder to square these with the short amount of time that has passed since they reauthorized the VRA eight years ago. Not only was that the same year Republicans were hammered in the midterm elections, but it was a pre-Tea Party climate. In short, the consequences of moderation were not nearly as grave as they are today.

Until these perverse incentives are reversed, there will be no break to gridlock. The model for the nation should be California. In 2010, the state passed a law establishing the Citizens Redistricting Commission, giving the power to draw districts to a group of non-elected private citizens, in equal proportions of Democrats and Republicans. From 2000 to 2010, only one congressional seat in California changed party hands, as state legislators drew districts to protect incumbents. In the years since, turnover has surged. California also leads the way, along with Washington and Louisiana, in reengineering the primary process. Those three states have a nonpartisan blanket primary, in which all candidates face the electorate in the primary, and the top two — regardless of party — move on to the general election. Activists can and should push these reforms at the state level, where control of voting procedures rests. Other reforms, like online and same-day registration, are also sorely needed.

Shortly before I left Congress, I had a chance encounter with Senator Tammy Baldwin (D-WI) on the private subway car that connects the buildings of the Capitol complex. I asked her what her thoughts on gridlock were, and she confidently replied that it ebbs and flows over time — much as I had heard from others on the Hill. Yet, it’s hard to share her optimism. Congress is a place with virtually unmatched power and privilege. That authority and vast resources are vested in Congress for a reason: to govern the nation. Yet, the incentive structure today discourages effective governance, and emboldens Congress to hoard its power. At a time of unparalleled ineptitude, we must double down on Congress, not disengage. Truly, there is no alternative.

About the Author

Sam Rubinstein is a sophomore, studying Public Policy and Economics. He is an interviews associate at BPR, and is from West Caldwell, NJ.

SUGGESTED ARTICLES