G.O.P. projected to allow legislative gridlock until 2012

Like every election in American history, the 2010 mid-term election has its implications and so-called “consequences”. However, the drastic Republican takeover of government that many Americans, who were clearly not Political Science majors, expect to happen in the next two years is unrealistic. Though one aspect of politics in which Republican domination is inevitable is redistricting. David Mayhew argues that reelection is the main goal of members of Congress as it is absolutely essential in order to achieve any other goals. One can expect minimal policy changes by Congress until 2012 since Republicans Control only the House.

As I discussed in my last blog, the Republicans will control the redrawing of Congressional districts this year. This is arguably the only area in which the Republican party will undoubtedly have a major impact on future elections. Since extensive gerrymandering is very likely, according to political consultant Brett Di Resta, the problem of partisan politics will swell. Districts will be redrawn to favor incumbent Republicans over the incumbent Democrats and Republican Representatives will be less likely to make policy compromises.

With reelection on the mind, the newly elected Republican legislatures are probably not going to be wasting time and money on passing or implementing new legislation. Members of Congress will get credit for taking a position, not passing innovative legislation. Completely ignoring the pressure to compromise would satisfy the major promise of Republican campaigns; oppose the enormous overreach by Obama and the Democrats that led to increased spending, debt, bailouts, etc. An interesting article in The Daily Caller pointed out that most Americans don’t realize that the next 2 years are not about how much the Republicans can accomplish. These next two years will really be about Republicans limiting the damage that Obama and the Senate can do.

Congress after the 2010 mid-term election

It is obvious that President Obama and his fellow Democrats will be focusing on preserving their legislative achievements while the Republicans in the House intend to reverse, or at the very least, reduce it. As this article explains, the make-up of the 112^th Congress leaves slim chances of overriding a presidential veto. Likewise, major policy issues will likely see two years of gridlock. The only policy changes that are likely to be made with this stalemate will be the essential ones like appropriations.

For all those Republicans out there who are gung-ho about making major policy comebacks this time around, I’m sorry to burst your bubble but you’ll probably have to wait until 2012 before you can claim any political bragging rights. 

Republicans to redistrict, Democrats scramble for reasons to keep hope

Political parties covet the redistricting process so they can draw lines to give their respective parties an advantage, especially incumbents. The outcomes of this past election are significant in that Republicans now control more seats in the U.S.’s state legislatures than they have since the Great Depression and they now have control over the redistricting process.  However, in the state of Illinois, the state legislature and the governor are both controlled by the Democratic party. A review of the Voting Rights Act by the Department of Justice may be the only hope for the rest of the nation’s Democrats.

The Republicans of Illinois are worried that they will be pushed even further into a minority status with the redistricting. The new boundaries will put forth candidates for every seat in the Illinois House and Senate as well as every congressional district in 2010.  While these circumstances favor Illinois’ Democrats, the majority of the country’s boundaries will be redrawn by Republicans; roughly 190 according to this article.

The Republican party seems to have a great advantage of this redistricting process but some Democrats remain opmtomistic. For the first time in nearly 50 years, the Democrats have the advantage in the Justice Department to review the Voting Rights Act. Will Department of Justice help Democrats and review the previously upheld maps of G.W. Bush’s DOJ? Or will Republicans backfire and argue that such use of the review process on behalf of the Democratic party is unfair?

The true effects of this year’s redistricting will not be exposed for another 23 months but will last an entire decade. Whether or not the DOJ will rehear relevant cases of the past is hard to tell. While the power to review rulings is fundamental to the country’s democratic growth and evolution, the Justices are not supposed to hear cases that are politically motivated. Not to mention the provisions of the Voting Rights Act that are at stake are issues of great controversy; immigration. While the Obama Administration  and the Democratic party have bigger fish to fry, those fish will not even make it into the frying pan if Democrats sit back and watch Republicans gerrymander.

So any Democratic politician with half a brain will recognize the need to make all efforts possible to block or at least limit the gerrymandering. Better start sending in amicus briefs.

Check out this link to see the top 10 most gerrymandered districts in the U.S. 

Evaluating the FEC shows growing need for campaign reform

If there is anything to be said about campaign finance after the 2010 mid-term election, it’s that big money really does win and the need for reform is greater than ever.

The Supreme Court ruling in Citizens United v. FEC back in January 2010 made it possible for corporations and unions to make enormous independent expenditures on elections through front groups. Likewise, the number of political players has skyrocketed while the percentage of donor disclosures by organizations has plummeted. To say that the system is flawed would be an understatement.

 The federal agency that is charged with monitoring and implementing campaign and election legislation is the Federal Election Commission. The Court held that the disclosure requirements of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA) were justified by a “governmental interest” for the accessibility and availability of the electorate to information relevant to election expenditure funds (OYEZ, case 558 U.S. 2010). The FEC uses a variety of methods to detect violations of election laws including, but not limited to, revision of committee reports, Commission audits, and a complaint process that allows individuals and other government agencies to report possible violations (FEC, 2010).

Nonetheless, there are indeed management and enforcement flaws within the organization that inhibit effective implementation of federal campaign finance laws. Specifically, there is an apparent lack of enforcement of disclosure requirements. An FEC enforcement case or Matter Under Review, by law, must remain confidential until they are closed (FEC, 2010). By the time the FEC has assessed and revised the disclosure file submissions, election season has long ended and any violations are moot. Moreover, the consequence for violations involving late submission of FEC reports or failure to file reports is an administrative fine that poses little threat to culprits (Best, 2009).

In grading the FEC on its implementation and enforcement I give the commission an F and legislators receive a 0 for whatever efforts were made to reform the campaign finance laws.

Check out these links to find out who’s taking advantage of the Citizens United ruling and who is, or isn’t, doing something about it.

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/readersrespond/bs-ed-campaign-finance-reform-letter-20101119,0,3579976.story

http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2010/11/the-wave-of-unlimited-influence-7-e.html