by Matt Barr

Knee jerks

Judge Posner on how an "intelligent legislature" would respond to the Abramoff scandal:

[G]overnment incompetence is better illustrated by the congressional reaction to the Abramoff scandal than by Congress's failure to enact "meaningful" campaign and lobbying reforms. An intelligent legislature, learning of a scandal, would first want to determine the likely frequency and consequences of such scandals and the adequacy of existing law to limit their recurrence. This inquiry would quickly reveal that Abramoff had pleaded guilty to criminal activity along with two congressional aides, that other members of Congress were under criminal investigation, and that an immensely powerful member (Tom DeLay) had been forced by the scandal to resign from Congress. The inquiry would further reveal that the scandal was actually an artifact of a surpassingly foolish law, namely the Indian casino law, which by conferring enormous rents randomly on Indian tribes had generated rampant rent-seeking, frequently shading into bribery. (Becker and I blogged about the law on January 9 of this year.) What the inquiry would not reveal would be a good reason for amending the lobbying laws.

Perhaps needless to say, Congress is going to go ahead and choose door number two, in order to crack down on lobbying abuse. Ha ha! No, not to crack down on lobbying abuse. In order to insulate its incumbents from charges of do-nothingness while not actually cracking down on lobbying abuse, which after all tends to enrich or otherwise benefit Congresspersons. Look! the voter will hopefully say. Something shiny!

This blog is a firm believer that to the extent elected officials can be voted out of office, they will act in a way a majority of their constituents want them to. That's why this blog thinks term limits are colossally stupid, and if you don't believe this blog, get a load of Ohio, with its cesspool of a government grown out of the fertilizer of two-term limits for all assemblypersons, senators and major statewide offices.

The problem is that Congresspersons, at least in the House, can't reasonably expect to be voted out of office if they displease their constituents. So we get Congresspersons bumping into one another to look like they're trying to achieve lobbying reform. How about let Congresspersons be lobbied by anybody they'd like, but make them tell their constituents (or whomsoever among them is interested) every single person they meet with, every single lunch bought for them, every single gift and gewgaw received, every single check they cash and so on?

My employer expects to know this kind of thing about me while I'm on its clock; Congresspersons are our employees, when you get right down to it. Then we can figure out if we want to re-elect a Congressperson who is or seems to be under the influence of Company A or Special Interest B. Human nature and the politician's desire for self-perpetuation being what it is, Congresspersons will avoid meeting with, eating with or being associated with anyone their constituents wouldn't want them to.

Let's couple this with neutral redistricting authorities that won't try to insulate (or force out, for that matter) incumbents -- won't try, in other words, to achieve result certainty in every district. Make races competitive. It's just crazy enough to work.

Browse books from Amazon.com:
term+limits lobbying