News - Columnists - Charlie Mitchell

Wednesday, Oct. 28, 2009

Congress has evolved so that most seats are safe

VICKSBURG

If “Congress” were a person, he (or she) would stand no chance at being re-elected. Polls show a fed-up public, awarding “Congress” favorable ratings at 20 percent or lower during the Bush years and through Obama’s first months. With four out of five people believing “Congress” is failing the nation, “Congress” could pack its bags.

Of course, Congress is not a person. It is 435 people in the House of Representatives plus 100 people in the Senate.

Strictly speaking, it is possible that all seats in the House, subject to two-year terms, and 36 seats in the Senate, where six-year terms are expiring or special elections are being held, could have new occupants after elections on Nov. 2, 2010.

But that’s not going to happen — regardless of voices rising from the left and from the right to “throw the bums out” — for three main reasons.

First is money in the bank.

In 2008, almost $2 billion was spent on federal campaigns, including the presidential campaign.

Thirty years ago, a House candidate from Mississippi who spent $20,000 on an election bid would have been accused of buying the election. Last year, Rep. Bennie Thompson of Mississippi’s 2nd District reported raising $2.4 million and spending $1.4 million. For next year’s voting, Rep. Travis Childers of the 1st District has already raised $700,000; Rep. Gregg Harper of the 3rd District has raised $230,000 and Rep. Gene Taylor of the 4th District has raised $173,000.

Those amounts of cash may or may not dissuade serious challengers, but do send a chilling message.

Second is the long campaign season.

In the 1990s when states were imposing across-the-board term limits — an initiative defeated by Mississippi voters — lawmakers responded by setting earlier deadlines to file for office.

The connection here is not self-evident, but is real. It has a couple of manifestations. One is that it confronts any potential rival with a much longer and thus more expensive campaign period. The other is more obscure and works this way: The earlier an incumbent learns whether he or she will have a formidable re-election challenge, the longer he or she has in which to take positions that curry favor with voters and undermine the opposition. The earlier deadlines help party politics, too, because incumbents who have a cakewalk to re-election can steer their personal PAC money to others and, on the floor, take riskier positions because, in “Survivor” terms, they have immunity.