Making Congress accountable

[John F]

On this week's SciTech Now there's a segment on a new Web site whose purpose is to make it easy for us to tell the Congressman for our district how we want them to vote on specific bills - and to keep track of how they actually do vote and whether they're doing what you want. (House of Representatives only, not the Senate.) It's here:

https://issuevoter.org/

The SciTech Now segment is here:

http://www.scitechnow.org/videos/tech-p ... ngagement/#

Currently there are six bills in the House that I've "voted" on. Half of them I support and half I oppose. With each one, the site tells me how other in the district have "voted," and eventually it will tell me how my Congressman votes. There's also a statistic for how often his votes have agreed with his constituents'. Probably no surprise, but my preference is the same as the overwhelming majority of voters in my district, and my Congressman has voted accordingly over 80% of the time.

For those who care about current affairs, this offers a way to influence them, rather than just talking about them which is often preaching to the choir and achieves nothing. How much issuevoter.org will actually achieve, remains to be seen, but it makes sense to me.

[jserraglio]

Very cool.I signed up. One problem is that gerrymandered districts like mine tend to be quite politically homogeneous (see the Loch Bess monster on the map printed below), OH District 9 Rep. Marcy Kaptur agreeing with IssueVoters more than 80% of the time. To have more of an impact, I would like a similar online way to communicate on a number of issues with at-large representatives like Sen. Rob Portman that do not think like me but might be open to influence.
_________________________________

Bessie, the Loch Bess monster, a.k.a., the OHIO 9th District - [head on right, tail on left. I reside in eye of the dragon.]

[John F]

issuevoter.org has e-mailed me to report that the House has voted on one of the bills I "voted" on:

Fairness in Class Action Litigation Act of 2017 (H.R. 985)
Result: Passed
You Voted: Oppose
Your Rep Voted: Nay

The bill limits who can join a class action suit, effectively protecting businesses from paying the price for bad behavior. Naturally the Republican majority voted for it, and for the next two years at least, I expect my liberal Democratic views will be consistently defeated on bills like this. But I think it's worthwhile to participate anyway. I know that my congressman, Hakeem Jeffries, voted as I want him to, and is keeping up the good fight even though he and I will lose almost every time. It also informs me in greater detail than the newspapers of what Congress is doing, supposedly in my name, in an objective and concise way. So at the end of the day I can say of myself and my congressman, don't blame us, we did our part.

[jserraglio]

Again this is a very worthwhile site. Of the bills passed so far, Marcy Kaptur (D-OH-9) has opposed all but one. All passed before I had a chance to take a stand via the site, but I would have voted the same way she did anyway. A convenient way to keep abreast of what Congress is doing. Now if we could only track our senators this way.

[John F]

I haven't looked but expect the senators' web sites will provide some information on their voting record, though of course no direct way to try and influence it. Here in New York, I've no reason to suppose that Chuck Schumer and Kirsten Gillibrand might go against the liberal Democrat flow, and Schumer is of course influential beyond his one vote. But if he shows signs of compromising with the enemy, without at least a comparable payback, he'll be hearing from me.

[lennygoran]

I've no reason to suppose that Chuck Schumer and Kirsten Gillibrand might go against the liberal Democrat flow, and Schumer is of course influential beyond his one vote. But if he shows signs of compromising with the enemy, without at least a comparable payback, he'll be hearing from me.

I sure hope he fights Trump hard-I didn't like the way he voted on Obama's Iran deal--one of only 4 Democrats opposed-- and I read somewhere he gave hedgefund people too much slack to suit me. Regards, Len

Charles E. Schumer New York 9.1% 96.9%
Benjamin L. Cardin Maryland 4.2 96.9
Robert Menendez New Jersey 5.8 96.9
Joe Manchin III West Virginia 0.1 72.8

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/201 ... s-against-
iran-nuclear-deal.html?_r=0

"But in building support, he has embraced the industry’s free-market, deregulatory agenda more than almost any other Democrat in Congress, even backing some measures now blamed for contributing to the financial crisis.

Other lawmakers took the lead on efforts like deregulating the complicated financial instruments called derivatives, which are widely seen as catalysts to the crisis.

But Mr. Schumer, a member of the Banking and Finance Committees, repeatedly took other steps to protect industry players from government oversight and tougher rules, a review of his record shows. Over the years, he has also helped save financial institutions billions of dollars in higher taxes or fees."

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/14/busin ... humer.html

[John F]

On these and other issues, Senator Schumer has been responsive to his constituents in New York State, who include the largest Jewish population outside Israel and, as the world's financial capital, many leading financial institutions on which his state's prosperity depends. That's how democracy is supposed to work, isn't it? I may not agree with everything Schumer has ever done, but overall he does represent me, and as the Senate minority leader is more responsible than anyone else for the opposition to Trump and Trumpism. Let's keep focused.

[lennygoran]

On these and other issues, Senator Schumer has been responsive to his constituents in New York State, who include the largest Jewish population outside Israel ... Let's keep focused.

I think I am focused-when Schumer doesn't get tougher with hedgefund people he doesn't get my support--and on Israel when he votes against the Iran deal and plays into the hands of Netanyahu count me out. Of course I hope he will continue to be tough with Trump but on the issues I've cited he didn't show much courage imo. Regards, Len

PS-I have to say that when you say "Let's keep focused" I can only respond-there you go again-you're focused and I'm not.

[John F]

Senator Schumer doesn't need your support; you aren't one of his constituents. And when I say "let's keep focused," I'm obviously referring to the situation now, with a wierdo as president and Republicans controlling both houses of Congress. There's really no point in obsessing about a few votes in years past when the Democrats had a Senate majority, Harry Reid was the majority leader, and Chuck Schumer was a rank and file senator representing New York State and responsive to the interests and wishes of his voters.

Things are radically different now, for Senator Schumer and for the nation. Whatever your feelings about the prime minister of Israel and the regulation of certain investment brokers, we now face far greater dangers from the Republican-controlled government on which, as I say, we need to keep focused, instead of blurring the picture. If, as may happen, Trump and/or the Republicans in Congress attempt to kill the Iran agreement, then the votes of Senator Schumer and the Democrats he leads will matter again. As things are now, that's out of the picture.

Speaking of focus, let's get back on topic. Issuevoter.com informs us of actual bills being considered and voted on in the House of Representatives, enables us to inform our congressmen of our wishes bill by bill, and tells us how the congressman voted and whether this agrees with the majority of issuevoter opinion. My congressman, Hakeem Jeffries, does not vote in agreement with 100% of us, because we differ among ourselves, but so far, especially on those bills I personally care about, he has voted my way. If on this or that bill he has voted otherwise, I'm not kvetching about it, because I doubt anyone else in his seat would do better - certainly not any of his Republican opponents.

Have you signed up at issuevoter.com yet?

[lennygoran]

Senator Schumer doesn't need your support; you aren't one of his constituents. And when I say "let's keep focused," I'm obviously referring to the situation now, with a wierdo as president and Republicans controlling both houses of Congress. ...I'm not kvetching about it, because I doubt anyone else in his seat would do better - certainly not any of his Republican opponents. Have you signed up at issuevoter.com yet?

Sorry your argument is not persuasive-Israel remains an incredibly important subject right now and here's Trump and many other Republicans attempting to make the rich richer and the poor getting screwed with Obamacare-lite--Schumer better not let us down! As for issuevoter.com the answer is no-I'm too busy with wildlife and garden affairs! Regards, Len

[John F]

Of course Israel is important, that's obvious, and Senator Schumer woiuldn't deny it. Indeed, he arguably furthered Israel's national interests as expressed by its democratically elected prime minister by voting against the Iran nuclear agreement, and many New York Jews agree with him. What you mean is that you think Schumer's vote was wrong because unlike Israel's and many American Jewish voters, you dislike Netanyahu. So you aren't really talking about America's needs but about your personal view of Israel's politics and foreign policy. Out of focus.

As for issuevoter.com, if you're "too busy" to spend the trivial amount of time it takes to register, and to vote Agree/Oppose on one or two bills as they e-mail us every week or two, then you're too busy to be arguing about American politics in the Corner. The difference is not the time spent but whether that time is to be constructively used or wasted. However enjoyable it may be to vent about politics here, and I've done plenty of that in my time, it has no influence whatever. "Voting" in issuevoter.com is putting your time where your mouth is.

[lennygoran]

many New York Jews agree with him. What you mean is that you think Schumer's vote was wrong because unlike Israel's and many American Jewish voters, you dislike Netanyahu.

Many American Jews also disagree with the way Israel has treated the Palestinians and realize the only way to solve the middle east crisis is to have a 2 state solution-that's what Obama and Kerry and a lot of the free world and the UN favor as well. For Netanyahu to come here and lecture our president was an outrage. I hope you're not changing your mind on the Iran deal and supporting things like the settlements that are destroying any chance of a peace agreement. Regards, Len

[jserraglio]

New Yorker article claims that electronic apps like Countable (also Issue Voter?) are a less effective way of contacting Congress than traditional letters and phone calls. Disappointing, if true: these apps are so convenient to use.

WHAT CALLING CONGRESS ACHIEVES
By Kathryn Schulz
It’s said to be the most effective way to petition the government, but does it really make a difference?
By Kathryn Schulz

full story--->http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/ ... s-achieves

There are a great many ways to petition the government, including with actual petitions, but, short of showing up in person, the one reputed to be the most effective is picking up the phone and calling your congressional representatives. In the weeks following the Inauguration of Donald J. Trump, so many people started doing so that, in short order, voice mail filled up and landlines began blurting out busy signals. Pretty soon, even e-mails were bouncing back, with the information that the target in-box was full and the suggestion that senders “contact the recipient directly.” That being impractical, motivated constituents turned to other means. The thwarted and outraged took to Facebook or Twitter or the streets. The thwarted and determined dug up direct contact information for specific congressional staffers. The thwarted and clever remembered that it was still possible, several technological generations later, to send faxes; one Republican senator received, from a single Web-based faxing service, seven thousand two hundred and seventy-six of them in twenty-four hours. The thwarted and creative phoned up a local pizza joint, ordered a pie, and had it delivered, with a side of political opinion, to the Senate.

. . . messages that staffers tend to disregard include tweets and Facebook posts ..., online petitions ..., comments submitted through apps like Countable, and mass e-mails that originate from the Web sites of advocacy groups.

Members of Congress claim that, Senate-wide, the call volume for the week of January 30, 2017, more than doubled the previous record; on average, during that week, the Senate got 1.5 million calls a day. Three of those days—January 31st, February 1st, and February 2nd—were the busiest in the history of the Capitol switchboard. (Even those numbers are necessarily underestimates. Once the lines are all busy and the voice mail is maxed out, all the other calls coming in go undetected, a storm after the rain gauge is full.)
Unlike most political protests, this recent surge in citizen action has not been limited to a single issue. Many early calls were about Betsy DeVos, Trump’s then-nominee for Secretary of Education, but they quickly extended to include other Cabinet nominations, the executive order on immigration, the proposed repeal of the Affordable Care Act, tax returns, ethical violations, Russian involvement in the elections and with the Trump Administration, and Steve Bannon’s presence on the National Security Council, among other areas of concern. Nor have callers been limited to the so-called coastal élites. People have taken not only to the phone but to the streets in cities and towns all around the country—in Oklahoma and Nebraska and Anchorage, Alaska; in Auburn, Alabama, and Little Rock, Arkansas, and Beckley, West Virginia. They have also taken to attending real and virtual town halls in truly staggering numbers. One House member, who typically has three or four thousand constituents call in to his telephone town halls, found himself joined at his latest one by eleven thousand constituents.

For political watchers, the most striking thing about this outpouring of political activism is its spontaneity. “If Planned Parenthood sends out an e-mail and asks all their donors to contact their Congress members—that’s honest, it’s real, it’s citizen action,” Fitch said. “But this thing was organic: people saw something in the news, it made them angry, and they called their member of Congress.” At this point, he paused and informed me that he was “not one for hyperbolic statements.” But what was happening was, he said, “amazing,” “unprecedented,” “a level of citizen engagement going on out there outside the Beltway that Congress has never experienced before.”

[John F]

The first paragraph of the piece you quote, shows why attempted phone calls, e-mails, and other traditional methods fail to get through. Whether these, efforts like issuevoter, or anything else we might try, actually succeed in getting congressmen to vote our way if they weren't going to already, is questionable. But if nonetheless we want to try, issuevoter not only makes it easy to make voters' wishes known, but it extends to bills and issues we may care about but wouldn't make a special effort. And of course nothing prevents us from making the special effort as well; it isn't either/or.

For example, House Resolution 10 now pending would authorize the president to use U.S. armed forces to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons, if he deems it necessary. Carte blanche for our current president to start another shooting war in the middle east. Few would phone their congressman to urge him/her to vote no, or even know such a bill exists, but 93% of issuevoter voters have informed my congressman that they oppose the bill.

Politicians ignore the sentiments of their constituents at their peril, and if issuevoter.com gathers enough participants so that their vote totals add up, I'm sure congressmen will pay attention. If not, at least we will know we tried.

[jserraglio]

Yes, but the point of the piece, taken as a whole instead of bite-sized chunks, is that Congressional reps (or rather their staffers) do react to such spontaneous "floods" (as the author calls them) of voter interest and concern as expressed in what they regard as authentic modes of communication (phone calls, letters and personalized e-mails) that reflect commitment on the part of their constituents rather than the structured, organized, and painless means offered by websites such as IssueVoter, and also by tweets, mass advocacy groups, or apps like Countable. The article goes on to cite several specific recent cases where such traditional modes of communication came in a "flood" and caused legislators to turn on a dime, as well as several others where the "flood" violated a legislator's perceived core political beliefs and thus had no effect.

Assuming, rightly or wrongly, that such quick and easy means show less time and effort, congressional staffers, the article suggests, tend to discount such "fast food" communications as inauthentic. Yet those staffers are the very intermediaries by which your and my wishes will be communicated to our elected reps. Small consolation to think you tried to influence your rep if in practice your opinions are likely to be treated the way Bill Belichick treats the plays Patriots fans draw up and send to him: the circular file; simply b/c the format one has chosen turns out not to be the one preferred by the intended audience.

A provocative article based on interviews with the very folks who filter the information that voters send to their reps.

[John F]

A tsunami of constituent activity may get the congressman's attention, or that of his staff, but I dispute the notion that it's the only thing congressmen really pay attention to. Nor does the article show that congressmen actually change their votes in response to a flood of phone calls etc. Have any Republican congressmen done so after meeting loud and angry opposition in town hall meetings with their constituents? I haven't heard that they have.

As for issuevoter, until I see actual evidence that congressmen filter it out as spam, I think we should use it as a medium for making our views known on issues large and small. What our congressmen do when they receive our "votes" is up to them and beyond our control - until the next election. If they lose, they can't say they weren't warned - and that should signal their fellow representatives not to take the likes of issuevoter lightly.

[jserraglio]

Have any Republican congressmen [changed their votes] after meeting loud and angry opposition in town hall meetings with their constituents? I haven't heard that they have.

Maybe Tom Cotton, Ark. should no longer be counted as a congressman now that he has moved over to the Senate side, but he just shifted his position on Trumpcare from Full speed ahead! to Whoa, boys! what's your hurry? after hearing "loud and angry opposition" at his latest down-home town hall.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nor does the article show that congressmen actually change their votes in response to a flood of phone calls etc.

According to the article, changing votes when a voter tsunami struck was uncommon in the past, but it did happen on at least three occasions:

Constituents are not voiceless in a democracy, and every once in a while they do score major legislative wins. In 1989, Congress tried to give itself a fifty-per-cent pay raise, and the American public rebelled.

In late 2005, the House passed a heavily lobbied-for immigration-reform bill that increased fines and prison sentences on the undocumented and made it a crime to offer them certain kinds of aid; its chances in the Senate were then swiftly tanked by a citizen uprising, including one of the first successful mass mobilizations of the Latino community against a piece of legislation.

In 2012, what should have been a pair of obscure little intellectual-property bills, the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) and the Protect IP Act (PIPA), provoked such a massive outcry that nearly a fifth of senators withdrew their support in a single day, and the acts were effectively killed.

Moreover, the article shows in some detail that in 2017 when confronted by a voter deluge, members of Congress will often try to ignore, squirm, dodge, accuse and deny it, but sometimes they will cave in and "actually change their votes in response to a flood of phone calls etc.":

On January 2nd, House Republicans voted in secret to defang the Office of Congressional Ethics; less than twenty-four hours later, following what seemed at the time like a deluge of calls but later turned out to be just that loud patter you hear on your window before the storm really begins, they reversed their decision.

On January 24th, Representative Jason Chaffetz, Republican of Utah, introduced a proposal to sell off 3.3 million acres of federal land. Barely a week later, on February 1st, he withdrew it, after getting an earful. “Groups I support and care about fear it sends the wrong message,” he explained. “I hear you and H.R. 621 dies tomorrow.”

Most unanticipated of all, Republicans have been stalling and backpedalling on the Affordable Care Act, which was originally expected to be the earliest, fastest, and most thorough casualty of the Trump Administration. Like nearly everyone I spoke with, Chad Chitwood, a former congressional staffer, attributed the fact that it’s still around chiefly to constituents clamoring to keep it. “Watching the way that the Republican Party was gleeful at being able to get rid of the A.C.A. and then started hearing from people who did not realize they were on it or did not realize what was going to happen if it was taken away—I think that’s why we’re seeing the slowdown,” he said. “Otherwise, they would have already taken it away.”

Perhaps the most striking shift so far, though, has happened on the Democratic side of the aisle, in the form of a swift and dramatic stiffening of the spine. In the past month at the insistence of constituents, the party line has changed from a cautious willingness to work with the White House to staunch and nearly unified opposition. “If you ask me, before the calls started coming in, someone like Neil Gorsuch”—Trump’s pick for the vacant Supreme Court seat—“would have passed with seventy-one votes,” said one Democratic senator’s chief of staff, who has worked on the Hill for close to twenty years. “Now I’d be surprised if he gets to sixty.”

More generally, that staffer noted, the newly galvanized left is suddenly helping to set the Party’s agenda. In thinking about Cabinet nominations, Democratic members of Congress had planned to make their stand over Tom Price, then the nominee for Secretary of Health and Human Services—until their constituents chose Betsy DeVos. “That was not a strategic decision made in Washington,” the staffer said. “That was a very personal decision made by all these people outside the Beltway worrying about their kids. We’re not managing this resistance. We can participate in it, but there’s no chance of us managing it.”

Republicans, of course, can’t manage the resistance, either—and, so far, they are struggling to figure out how to respond. Some have merely expressed frustration that so many calls are apparently coming from out of their district or state. But others, including Senator Marco Rubio, Senator Cory Gardner, and President Trump, have tried to discredit concerned citizens by claiming that they are “paid protesters,” an allegation supported by precisely zero evidence.

Still others have expressed disingenuous outrage over political organizing, as when Tim Murtaugh, a spokesperson for Representative Lou Barletta[, of Pennsylvania, criticized “the significant percentage who are encouraged to call us by some group.”

And other legislators simply turned out not to like their job description. “Since Obama care and these issues have come up,” Representative Dave Brat, of Virginia, said last month, “the women are in my grill no matter where I go.”

In an apparent effort to dodge such interactions, a number of Republican legislators, including Representative Mike Coffman, of Colorado, and Representative Peter Roskam, of Illinois, have cancelled or curtailed town-hall meetings. Other G.O.P. legislators have allegedly been locking their office doors, turning off their phones, and, in general, doing what they can to limit contact with their constituents.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As for issuevoter, until I see actual evidence that congressmen filter it out as spam, I think we should use it as a medium for making our views known on issues large and small.

The choice for me is not whether or not I should use IssueVoter, I will continue to visit the site to vote on issues, but how effective I now think it is when compared to other means of communication.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What our congressmen do when they receive our "votes" is up to them and beyond our control.

Yes, of course, congress is as congress does, but the article persuaded me that what the Congress does with our "votes" is NOT beyond our control: that my congresswoman is more likely to be swayed if I actually expend some effort picking up the phone or writing a personal letter that reveals the depth of my commitment to a particular issue than if I simply check off a SUPPORT or OPPOSE box on a site like IssueVoter. Either way, my position is going to be aggregated by her staff with the other communications they receive on the same issue. But if the article is correct, those staffers will assign more aggregate weight to phone calls, detailed letters and personalized emails and less weight to tweets, website checklists, mass mailings, etc. Before reading the article, I thought it didn't make much difference how I tried to influence my rep so long as I made the effort. Now I believe it does make a difference.

[John F]

Here's an example of how issuevoter.com works. I got an email from them about HR bill 372, the Competitive Health Insurance Reform Act of 2017, with the following information:

This bill amends the McCarran-Ferguson Act of 1945 to restore the application of federal antitrust laws to health insurance companies engaged in anticompetitive conduct. Sponsor: Rep. Gosar, Paul A. [R-AZ-4].

Proponents say:
• The healthcare insurance industry is one of the least competitive and transparent industries in the nation because health insurers have, for over 70 years, enjoyed special legal exemption from antitrust laws, resulting in less competition and higher healthcare costs for American families. Restoring federal antitrust laws to the business of health insurance is a critical first step in establishing a competitive and consumer-driven health insurance marketplace.

Opponents say:
• This bill repeals the antitrust exemption in the McCarran-Ferguson Act while preserving the exemption for auto and property insurance, which is hypocritical!
• There is a perception that the insurance industry gets to engage in illicit business that it would not otherwise under federal antitrust law when the health insurance sector now has to abide by state antitrust laws and state insurance regulation instead of federal laws; price fixing, bid rigging and market allocation are all illegal at the state level.

Also in the email are links to three sources related to this bill, one of them Rep. Gosar's web site, where I find the headline: "Rep. Gosar Introduces Bill Paving the Way for Obamacare Repeal." So the Republicans haven't suddenly discovered a taste for imposing regulation on the insurance industry; it's part of their strategy to kill Obamacare. This isn't high-profile enough to have made the editorial page of the NY Times; without issuevoter I wouldn't have known about it at all.

So which way should I vote? I'm definitely in favor of antitrust regulation in an industry which is both vital to the nation's health, literally, and wants to get out from under Obamacare. But if this really is about doing away with Obamacare, can I vote for it? And do I want to vote for anything the Republicans want, after they stonewalled everything President Obama and I wanted for the last several years.

I decided that it should be good for affordable health care if Obamacare survives, and essential if it doesn't. So I forced myself to vote in support of the bill. issuevoter responded that it had passed my vote along to my congressman, and that while others in my district have been voting up to 90% against all the other Republican-introduced bills referred to them, 65% are in favor of this one. Now we'll see how Rep. Jeffries votes when the bill comes to the House floor. Unlike the Republicans, it seems we don't put partisanship above our responsibility to govern.

[jserraglio]

I had voted OPPOSE b/c it made no sense to me that the Feds would weigh in now unless this bill was aimed at the ACA. The split also was 65/35 pro/con, not surprising given the way the issue was worded.