Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Reform in 2023: Congress actually had a pretty good 2022, and next year may be even better

Opinion

US Capitol
Free Agents Limited/Getty Images

As 2022 draws to a close, The Fulcrum has invited leaders of democracy reform organizations to share their hopes and plans for the coming year. This is the second in the series.

Fitch is the president and CEO of the Congressional Management Foundation and a former congressional staffer.

It’s that time of year when one reflects on the joys and disappointments of the past year and looks to the hopes and plans for 2023. The Congressional Management Foundation is the only nonpartisan, nonprofit in the United States with 100 percent of its staff and resources dedicated to improving Congress and its interactions with constituents, so naturally our end-of-year analyses and wishes are focused on the legislative branch.


While it’s been hard to see, the House of Representatives has seen some remarkable achievements in the past few years, primarily through the work of the Select Committee on the Modernization of Congress. I know most of the people will find this hard to believe, but the committee was one of the few groups in Congress I’ve witnessed in my years at CMF that functioned the way our Founding Fathers intended. During the four years of the committee’s existence this bipartisan group of lawmakers discussed, debated and adopted more than 200 recommendations to improve Congress and democracy – nearly all with unanimous support from both the Democrats and Republicans on the committee.

It may sound mundane, but the committee’s recommendations, if fully implemented, would strengthen Congress’ ability to retain competent staff, enhance the resources to develop sound public policy, enable more efficient processes for the Congress to operate and improve Congress’ ability to listen to the American people. They will also restore some of the powers granted to Congress in Article I of the Constitution, including shifting some spending authority from the executive branch back to the legislative branch, as the country’s founders intended. Their recommendations will strengthen Congress, allow constituents to have a greater voice in government, and lead to better service to and representation of the American people.

In our four decades of working with Congress, CMF has rarely seen a group of legislators so astutely assess a public policy need, analyze the implications, and chart a course that benefits both the institution and the constituents it serves. This effort was aided by a remarkable coalition of about 40 organizations that rallied around the common purpose of enhancing Congress. When I started work at CMF two decades ago there were so few groups focused on Congress that we probably couldn’t put together a poker game. Well, now we’ve got a whole softball league filled with reformers! Groups and initiatives such as the Hewlett Foundation’s Democracy Program, the Democracy Fund, and the Bridge Alliance have become hubs of democratic ingenuity and support. [Bridge Alliance operates The Fulcrum.]

To continue to support this effort, this month CMF announced it was launching a new Congressional Revitalization and Modernization Project. The initiative aims to assist in the implementation of the committee’s recommendations in the House and support efforts to launch a similar initiative in the Senate. Part of this effort also will include CMF continuing to identify key benchmarks for improving Congress as an institution. In collaboration with the Partnership for Public Service, CMF published “The State of the Congress 2022, ” which revealed bipartisan agreement that congressional functionality, civility, and capacity need to improve for Congress to best perform its role in democracy. This first annual report provides an assessment of congressional performance by the people who know the institution best: congressional staff. We created the Exemplary Congressional Staff Cohort composed of more than 100 of the best staff working in personal, committee, leadership and institutional offices throughout the Legislative Branch.

As we look to 2023, CMF will also continue its work with our academic partners to enhance trust in Congress through better constituent engagement. We will continue our partnership with the Institute for Democratic Engagement and Accountability at The Ohio State University to conduct novel online/telephone town hall meetings with members of Congress and constituents. Our goal will be to explore whether these modern and scalable settings can be used to bridge the divide in a highly partisan environment.

Finally, if I could foist a few New Year’s resolutions on key institutions, I would urge some important participants in our democracy to change a bit of their culture in ways that improve trust in our system of government. For the media, I would hope that the genuine bipartisan accomplishments that occur get greater attention. During this past Congress we saw bipartisan agreement on improving our national infrastructure, incentivizing the manufacturing of microchips in the United States, and supporting democracy in Ukraine in its war with Russia.

For Congress, it would be nice if it spent more time acknowledging the progress and success the institution has achieved, and less time unfairly beating itself up. I’m not taking a Pollyanna approach; I fully recognize that Congress needs to improve how it functions. But Coke doesn’t employ advertising slogans like, “Don’t drink Pepsi, it’ll rot your teeth.” Sure, Congress has its share of whack-a-doodles, scoundrels, and incompetents – just like any profession. Yet most of the Congress is composed of dedicated public servants striving tirelessly to improve the lives of their constituents and make the world a better place. Nearly all members of Congress genuinely believe this – it would be nice if in 2023 they articulated it a little more often.


Read More

Tensions were High as Representatives Debated Allegations Against the Southern Poverty Law Center

Members of the House Judiciary Committee during the hearing on the Southern Poverty Law Center.

Credit: Olivia Ardito

Tensions were High as Representatives Debated Allegations Against the Southern Poverty Law Center

WASHINGTON, D.C. – The House Judiciary Committee held a hearing last Wednesday examining claims that the Southern Poverty Law Center had funded the very hate groups the center aims to dismantle. Tensions were high as Republicans and Democrats fired back at each other. Noticeably absent was a representative from the center, a non-profit that since 1971 has fought for racial justice and against white supremacy.

The hearing came after the Texas Attorney General Ken Pax­ton announced last Monday that he was investigating the center. The U.S. Justice Department indicted the Southern Poverty Law Center in April for allegedly funneling money to people associated with violent extremist groups. The group has flatly rejected the accusations. While Republicans backed these claims, Democrats viewed the allegations as part of the Trump-backed efforts to hinder “DEI” and other racial justice initiatives.

Keep ReadingShow less
Trump Is Protecting Insurrectionists But Not Your Kids

An analysis of gun violence, political extremism, Islamophobia, and community resilience in America after the San Diego Islamic Center shooting.

GemaIbarra / Getty Images

Trump Is Protecting Insurrectionists But Not Your Kids

Last Monday, two teenage gunmen opened fire outside the Islamic Center of San Diego, murdering three Muslim men. Unfortunately, this is the type of horror Americans have been conditioned to expect. After years of political stagnation on gun safety and ongoing hateful acts of violence, our president has signaled once again to children, to the Muslim community, and to everyone else: he does not care if you get shot.

Gun violence has been on the rise in the United States for too long. Perhaps the most harrowing consequence is that gun violence is now the leading cause of death among children. Whether from school shootings, homicides, suicides, or accidents, the gun-death rate for children is nearly five in every 100,000. In fact, the number of domestic deaths due to gun violence is about as many as U.S. military deaths in every war since World War I combined. More children have been lost to gun violence since 2020 than troops lost since 9/11. Yet even with such a striking death toll—and one affecting children no less—happening on our own soil, Vice President J.D. Vance calls it a “fact of life.

Keep ReadingShow less
The dome of the United States Capitol Building in Washington, D.C., stands tall against a blue sky with the American flag waving proudly

Congress faces growing pressure to pass redistricting reform as lawmakers debate banning gerrymandering, independent commissions, and mid-decade map changes amid renewed national controversy over fair elections.

Getty Images, aire images

Congress's Missed Opportunities on Redistricting Reform

On April 29, Issue One posted an image on Facebook and Instagram: CONGRESS CAN FIX THIS WITH THREE SIMPLE STEPS:

  1. Establish Clear National Criteria for Fair Maps
  2. Require Independent Redistricting Commissions in Every State
  3. Ban Mid-Decade Redistricting.

Issue One added below: “… but it needs 60 Senate votes to do it.”

Keep ReadingShow less
Open Letter to Justice Roberts: Partisan Gerrymandering Is Unconstitutional
beige concrete building under blue sky during daytime

Open Letter to Justice Roberts: Partisan Gerrymandering Is Unconstitutional

The Supreme Court, in holding that partisan gerrymandering is permissible—unless it "goes too far"—stated that the argument made against this practice based on the Court's "one person, one vote" doctrine didn't work because the cases that developed that doctrine were about ensuring that each vote had an equal weight. The Court reasoned that after redistricting, each vote still has equal weight.

I would respectfully disagree. After admittedly partisan redistricting, each vote does not have an equal weight. The purpose of partisan gerrymandering is typically to create a "safe" seat—to group citizens so that the dominant political party has a clear majority of the voters. It's the transformation of a contested seat or even a seat safe for the other party into a safe seat for the party doing the redistricting.

Keep ReadingShow less