Give Congress a Raise but Limit Contributions

Have a little perspective. Money has always greased politics. Bobby Baker, an aide to President Lyndon B. Johnson, wrote in his memoirs two decades ago of California savings and loan companies delivering paper bags of cash to senators. The only difference today is that with the sums involved it would be hard to get a paper bag big enough.

That reflection has meaning, of course, after last week’s emotional exit of Speaker of the House Jim Wright, who resigned under the shadow of charges that he accepted large sums from a businessman friend who had interests in legislation. In his resignation speech, Wright called for an end to partisan finger-pointing--as if sweet harmony is what Congress needs.

But Congress needs credibility more than harmony. The ethics of its members may be no worse or better than they ever were, but the people’s confidence is lower than it used to be. Cynically concluding that special interests control Congress, people no longer vote. Fewer than 50% of those eligible voted for Congress in the 1988 election, and only 33% voted in the 1986 congressional race when there was no presidential contest to heighten interest.

Figuring that its members are already bribed, public opinion opposed a pay raise for Congress earlier this year.

Such reactions are ominous. As Congress represents fewer people, the democracy that business and every other institution depends on is undermined. As the people see their representatives as corrupt, so their fury may turn on what they believe to be the source of that corruption--business, the big money.

PACs Dole Out $150 Million

Clearly, more than good-government lobbies such as Common Cause have a stake in reforming Congress--which seems these days to need more people and money to do less, like U.S. business a decade ago. Where each member of Congress used to be allowed a staff of 12, now each can have 18 staff people; committee staffs have grown, and committees have spawned subcommittees, with staffs of their own.

Elections have become more expensive. The average Senate campaign last year cost $4 million and the average House race cost $350,000. Yet they attracted fewer voters.

But the multitude of political action committees (PACs) that paid those campaign expenses didn’t consider their money wasted. The PACs that doled out $150 million on congressional races in the last election--compared to $55 million in 1980 and $35 million in 1978--were spending for influence, not for voters. The point was putting a member of Congress in their debt.

PACs can be formed by corporations, unions, industry associations, foreign governments or groups of wealthy individuals--anybody in short with a dollar to spend and a special interest in legislation or regulation. They range from the American Medical Assn. to the U.S. League of Savings Institutions, from the United Auto Workers to small businesses.

Their contributions help members of Congress spend a third of a million dollars and more running for a job that pays $89,500 a year--a salary they can supplement with $20,000 to $30,000 in honorariums for speeches and personal appearances before the same or other special interest groups.

High income? By some comparisons, assuredly--the congressional salary is about three times the average U.S. household income. But it’s peanuts compared to the salaries and stock options being hauled down in business today, where 300 of the top executives went over $1 million last year. Congressional pay “ranks at the level of a vice president in a regional supermarket chain,” quips Brooks Jackson, author of “Honest Graft,” a book examining today’s big money politics.

Yet Congress makes decisions that are worth billions. Congressional decisions kept bankrupt savings and loans afloat and approved the new $50-billion S&L; bailout. Congress gives tax breaks for medical partnerships and takeover transactions; Congress tightens deductions for individual medical expenses and retirement savings. Small wonder the people are cynical.

But cynicism, while understandable, is counterproductive. The congressional pay raise, for example, was intended to protect Congress from big money influence--that’s why it was recommended by a presidential commission that realized the need to maintain homes in Washington and in the home district imposes a special burden on members.

Not getting the raise only encourages the growing practice of taking honorariums. The Chicago futures exchanges and many brokerage houses now pay members of Congress $2,000 just for visiting. The line between that and old-fashioned graft is pretty thin.

So what must be done? Congressional pay should be reformed. As citizens lobby Common Cause recommends, a raise or living allowance should be granted, but honorariums should be banned.

And clearly, as legislation pending in both House and Senate proposes, limits must be placed on PAC contributions and campaign expenditures.

Limiting campaign funds won’t end special interests. But it could control big money’s influence and help convince people that Congress really isn’t bribed. Maybe then they’d get out and vote themselves.