The American Spectator : Incumbency Shakers

Text Size

Incumbency Shakers

By John H. Fund from the May 2012 issue

Incumbents are more entrenched than ever.

More Americans approve of polygamy than of Congress. A February CBS News/New York Times poll found just 10 percent of respondents approved of Congress’s job performance. A recent poll from the same source found 11 percent of respondents thought polygamy “morally acceptable.” Other polls have found that the “U.S. going communist” has 11 percent support—meaning that concept has more fans than Congress has.

But here’s the paradox: While the approval rating for Congress has hit an all-time low, well over 90 percent of incumbent House members routinely win re-election. Even in the Tea Party election of 2010, 86 percent of House incumbents were returned to office. How can this be? It’s because the game is rigged in favor of incumbents, with more than four out of five congressional districts a lock for one party or another. Incumbent gerrymandering and enormous campaign contributions from Washington lobbyists make it nearly impossible to dislodge members short of major scandal. The general elections in which they cruise to victory time and time again are really fake fights, like the ones in pro wrestling.

A new group called the Campaign for Primary Accountability (CFPA) plans to shake up this stagnant system. Its key insight is that incumbents who are ethically challenged, lazy, or ideologically mismatched to their district can be beaten—but in party primaries. And it has already had some impact on this year’s elections.

“The way to regain control of Washington is to regain control of Congress,” says Curtis Ellis, the group’s spokesman. “Only 10 percent of voters normally participate in primaries, so if you can increase turnout for a credible challenger, you can either beat them or send them a message they can’t take voters for granted. All we want is competitive elections.”

The group—one of those independent “super PACS” inspired by the unshackling of campaign finance in Citizens United—is funded by a collection of wealthy backers and small donors who feel frozen out of politics now and say underdog challengers deserve a chance to compete. One target of the group—15-term incumbent Democrat Marcy Kaptur of Ohio—airily tried to dismiss CFPA’s donors as a bunch of “anarchists from Texas.” She was apparently referring to Leo Linbeck III, a 50-year-old Texas developer who is CFPA’s biggest donor. But the Houston Chronicle, a pillar of the Texas establishment, notes Linbeck’s father has been a mainstream player in areas such as the Fair Tax and opposition to Obamacare. It highlighted how donors like Linbeck III are “using their wealth to undermine, rather than support, a political system where gerrymandering and uncontested incumbency seem to matter more than actual votes.”

So far the group is punching way above its weight. Its threatened entry into the GOP primary in Indiana’s 6th district (north of Indianapolis) prompted 30-year-incumbent Dan Burton to retire earlier this year. In Ohio, Republican Jean Schmidt saw her primary total fall to 43 percent from a towering 62 percent in 2010. She lost by six points to Brad Wenstrup, an Iraq War surgeon who had never held elected office but had a beef with the incumbent over her votes to bail out Wall Street and raise the debt ceiling. CFPA alerted voters to her record by spending $240,000 on mailers and radio ads.

A week after its Ohio victory, CFPA fell short in its efforts to knock off House Financial Services Committee Chairman Spencer Bachus, the subject of a federal probe into alleged insider trading, and House Ethics Committee Chairman Jo Bonner. But both men won only 57 percent of the vote, and were forced to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to overwhelm their Tea Party challengers. In the Illinois primary a week later, the group failed to derail Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. from winning his Democratic primary, but played a role in the defeat of 20-year-incumbent Republican Don Manzullo.

“Incumbents who have been resting on their laurels have a lot to worry about,” says the National Journal. “In 2010, an eye-popping 20 members finished with a very weak 60 percent or less in their primaries. Even though 16 prevailed, many could have lost their seats if an outside group had funded their opposition.”

CFPA plans to be that outside force. In deciding what districts to play in, it looks at four factors:

The district must be solidly Democratic or Republican (“We’re not looking to swing power from one party to the other,” Linbeck says).
The challenger must be credible and capable of standing on his or her own.
The current incumbent must be a long-time office-holder.
CFPA’s own private polling has to show there’s actually a chance its candidate could win.

The district surrounding El Paso, Texas, is a test case for the kind of race CFPA prefers. Democrat Beto O’Rourke, an El Paso city councilman, wants to knock off Rep. Silvestre Reyes, a former Border Patrol agent who has held the district for 16 years. The 39-year-old O’Rourke blasts Reyes for sloppy constituent service work and notes that two of the six bills Reyes has passed have been to rename buildings. O’Rourke also wants to rethink the Drug War and has written a book making the case for marijuana legalization. It’s possible that El Paso Democrats are comfortable with the status-quo representation given them by Reyes, but at least O’Rourke provides a real debate over alternatives. In 2010, Reyes had no primary opposition and rolled over his hapless GOP challenger by outspending him $1 million to $7,000.

The approach taken by CFPA—and similar groups, such as the Club for Growth—is an intriguing one. For decades, the standard line of reformers when confronted with complaints about lack of political competition has been to tout limits on campaign spending—McCain-Feingold campaign finance “reform” is their idea of a solution. But it hasn’t worked. Incumbents are more entrenched than ever.

Maybe more money in politics is the answer. More money means more competition, and in the races that CFPA has chosen to enter, it’s the only thing that has gotten the incumbents scared. Incumbency may never be the same again.

About the Author

John H. Fund is a senior editor of The American Spectator and author of the Stealing Elections (Encounter Books).

Letter to the Editor View all comments (31) | Leave a comment Leave a comment

Scooterscum54| 5.4.12 @ 9:07AM

The battle cry of 'Throw the Bums Out!" is so popular at election time, but the prevailing attitude is that everybody's congressman sucks but mine. Throw their bums out, but mine got funding for a new VA hospital in my district. We need to go deeper. Term limits!! The president, many governors and others have them. Why not the House & Senate??

Von Mises Jr| 5.4.12 @ 9:41AM

I disagree in that my RINO Congressman sucks. He and others voted for TARP that violates the "Separation of Powers" and Power of the Purse" and voted for probably every debt ceiling vote he was ever presented with.
That is why many of the Incumbent Republicans shun the TEA Party groups. But they do this at their own peril. We do not have the money to defeat them, but we have the organization. Several thousand to over ten thousand names and emails addresses are our organization in every county. We feature State Senators, Assemblymen, Freeholders and sometimes Congressmen at local meetings. And their votes are reported on through email blasts.

So while OWS is crapping on police cars and desecrating the flag, we are doing real political work.
BTW, one of the conservative candidates running in a Republican primary in New Jersey is David Larsen. He is running against a RINO Leonard Lance who voted for Cap and Trade. David is at many TEA party and AFP events, while Lance is typically nowhere to be found.
We took out RINO's in 2010 along with 700+ Democrats. The TEA Party is far from dead. We are just learning how we can "change" the country.

Al Adab| 5.4.12 @ 11:33AM

People buy access through their contributions. The favors that come back from office holders is the reward for donations. That is why the incumbants raise so much money and why many people, companies and institututions contribute to both sides. Princiople and philosophy have little if anything to do with it.

bill| 5.4.12 @ 3:32PM

I agree. Once you become a member of this most exclusive of good old boy and old girl clubs, life is so good that no one resists the temptation to succumb to its siren song. Sooner or later, everyone sells out and more often than not it happens sooner. The real bitter clingers are entrenched congress people. Given his 45 years in the senate, was ted kennedy permitted to do enough damage to the United States? Six years and out for both houses.

Al Adab| 5.4.12 @ 4:02PM

Bill:
An interesting bit of history regarding term limits Bill is that the Constitution of the Confederate States included both term limits and the line item veto. It was an attempt to "correct" perceived flaws in the U S Constitution.

Incumbency Redundancy| 5.5.12 @ 7:09PM

Scooter: My congressman sucks and he is a GOP Tea Partier (ever so slightly) Light who made it in office in 2010 on the backs of Tea Party faithful.

Does he get it? No, not really. Has he stood up for Constitutional principals and limited, small government, deregulation, lower taxes, less red tape? Who does he serve? The Establishment, his own bank account, his future, his resume, his bar buddies (literally on both counts).

For those who did not get that: He's a lawyer like 92% of the are. Coincidence that.

Yeah, my freshman congressman sucks. But the entire state apparatus makes sure that no one would be able to challenge him at a primary. He votes with Cantor and Boehner at ever turn, never says a peep otherwise, offers silly boilerplate talk whenever forced to speak. His only skill is he can do a reasonable job at memorizing the published GOP talking points.

My solutions: No salary. No staff. No office in D.C. The congressman stays in the district (where lobbyists have a tougher time to reach out and touch them) and only interacts with other congressmen via the internet/network. Voting on issues is done over the net. Congress only sits for an absolute maximum of 2 months in the year - January/February. No extensions permitted. Only exception is wartime proclamations/votes to go to war/votes to fund war.

And federal income tax filing deadline day is moved to 1 November each year.

Harry the Horrible| 5.4.12 @ 9:53AM

Funny thing, most people likely to vote live in districts where they like their Congresscritter. For instance my Congresscritter is a Tea Partier, Tom Graves. I'm not going to "throw the bum out."

But if I could figure out a way to replace allegedly Republican Senators Chambliss and Isakson with real conservatives, I'd throw them out in an instant!

randyinrocklin| 5.4.12 @ 11:00AM

Harry, I hope the great state of Georgia vote those RINO senators out. I am from out of state but willing to contribute to conservative candidates.

PCC| 5.4.12 @ 10:42AM

The real culprit is gerrymandering on both sides. A common-sensical definition of districts based on population distribution and community coherence would produce many more competitive, truly democratic races. But, since incumbent pols decide the re-districting lines rather than computer models or, failing that, non-partisan judicial panels, sleazy politics win out. What a pity for a supposedly democratic country.

TrueBlue | 5.4.12 @ 1:54PM

That's one of the things that bugs me about redistricting. It's completely rigged by the guys who get the greatest advantage from it. The redistricting should be done by an independent group hired specifically for the task, and comprised of an equal number of REGISTERED Democrat, Independent, and Republican voters. Paid for by the state, NOT the federal government.

LiveFreeOrDie| 5.4.12 @ 3:11PM

Having been through a recent redistricting, I must say it was performed much like you described. The problem was all three groups favored the same, crooked outcome. The D's and the R's traded tit for tat and the I's, who have not one majority district, were O.K. with an "even" split. At the end of the day they moved some lines around but the status quo was maintained and the districts were heavily partisan, just as before.

TrueBlue | 5.4.12 @ 4:06PM

I don't really have an issue with heavily democrat/independent/republican districts so much as the districts that get reformed to make them such. Especially when they rework a district and add bits and pieces that make no sense, like a mile wide 15 mile long strip sticking into another district just to get more funding or to get just enough people to turn a district to another political orientation.

Independents will unfortunately always get stuck being the minority in districts until they accept that they may have to take those small moves on the lines a little at a time to get them changed. That or it'd require the commissions be composed of one representative selected by the state senator of each district, AND have the independents be the majority in the state senate to ensure more independents on the commission. But then you'd just get the same thing we have now, with one group having control of redistricting (in this case the "independents").

Even the people that call themselves independents tend to vote very heavily for one party or the other rather than someone running as an independent, in most cases. In the end though districts are heavily partisan because that party is the majority in that area, my issue with a lot of redistricting changes is the changes themselves. When they change the district lines to force out another party by adding a new large group of voters that doesn't share the same issues as the previous majority in that area.

LiveFreeOrDie| 5.4.12 @ 12:22PM

RINO>Dem, barely. We need both parties to put up a new candidate every election. K.I.S.S., SINGLE TERM LIMITS!

Or, you can join the CFPA and enjoy something similar to swimming upstream or pissing up a rope. The game is rigged and this isn't going to fix it, sorry.

Petronius| 5.4.12 @ 1:03PM

It's impossible to throw the bums out when every candidate is a Bum. We have only one candidate running for national office who has a chance for election. The others are unknowns and retreads. What's worse is that the RINO's running the legislature here are drooling Obamalytes. They can't wait to get their hooks on federal subsidies.
Rope, tree, politicians. Some assembly required.

TrueBlue | 5.4.12 @ 2:00PM

As far as campaign reform, honestly I think something needs to be done about contributions from outside the region (districts for House Reps, state for Senators). You have companies with no actual interest in a particular state or district basically buying the Reps so they can get enough votes in Congress to pass bills they want.

I understand what groups like the CFPA are trying to do, but I think that ALL campaign donations should have to come from the area the candidate is running in. I don't even like the idea of having party-wide coffers because it has the same effect, the incumbent is the one that gets all the funding, and an outside interest is determining the outcome of what should be a local election.

This goes for presidential elections too, if a company does not have at least 66% of ALL of their assets in this country they shouldn't be allowed to contribute to a presidential campaign.

LiveFreeOrDie| 5.4.12 @ 3:02PM

One might further argue in this modern age of mass communication campaign donations are no longer necessary at all! Give every candidate running for office a page on crooked.gov and be done with the whole thing. Let them run on their records and stated principles instead of selling out to anyone with a dollar.

TrueBlue | 5.4.12 @ 3:50PM

I don't mind the donations so much, it's mostly just the millions+ from companies while your average voter is limited in how much they can contribute. If corporations (and unions) are people, why are they not held to the same limits?

JFrizzle| 5.4.12 @ 3:48PM

I would love to see term limits. I would love to see benefits slashed and a stipulation that any bill passed APPLIES TO THEM AS WELL. No more exemptions for legislators! Return the profession to "public service" not "getting rich off the public" and maybe we'd have less corruption.

TrueBlue | 5.4.12 @ 3:51PM

Hold them accountable for insider trading beyond just ethics investigations and fines as well. No reason Martha Stewart should have gone to jail while the Clintons made hundreds of thousands of dollars.

POST American| 5.4.12 @ 11:24PM

---------------------BOTTOM LINE-------------------------

AS what may very well be the LAST
American election, in this, the undeniable
11th hour of the CFR---RED China handover,
takedown, USURPATION, OCCUPATION
and ----FINAL---- EUGENICS OP.,
once again, as you consider our vestigal,
compromised, blackmailed, corrupt
and so much less, 'congress' ----

"Understand, we are living in a
PSYCHOPATHIC 'sis--stem', designed
by PSYCHOPATHS, run by PSYCHOPATHS
and working toward PSYCHOPATHIC ends."

"PSYCHOPATHS worship POWER,
and those with power. They have nothing
but disdain for those below and NO
conscience whatsoever. They can open a
day care center in the morning, and sign
over funding for abortions that afternoon
---and sleep well that night. IN fact, they
NEVER have trouble sleeping. "

They also are excellent actors and can
make you belive --they care. Ted Bundy
ALWAYS cautioned his victims to be
careful because bad people were out there
in the dark."
(NOT UNLIKE DHS
and their blather about
'the REAL terror threat'
as they they themselves
systematically and
pre-emptively molest,
criminalize and surveil the
American people)

"Ideologically, they can smell the wind and
turn on a dime. They are often very charming,
and run on PURE ego."

"They also know you better, in some ways,
than you know yourselves. They also
recognize each other and can, up to a point,
work with each other."

"Teach your children ALLLLL about
PSYCHOPATHS and how to recognize
PSYCHOPATHY, becuase we are indeed
in a PSYCHOPATHIC 'sis-stem' that's given
us a PSYCHOPATHIC 'cull---chore' to
follow."

We might also add that PSYCHOPATHS
and PSYCHOPATHY are NEVER examined
in the mainstream media ---or Hollywood,
viz a viz the capstone, the establishment and politics generally.

NEVER

-------------------------------WHICH MEANS---??????

albert constantine jr.| 5.6.12 @ 9:16AM

Not never, POST. Episode 107 of The Rockford Files ("A Different Drummer" originally aired April 13, 1979) is about a psycho/sociopath who was also a Korean War veteran, who was also involved in organ transplants (your YOU-jen-iks agenda).

Occam's Tool| 5.7.12 @ 3:02AM

"The Manchurian Candidate." The mom was an exquisitely detailed psychopath. Hannibal Lecter also comes to mind.

jocon307 | 5.5.12 @ 5:01AM

I think this is a very good idea, it's very smart to target pols at the primary level, especially when they aren't expecting it.

Of course, you are bucking the party at that level, but then the party is going to have to come around after the election, no? Well, they'll get used to it.

However, I'd like to see some judgment on who to target. The criteria mentioned in the article all go towards can we win? But there's nothing about why should we fight?

Throwing the bums out is always excellent, but you better make sure you are throwing out bums, and not the bathing baby to mix metaphors.

Bill| 5.5.12 @ 11:14AM

Only incumbent needs to lose his seat is Barack Obama.

PattyMor| 5.5.12 @ 6:37PM

We need to rid the Congress with the "Establishment Republicans" and replace them with true conservatives. We got rid of Snarlin' Arlen and Bob Bennett last time. This time up, Olympia Snowe already bowed out. Couldn't she take the heat? Next on the platter is good ole Boy Richard Lugar, who doesn't even live in Indiana. Really these people have NO shame. Maybe we'll get rid of Orrin Hatch, too.
It takes time and lots of MONEY to make the changes needed.

Most of all we need to get rid of Barack and his little merry band of marxists, including his "czars". They don't even sound American, but Amerikan.

Un-evenplayingfields| 5.5.12 @ 6:38PM

Here's the problem: "We the People" don't control how, when, where, or anything to do with the rules of primaries and primary voting. You have no control at all over what your state party does or does not do. We don't control when debates are held and where or if any will be held at all. We don't control the rules (e.g. signatures, petitions, filing deadlines, etc.) for being able to get on the primary ballot as an eligible candidate. And we surely don't control the labyrinth of campaign finance rules that no one (this is fully by design) understands.

So -- a nice concept: Influence and Change Washington, D.C. by impacting the state/nation at primaries.

Except that it is all thoroughly rigged.

There are cronies in every state who make sure that this is rigged. Just look at the lawyers who populate your Home Town USA, your county, your district.

The money, the media, the attention, the favorable stories will never come your way unless the party elites have already long since dubbed you personally as the heir apparent.

If you don't think so (and although it is already WAY TOO LATE for elections in November 2012 -- as "They" define the election cycle calendars), just try announcing to challenge your seated Republican Congressman, U.S. Senator, Lt. Governor. You'll be stymied at every turn to even make your candidacy "official."

You'll have roadblocks aplenty to keep you and your desire for candidacy ever see the light of day.

You'll be told that you are a Johnny Come Lately who hasn't put in his twenty years of selfless duty to the party in that district or the state. A local smarmy attorney will come by to ask, "Well, seriously, is this really what you want to do?"

(Might even look for a few "extra" parking tickets on your vehicle when you go to get in it and drive home.)

Do look for "friendly" incumbent/establishmen media to smear you.

Before you even open a closet-sized official campaign office with one volunteer staffer, there will be published stories about your run-ins with the law and near-misdemeanor as a high school senior -- even though all charges were always dropped and this was more about overzealous policing than anything you actually did wrong. Look for the stories about how you graduated high school with no real distinctions, went to university out of state (so you just cannot know or properly represent the people of the district), how you've lived and worked hundreds of miles away for several periods in your life, how you have no business credentials (neither does your opponent, but, well, that seems moot), how you only have that one college degree and no others, and how your oldest child really hasn't amounted to much. After all, your resume is w-e-a-k. No military background, no law enforcement, no lifetime membership in the Chamber of Commerce, and, goodness, you've never passed a bar exam.

Nice concept. But totally flawed. I could go on.

In truth, just as it was George H.W. Bush's turn, Bob Dole's turn, John McCain's turn four years ago, and Mitt Romney's turn now, just as this is all very well "orchestrated" and kept firmly in the safe-establishment ranks, so it also is in your Congressional District.

tangentally| 5.5.12 @ 6:55PM

So the author here thinks that someone who hasn't "paid his party dues" and risen from county assistant commissioner, staffer for a U.S. Senator, state legislator, state senator....(with law degree), the author thinks that someone without these chits on his resume and memberships in the right clubs is going to have a shot at challenging a Congressional incumbent at the party primary?

Might actually make it on the ballot for that primary, but won't ever garner more than 20% of the vote.

Only exceptions: Those with "compelling" personal backgrounds. i.e., if you are a former U.S. military leader of some distinction and black or Hispanic with a good voice, good looks telegenic family that looks boffo on color campaign brochures, full head of hair, the right denomination (although, please, please, please don't take your faith or the Bible seriously), and right at 6'1", well, sure, yeah -- you might have a shot at getting some votes in a Republican primary.

Aiken_Bob| 5.6.12 @ 9:01PM

The real problem with districts that are heavily D or R is that the representative tend to be more narrow minded. Take the worst case - so called black districts, where the clowns come back every election and get crazier. You can make a good case if the districts were just every 4 million folks the candidates would have to talk and listen to everyone and actual represent the district. When you only have to listen to your block of voters then we all lose.

Occam's Tool| 5.7.12 @ 3:00AM

I like Chip Cravaack.

Interesting that Breitbart's coroner tech has died of arsenic poisoning.

I have never seen a suicide attempt by arsenic in almost 19 years of practice and 4 years of residency in psychiatry. Acute arsenic poisoning would be an excrutiating way to die, and not all that quick. If the tech wanted to commit suicide there are many easier ways available.

Makes you wonder, doesn't it?

Occam's Tool| 5.7.12 @ 3:01AM

"excruciating." Sorry.

Guyster| 6.22.12 @ 10:31AM

Howdy Mr. Fund ! I just had to join and write to you.... I watch Fox News for hours before heading off to work. Every time you come on, your smile is so contagious! ! ! I actually printed a picture and posted it on the employee board(I own the company) and it has brought so many questions about who you are, why is it there instead of some nursing or medical something or another, well, I simple tell them to read the bottom, which says, "If you see someone without a smile, look at John and you are sure to smile, now go share that smile with at least one person!" Thank you for being a public figure and sharing your kick butt smile..... Guy Sutton, MD

Latest Headlines

Green Flags, Yellow Flags, and Black Flags

John Tabin|38 comments

Barack’s Brave New World Blarney

George Neumayr|25 comments

There’s Something About Cambridge

Daniel J. Flynn|23 comments

Obama’s Unaffordable Act

Peter Ferrara|43 comments

Celebrating Our Lady of Paris

Joseph A. Harriss|6 comments

Charter Schooling? Why Not Charter Housing?

Wayne Woodman|15 comments

Cash for Organs?

Eric Boehm|16 comments

Back in the Fray

Kyle Peterson|102 comments

The Spectacle Blog

Elbert Guillory: ‘Why I Am a Republican’

Patrick Ryan | 10:13AM

The One Party State

F.H. Buckley | 9:47AM

Cummings Accused of Subverting IRS Investigation

Jeffrey Lord | 6:20AM

Let Pitchers Throw Complete Games

Aaron Goldstein | 12:10AM

Thoughts on New U.S.-Taliban Peace Talks

Aaron Goldstein | 6.18.13

Thank You, Bobby Jindal

Matt Purple | 6.18.13

Buzzfeed Faces $3.6 Million Lawsuit for Copyright Infringement

Kaylin Bugos | 6.18.13

Democrat Dan Maffei Blames Budget Cuts for Girl’s Rape, Mother’s Murder

Robert Stacy McCain | 6.18.13

FLASHBACK TO: 1995

Pope Culture

By George Sim Johnston

A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck

By P.J. O'Rourke

Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
Dames at Sea

By John Corry
In the Absence of Guns

By Mark Steyn

In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
The Metaphysical Martini

By Werner J. Dannhauser
Counting the Costs of Clintonism

By Robert H. Bork

The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
Chuck McHagel

By George Neumayr

It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted

By Douglas Bartholomew
It’s the Best Time of the Year

By Mark Steyn

The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
The Bush Crack-Up

By Brit Hume

Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?

The American Spectator