Max Louis Isabelle

CAS 138T
Dr. Freymiller
5/2/16
The Professionalization of Politics in the United States
The Athenian council, responsible for the origin of a
representative democracy and politics, elected five hundred members
annually, under their provisions that no one could serve for more than
two years (Petracca). They believed this practice would ensure that
the council members views coincided with their constituents. This
method, derived from the early governing body of the Athenians, was
learned and respected by the framers of the United States
Constitution. The idea that politics should not be a career was a
common sentiment in early United States history. George Washington
confirmed this by only serving two terms as President. Recently, there
has been a steady rise in the number of career politicians resulting in
the professionalization of politics, causing the fundamental relationship
that democracy is derived from, the relationship between the
government and its constituents to change for the worse, as the
governing body starts to attend to their careers more than to the
people of the United States. Factors that have caused the extrication
of the relationship between the constituent and representative in the

United States, is the activities of PACs, lobbying, low voter turn out,
and the seniority system.
In the wake of the Citizens United v. FEC court case in 2010,
which stated, that funding of independent political broadcast can not
be limited because money was speech so it was protected, PACs now
had the law on their side to form (Sager). This ruling provided an
avenue to circumvent the rule that a normal PAC can only give $15,000
each year to a certain political party and $5,000 to an individual
candidate. PACs had been contributing and influencing politics since
the 1940s. Their influence and scope is marginal when compared to
super PACS. On July 22nd, 2010, the FEC green lighted super PACs,
which is technically, called an independent expenditure-only
committee. Super PACs are allowed to raise unlimited amounts of
money from individuals, corporation, and unions, then spend the
money in support of political candidates (Warren). The only catch is
these super PAC actions are not supposed to be coordinated with the
political candidate they represent. The funds raised through these
super PACs are put toward TV and radio advertising.
All PACs had been doing is increasing the money in politics. In
1976 there were 1,146 registered PACs that contributed a total of
$22.6 million to candidates for the House and Senate. A decade later
there were 4,211 registered PACs that contributed a total of $139.4
million (Petracca). The reason for such an increase in the total

amount of money invested in politics by these organizations is, it is a

good investment. The politicians are being bought effectively. When
you can get multi-billion dollar organizations like Exxon mobile, Boeing,
AT&T and others into politics, their presence will be felt. Now that
these PACs, even on a small scale, were financially supporting political
candidates campaigns, the opportunity of making a career out of
politics arises. In politics, reelection determines longevity. Getting
reelected costs money and the PAC system supplies the money. Of
course, the individuals and corporations that constitute these PACs are
not just giving money away freely, they expect something in return.
PACs are limited due to donation limits, but lobbyists have been the
real players by financially supporting candidates and facilitating career
politicians.
Lobbying for certain laws to be reformed and passed in ones
favor has been going on forever, but not at the current level.
Between 2007 and 2009, the top eight lobbying spenders (Exxon
Mobil, Verizon, GE, AT&T, Altria, Amgen, Northrop Grumman, and
Boeing) gave approximately $540 million via lobbing; by 2010 these
companies had seen a reduction in taxes of approximately $11 billion
(Sager). The main culprit facilitating the career politicians is lobbying.
PACs and super PACs are restricted by requirements to maintain
transparency and must report who makes donations. On the other
hand, corporations and individuals may make donations to get a

representative on their side and ultimately to help their personal

finances by decreasing tax regulations. During the next election cycle
the corporation or individual might donate even more money to ensure
their political affiliate might gain re-election. In this way, the
corporation or individuals donation is more like a financial investment.
This cycle creates career politicians; politicians who have vested
interest that are counterproductive to that of their constituents.
By engaging in this sell-out structure politicians are
abdicating their responsibility to be the voice of their constituents. The
relationship becomes skewed in favor of their own financer, who is able
to, literally buy support through advertising. In elections, other than
the presidential election, a little advertising can go along way,
especially for the incumbent. "Mid-terms have a very low and very old
turnout. Younger people are more likely to vote in presidential races
"(Ward). Getting reelected is easy when all you have to do is a little
advertising and you have the right financial backing. Many political
races go under the radar and have limited voter turnout.
Poor voter turn out is one-reason career politicians have been
allowed to go unchecked. The trend creating career politicians has
been growing for decades, and it has surely contributed to the
entrenchment of power in D.C. and its separation from the will of the
American people(Meckler). Voters not taking advantage of their civic
duty have resulted in career politicians views being extricated from

their constituents, making them a poor representative of the public

opinion. Even if they did acknowledge and feel obligated to vote in
favor of their constituents, career politicians are as the name suggests,
in it for their career first, and secondly for their political duties.
Whenever an individual of office only focuses on getting reelected, the
American people lose out on the purpose of elected government
officials, which is to serve (Bordonaro). This lack of civic responsibility
being practiced by voters is allowing career politicians to do what they
do, which is to further their careers by get reelected.
Unfortunately, the current political system and climate
encourage the creation of career politicians, mainly because of the
seniority system. Simply put, the greater number of years you are a
senator or representative the more power you have over those who
have less seniority. Seniority is especially important in appropriation
decisions. Senior representatives will be able to get funding for their
home states, which makes them appealing to their voters which only
furthers their job security. Seniority is a powerful status. National
Party affiliated bodies will back the incumbent in office, often times
even if they do not agree completely with the incumbent. Since junior
members carry no seniority, their party is reluctant to endorse them
against the incumbent.
There are arguments for and against career politicians. The
arguments in their favor are due to the benefits of their long

experience in politics, which allows them to understand the complex

government and form many advantageous relationships. Experience is
a useful tool, but the relationships career politicians form is where the
argument against them is strong. On the surface, having good
relations are a useful thing, but career politicians are forming relations
with the wrong people. These indirect relationships between
representative and others are parasitic for the United States as a
whole. It is a spoils system were a politician would appoint individuals
to his staff to help them piggyback off his career creating their own
careers. Ironically, the growth in staff support during the past four
decades has resulted in neither greater legislative efficiency nor
increased productivity (Petracca). The influx of political staff
members does nothing but increase the complexity of the government
and get away from the true purpose, which is to represent their
constituents best interest.
Would you rather have representatives who are thinking of their
constituents interests or those contemplating how they can best
advance their own career? (Meckler). This question is ringing
throughout contemporary voters minds, its weight can be felt by recent
elections. The rise of grassroots parties like the Tea Party is a result of
the public becoming aware of the problems associated with career
politicians. The polls for the current presidential campaign on the
Republican side show the American voters disenchantment with career

politicians. They do not want a career politician; Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio
and others dropped out of the race leaving the front-runner as Trump.
Politics was not intended to be the medium through which wealth is
acquired, but a medium for individuals to address current issues
through temporary service. Unfortunately, the best interest of the
representatives constituents is only ever played upon during
campaigning for reelections. Once elected to their junior term
representatives are now set for life.

Job security in Congress makes unions look heartless: For the

past half

century, the rate of reelection to the House never has been

below 85 percent,

most often over 90 percent. The power of the

incumbent to get media

coverage, do favors for big donors, send

repeated mailings to constituents, and use the staff for campaigning

make him almost unassailable (Donway).

This quote summarizes a major problem with the current political

system. How senator and representatives are almost secured
reelection, the current system is horribly biased toward the incumbent.
One of the major negative effects on the United States of the
career politicians in Washington is how it has completely changed the
politics in Washington. No longer is the common good of the United
States a politicians first priority. They all have differing priorities, for

which they are fighting. Some individuals are focused on stopping

abortion, cutting defense spending, increasing defense spending,
reforming the tax system...etc. Nobody is on the same page. This
polarization causes the loss of the ability to efficiently govern for the
people. Unity in our government is lost due to the individual interests
of the career politicians.
One of the things being done to combat career politicians is the
formation of awareness groups. One groups mission statement
perfectly expresses the problem with careerism in politics that they are
fighting. USTL[United States Term Limits] stands up against
government malpractice. We are the voice of the American citizen. We
want a government of the people, by the people, and for the peoplenot a ruling class who care more about deals to benefit themselves,
than their constituents (About Term Limits- U.S. Term Limits). This
organizations and others like it, that are attempting to combat the
proliferation of careerism in politics resulting in politics shift from
citizen legislators to career politicians is more evidence that a problem
is present. The first step to combat a problem is by becoming aware of
the problem. Organizations like this are effectively bringing attention
to this problem. Another group of presidential candidates is doing the
same thing.
Former and current Republican presidential candidates Ben
Carson, Carly Fiorina and Donald Trump represent an alternative to

career politicians. They represent successful individuals who where

running for political office because they are disenchanted with the
current system. The success these three candidates had and are
having is a testament to how the constituents of the United States feel
about the issue for career politicians, at least on the Republican side.
82 percent of Americans believe we have a professional political class
that is more focused on what theyre doing than what were doing
(Waltz). While these three candidates by no means represent the
common middle class individual, they have much greater ties to the
general public of the United States than career politicians.
Politicians used to have careers and jobs outside of politics. The
House of Representatives of the United States in 1960 was comprised
of 35% veterans and 1% career politicians (Meckler). By the year 2015,
there were a higher percentage of career politicians in the House than
veterans or lawyers. Over the course of the last sixty years, career
politicians have gone from an idea that was feared, to a major player in
politics. This sudden rise has changed many things about our
government; super PACs and lobbyist that have a skewed purpose, or
narrow objective, can now influence politicians. The current system
encourages this phenomenon.
Politics has changed from what it was meant to be, a way to
provide public goods, enforce property rights, and provide a
disciplinary system, to an organization comparable to a business. This

has occurred due to the professionalization of politics. Individuals will

go to college to get a degree, then immediately upon graduation enter
politics, usually at the local level, and work their way through the
ranks. Now we have professional politics. There are now countless
consulting organizations that work year round to campaign and ensure
their candidates can secure reelection. The central question of the idea
of careerism in the government is, how effective can these elected
individuals be if there income and their way of life is dependent on
their government positions?

The rise of career politicians was influenced by the influx of

money into politics. PACs and lobbyist have proved the money, while
low voter turnout and the seniority system has opened the door for the
degradation of the relationship between the representative and
constituent. This occurs as representatives priorities are extricated
from the general welfare of the public, and focused more on career
advancement and security. Resulting in the general publics needs and
views not being represented and adhered to by the elected governing
body. Which should be for the people, not for themselves. Recently,
the problems associated with career politics have been exposed
throughout the public by certain movements, in an attempt to cause
the constituents of the United States to rise and take back the control
from career politicians.

10

Sources:
"About Term Limits - U.S. Term Limits." US Term Limits. 2015. Web. 2
Nov. 2015.
Bordonaro, Jordan. "The Disadvantages of Career Politicians." : The
Disadvantages of
Career Politicians. 13 Dec. 2012. Web. 2 Nov.
2015.
Donway, Walter. "' America 2016: The Dead-end of." SAVVY STREET.
2015. Web. 2
Nov. 2015.
Meckler, Mark. "Career Politicians on the Rise: How to Stem the Tide Breitbart." Breitbart News. 28 July 2014. Web. 2 Nov. 2015.
Patracca, Mark. "The Poison Of Professional Politics." The Poison Of
Professional
Politics. 10 May 1991. Web. 2 Nov. 2015.
Sager, Josh. "The Effects of Corporate Lobbying, Pt. 1." Wolf PAC.
Natalia Real, 29 May 2012. Web. 2 Nov. 2015.

11

Waltz, Sam. "Election 2016: Career Politicians vs. Citizen Statesmen."

Delaware Business Times. 9 June 2015. Web. 2 Nov. 2015.
Ward, Olivia. "Big Spenders Dominate in U.S. Midterms." Toronto Star 3
Nov. 2014, NEWS; Pg. A2 sec. Web. 1 Nov. 2015.
Warren, Chris. "How Super PACs Work." HowStuffWorks. 18 Sept. 2011.
Web. 2 Nov.
2015.

12