A modest proposal

In the current controversy surrounding the selection of the next Speaker of the House of Representatives, little discussion has been said about the nature of the office nor the essential qualifications for a Speaker. 

While the most obvious requirement is the ability to attract the votes of 218 members of the House on an open ballot, that tells us very little about the ability to do the job as properly understood.  Quite understandably, the horse race to achieve the magic 218 has led the news for several weeks.  Different scenarios have played out, featuring both eager and reluctant would-be Speakers. The most dramatic development was the voluntary withdrawal from consideration by the perceived front-runner Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.), the current majority leader from California.  The unprecedented nature of his actions – in an environment too often seen from the outside as dominated by self-serving actions – shocked his colleagues almost as much as it did the media.

{mosads}In a political and governmental world roiled by such leadership uncertainty, a propitious opportunity to adopt a modest but profound change may have arrived.  We should free the Speaker of the House from the obligation of raising campaign funds for others.

In 18 years as a member of the House spread out over nearly four decades, I served with various Speakers of both parties. Depending on the issue, I have supported or opposed them.  At some time or other, I have worked with all of them.  Some I have known better than others.  At the very least, I have had the opportunity to view them close up.  There are many things that they are – including being generally good individuals.  But I know one thing they are not – they are not supermen or superwomen.  They are affected by fatigue and jetlag like the rest of us.  They have families. They have only 24 hours in a day.

In the past four decades, the office of Speaker has evolved in many ways, but none has been more striking than the growth of the political fundraising burdens that befall the occupant.  It has been reported that recent Speakers have spent more than 200 days and/or evenings a year headlining funding raising events for political parties and/or candidates.  Think of that: more than one half of the year dedicated to chasing dollars!  No wonder some of our most worthy candidates have no interest in the job.

While I have no ready answer to the perplexing questions posed by the general nature of money’s impact on our political system, there is a simple solution to its disproportionate negative impact on the position of Speaker.  Either by custom, a rule adopted by the majority party’s conference or caucus, or by a rule adopted by the House of Representatives, the Speaker should be barred from soliciting or transferring funds for any political purpose other than his/her own campaign. 

Simply put, the office of Speaker of the House is a full-time job.  It is unique in that it requires one to both lead his or her party in a legislative body and yet preside over all its members in a fair and, at times, impartial manner.  While never easy, the ability to reach across the aisle to help forge consensus agreements without sacrificing principle is not enhanced when one spends more than half of the year directly raising funds to defeat those on the other side.   Additionally, spending over two hundred full or partial days fundraising is exhausting – physically and emotionally.  Freeing up the Speaker to use more of his or her considerable talents to “run the House” might well assist in reinstating that most democratic of federal institutions to its constitutional role as the owner of the “power of the purse” and the overseer of the federal bureaucracy among others.

Finally, in a world of worldwide terrorism and asymmetric warfare with targeted assassination, we need to take seriously the role of the Speaker of the House as next in line for the Presidency of the United States after the Vice President.  Freeing up time for top-line briefings on defense and foreign affairs issues instead of searching for more campaign funds would appear to be a worthwhile tradeoff. Who knows?  Maybe allowing more time for reading, thinking and reflection for one of our country’s top leaders in a world suffering from distraction overload would be a good thing.

Lungren served in the House from 1979 to 1989 and again from 2005 to 2013.