How much power do Party Leaders Exert in Congress?
Firstly, it can be said that party leaders exert a significant amount of power due to their financial
control and power over their parties. Money is one of the most significant factors which affect a
campaign and therefore, holding financial control, puts the party leaders in an advantageous
position. Party leaders are usually the best fundraisers within a party and they may decide where
that money is spent within the party. For example, former speaker and minority leader Nancy Pelosi
has raised about $430 million for the Democratic Party since she joined leadership in 2002. This puts
Pelosi in a position whereby she can endorse and sponsor who she wants. Those potential
Congressmen and Senators who receive generous financial backing during their campaigns hold a
competitive edge against their opposition due to their increased opportunities for advertisements
and therefore increase in recognition. This financial control gives these Party Leaders power in
Congress as their endorsements and sponsorships will have an effect on who gets elected in the
primaries and in the House/Senate elections. A primary challenge threat can be taken whereby
leaders endorse opposition of those Congressmen they do not like; this can be seen in Boehner’s
endorsement of Congressman Justin Amash’s opponent in the primary elections due to their rocky
relationship in Congress. Party leaders also have the power to earmark bills which would benefit
them and their constituents. Party leaders have this power due to the significant influence that is
held over other members of Congress as well as those serving under them in their party.
Secondly, party leaders are able to shape Congressional agenda in the sense that they control the
timetabling as well as some appointments made within Congress. Different leaders in Congress hold
different roles and different powers. For example, the Speaker of the House has the power to appoint
committee chairs and majority party members to the Rules committee (who deal with timetabling).
Having the power to appoint committee chairmen gives the speaker a lot of power in Congress and
coupled with the decline in seniority, ensures that those who want to be appointed have to act
favourably towards the Speaker to stand a chance. Seniority is appointing those longest standing
members in Congress for their serving time over actual expertise. An imposed term limit rule has
limited Committee Chairs to serve only 8 years before having to switch position. This has given the
Speaker more power to exert, as committee chairs do not retain too much congressional power
through years of settlement within that specific committee. For example, Paul Ryan was not
appointed on the basis of seniority. Moreover, the speaker also holds legislation powers in the sense
that he can bring up bills for a vote in the House. This also means that unfavoured topics of debate
can be blocked from reaching the House floor if the Speaker does not want it to. A recent example of
this was seen in Boehner’s reluctance to bring an immigration reform bill to the floor of the House
after a Senate version of the bill had already ben passed, leading to the recent executive action by
Obama to bypass Congress in an attempt to reform immigration. Furthermore, being a committee
chair in itself is a strong position to hold in Congress. This is because they can pigeon-hole legislation
when a bill is passing through committee stage, as well as being able to control what is on the
agenda within that committee. Secondly, the appointment of the House Rules Committee proves
beneficial as they control when bills are debated and for how long so. Due to the fact that majority
party members are more dominant in the Rules Committee (due to proportionality), it gives the
majority party advantages as to the timetabling of the floor as well as being able to help the most
favoured legislation pass through rapidly.
Josh Devos
Firstly, it can be said that party leaders exert a significant amount of power due to their financial
control and power over their parties. Money is one of the most significant factors which affect a
campaign and therefore, holding financial control, puts the party leaders in an advantageous
position. Party leaders are usually the best fundraisers within a party and they may decide where
that money is spent within the party. For example, former speaker and minority leader Nancy Pelosi
has raised about $430 million for the Democratic Party since she joined leadership in 2002. This puts
Pelosi in a position whereby she can endorse and sponsor who she wants. Those potential
Congressmen and Senators who receive generous financial backing during their campaigns hold a
competitive edge against their opposition due to their increased opportunities for advertisements
and therefore increase in recognition. This financial control gives these Party Leaders power in
Congress as their endorsements and sponsorships will have an effect on who gets elected in the
primaries and in the House/Senate elections. A primary challenge threat can be taken whereby
leaders endorse opposition of those Congressmen they do not like; this can be seen in Boehner’s
endorsement of Congressman Justin Amash’s opponent in the primary elections due to their rocky
relationship in Congress. Party leaders also have the power to earmark bills which would benefit
them and their constituents. Party leaders have this power due to the significant influence that is
held over other members of Congress as well as those serving under them in their party.
Secondly, party leaders are able to shape Congressional agenda in the sense that they control the
timetabling as well as some appointments made within Congress. Different leaders in Congress hold
different roles and different powers. For example, the Speaker of the House has the power to appoint
committee chairs and majority party members to the Rules committee (who deal with timetabling).
Having the power to appoint committee chairmen gives the speaker a lot of power in Congress and
coupled with the decline in seniority, ensures that those who want to be appointed have to act
favourably towards the Speaker to stand a chance. Seniority is appointing those longest standing
members in Congress for their serving time over actual expertise. An imposed term limit rule has
limited Committee Chairs to serve only 8 years before having to switch position. This has given the
Speaker more power to exert, as committee chairs do not retain too much congressional power
through years of settlement within that specific committee. For example, Paul Ryan was not
appointed on the basis of seniority. Moreover, the speaker also holds legislation powers in the sense
that he can bring up bills for a vote in the House. This also means that unfavoured topics of debate
can be blocked from reaching the House floor if the Speaker does not want it to. A recent example of
this was seen in Boehner’s reluctance to bring an immigration reform bill to the floor of the House
after a Senate version of the bill had already ben passed, leading to the recent executive action by
Obama to bypass Congress in an attempt to reform immigration. Furthermore, being a committee
chair in itself is a strong position to hold in Congress. This is because they can pigeon-hole legislation
when a bill is passing through committee stage, as well as being able to control what is on the
agenda within that committee. Secondly, the appointment of the House Rules Committee proves
beneficial as they control when bills are debated and for how long so. Due to the fact that majority
party members are more dominant in the Rules Committee (due to proportionality), it gives the
majority party advantages as to the timetabling of the floor as well as being able to help the most
favoured legislation pass through rapidly.
Josh Devos
