By Carl Weiser
Published October 20th 2000 in The Ithaca Journal
Marlin Schriver raises turkeys for a living. So when he stopped for lunch at Johnny's Diner here, he ordered a ham steak the size of a hubcap.
"I am tired of eating turkey," he said.
Good thing for Schriver he can choose his lunch. When it comes to choosing a congressman, he and the 566,000 other residents of Pennsylvania's 9th District have only one selection: Republican Rep. Bud Shuster, whose ethical misdeeds prompted his colleagues this month to declare him a "discredit to the house."
"Everybody would like to have a choice, but who'd run against him?" asked Diner owner Dan "Bear" Robinson 39.
In every election but one since 1984, the answer has been: No one. And Shuster is far from the only member of Congress without competition.
Out of 435 House seats, 64 members this year have no major-party opponent, according to the Center for Voting and Democracy. About 300 or so face only token opposition , according to experts and House members.
Rep. Tom Davis, R-Va., chairman of the national Republican Congressional Committee, recently boasted to reporters about GOP incumbents: "185 guys are back without worrying about it."
Democrats put their number of untouchable incumbents at 190, said John Del Cecato, spokesman for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.
That adds up to more than 85 percent of House members who are considered shoo-ins.
The struggle for control of the House centers on 20 to 30 competitive districts such as Lansing, Mich.; Montgomery County, Pa.; suburban Chicago; and a district around Muskogee, Okla.
The 200 million Americans who live outside the battleground districts are just spectators.
"The House is in play. Yes, so exciting but only for about one in 10 people," said Robert Ritchie, Director of the Center for Voting and Democracy, whose report on the 1998 elections, 'Dubious Democracy,' chronicled the decline of competitive districts. The average House incumbent, for example, won by an average of 43 percentage points in 1998.
The scene is the same in the Senate. Of the 28 incumbents running for re-election, only about a dozen face serious competition. In Arizona, Democrats couldn't get any of their 800,000 party members to run against Sen. Jon Kyl, Veteran Senators like Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., Orrin Hatch, R-Utah; and Daniel Akaka, D-Hawaii, face light challenges.
"it's going to be a great year for incumbents," said Charles Cook, editor of a closely watched political newsletter. "There is every single indicator out there that the re-election rate could be 97 or 98 percent and could theoretically get to 99 percent and be a record."
Incumbents have always enjoyed the advantages of free press and name recognition, but it is getting even easier for them lately. Their 98.3 percent re-election rate in 1998 matched their best year since World War II.
Ritchie said the effect of this lack of competition is "poisonous partisanship" in Congress, since members from one-party districts have little need to be moderate. It has also contributed, he said, to declining voter turnout. There's little reason to vote if there's no choice.
"In fairness to the public, who do they protest to?" said Charles Lewis, founder of the Center for Public Integrity.
Neither Davis nor his Democratic counterparts worry about unchallenged incumbents. The Democrats' Del Cecato joked that the only problem is when GOP members are unopposed; Davis quipped, I've been opposed and I've been unopposed. Unopposed is better.
The situation may change in 2002, after new congressional districts are drawn based on the census and some incumbents find themselves facing a new constituency or even a fellow incumbent.
But in the debate after a census, "things get settled, and that's where we are right now," Ritchie said.
The most daunting hurdle potential challengers face is how to raise enough money. Running for Congress is so expensive that the parties target the few races they believe they can actually win.
"That's a recognition that most incumbents are unbeatable," Davis said.
In 1998, the average House incumbent raised nearly $600,000 for re-election; the average challenger, $67,000, according to the Federal Election Commission. The average senator raised $4,4 million; challengers less than $1 million. To demonstrate this financial disadvantage, John Gillespie, the long-shot Republican trying to oust Democratic Sen. Herb Kohl of Wisconsin, hands out peanuts to illustrate his "running on peanuts" campaign.
Even without an opponent, Shuster routinely spends more than $1 million on his re-election campaign in Pennsylvania. One of the reasons the House ethics committee sanctioned him was for apparently spending his campaign money on fancy meals, nice hotels and other personal uses.
The committee this month, after a four-year investigation, also criticized Shuster for accepting improper gifts and giving access to a lobbyist who used to work for him.
On Sunday, '60 Minutes' detailed how Shuster and Ann Eppard, once his top aide and now a transportation lobbyist, enjoy a beneficial relationship in Washington: She raises money for him. In return, '60 Minutes' and watching groups allege, he doles out transportation projects to her clients.
Experts say the lack of opposition to Shuster insulates him from criticism.
"Certainly if it was a competitive district, it would be much, much harder to act the way he did," said Ritchie.
But Shuster remains popular despite his ethical lapses, and many here say they do not mind that he has no opponent. As chairman of the House transportation committee, Shuster has draped his district in taxpayer-financed public works projects.
The general consensus on his ethics troubles is that he's no worse than anyone else.
"Sorry to say, I think they're all like that," said craft store owner Alice Reams. "I don't know whose fault it is, ours or theirs. We voted them in."
"I am tired of eating turkey," he said.
Good thing for Schriver he can choose his lunch. When it comes to choosing a congressman, he and the 566,000 other residents of Pennsylvania's 9th District have only one selection: Republican Rep. Bud Shuster, whose ethical misdeeds prompted his colleagues this month to declare him a "discredit to the house."
"Everybody would like to have a choice, but who'd run against him?" asked Diner owner Dan "Bear" Robinson 39.
In every election but one since 1984, the answer has been: No one. And Shuster is far from the only member of Congress without competition.
Out of 435 House seats, 64 members this year have no major-party opponent, according to the Center for Voting and Democracy. About 300 or so face only token opposition , according to experts and House members.
Rep. Tom Davis, R-Va., chairman of the national Republican Congressional Committee, recently boasted to reporters about GOP incumbents: "185 guys are back without worrying about it."
Democrats put their number of untouchable incumbents at 190, said John Del Cecato, spokesman for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.
That adds up to more than 85 percent of House members who are considered shoo-ins.
The struggle for control of the House centers on 20 to 30 competitive districts such as Lansing, Mich.; Montgomery County, Pa.; suburban Chicago; and a district around Muskogee, Okla.
The 200 million Americans who live outside the battleground districts are just spectators.
"The House is in play. Yes, so exciting but only for about one in 10 people," said Robert Ritchie, Director of the Center for Voting and Democracy, whose report on the 1998 elections, 'Dubious Democracy,' chronicled the decline of competitive districts. The average House incumbent, for example, won by an average of 43 percentage points in 1998.
The scene is the same in the Senate. Of the 28 incumbents running for re-election, only about a dozen face serious competition. In Arizona, Democrats couldn't get any of their 800,000 party members to run against Sen. Jon Kyl, Veteran Senators like Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., Orrin Hatch, R-Utah; and Daniel Akaka, D-Hawaii, face light challenges.
"it's going to be a great year for incumbents," said Charles Cook, editor of a closely watched political newsletter. "There is every single indicator out there that the re-election rate could be 97 or 98 percent and could theoretically get to 99 percent and be a record."
Incumbents have always enjoyed the advantages of free press and name recognition, but it is getting even easier for them lately. Their 98.3 percent re-election rate in 1998 matched their best year since World War II.
Ritchie said the effect of this lack of competition is "poisonous partisanship" in Congress, since members from one-party districts have little need to be moderate. It has also contributed, he said, to declining voter turnout. There's little reason to vote if there's no choice.
"In fairness to the public, who do they protest to?" said Charles Lewis, founder of the Center for Public Integrity.
Neither Davis nor his Democratic counterparts worry about unchallenged incumbents. The Democrats' Del Cecato joked that the only problem is when GOP members are unopposed; Davis quipped, I've been opposed and I've been unopposed. Unopposed is better.
The situation may change in 2002, after new congressional districts are drawn based on the census and some incumbents find themselves facing a new constituency or even a fellow incumbent.
But in the debate after a census, "things get settled, and that's where we are right now," Ritchie said.
The most daunting hurdle potential challengers face is how to raise enough money. Running for Congress is so expensive that the parties target the few races they believe they can actually win.
"That's a recognition that most incumbents are unbeatable," Davis said.
In 1998, the average House incumbent raised nearly $600,000 for re-election; the average challenger, $67,000, according to the Federal Election Commission. The average senator raised $4,4 million; challengers less than $1 million. To demonstrate this financial disadvantage, John Gillespie, the long-shot Republican trying to oust Democratic Sen. Herb Kohl of Wisconsin, hands out peanuts to illustrate his "running on peanuts" campaign.
Even without an opponent, Shuster routinely spends more than $1 million on his re-election campaign in Pennsylvania. One of the reasons the House ethics committee sanctioned him was for apparently spending his campaign money on fancy meals, nice hotels and other personal uses.
The committee this month, after a four-year investigation, also criticized Shuster for accepting improper gifts and giving access to a lobbyist who used to work for him.
On Sunday, '60 Minutes' detailed how Shuster and Ann Eppard, once his top aide and now a transportation lobbyist, enjoy a beneficial relationship in Washington: She raises money for him. In return, '60 Minutes' and watching groups allege, he doles out transportation projects to her clients.
Experts say the lack of opposition to Shuster insulates him from criticism.
"Certainly if it was a competitive district, it would be much, much harder to act the way he did," said Ritchie.
But Shuster remains popular despite his ethical lapses, and many here say they do not mind that he has no opponent. As chairman of the House transportation committee, Shuster has draped his district in taxpayer-financed public works projects.
The general consensus on his ethics troubles is that he's no worse than anyone else.
"Sorry to say, I think they're all like that," said craft store owner Alice Reams. "I don't know whose fault it is, ours or theirs. We voted them in."