Thomas E. Mann – författare

In this book, the third of the five trade books for the Institutions of Democracy project, Thomas Mann and Norman Ornstein argue that congress faces a crisis of self-identity and role in the American Constitutional System. Congress is supposed to be the driving force behind policy in the nation and a vital check and balance against the executive, but it is neither, particularly under the current administration. As with other books in this series Mann and Ornstein will examine the first principles of the intended role of the legislative branch, look throughout history at how congress has fulfilled this role, and consider what can be done to improve it and bring it back to its original purpose.

Congress is the first branch of government in the American system, write Thomas E. Mann and Norman J. Ornstein, but now it is a broken branch, damaged by partisan bickering and internal rancor. The Broken Branch offers both a brilliant diagnosis of the cause of Congressional decline and a much-needed blueprint for change, from two experts who understand politics and revere our institutions, but believe that Congress has become deeply dysfunctional. Mann and Ornstein, two of the nations most renowned and judicious scholars of government and politics, bring to light the historical roots of Congress''s current maladies, examining 40 years of uninterrupted Democratic control of the House and the stunning midterm election victory of 1994 that propelled Republicans into the majority in both House and Senate. The byproduct of that long and grueling but ultimately successful Republican campaign, the authors reveal, was a weakened institution bitterly divided between the parties. They highlight the dramatic shift in Congress from a highly decentralized, committee-based institution into a much more regimented one in which party increasingly trumps committee. The resultant changes in the policy process--the demise of regular order, the decline of deliberation, and the weakening of our system of checks and balances--have all compromised the role of Congress in the American Constitutional system. Indeed, Speaker Dennis Hastert has unabashedly stated that his primary responsibility is to pass the president''s legislative program--identifying himself more as a lieutenant of the president than a steward of the house. From tax cuts to the war against Saddam Hussein to a Medicare prescription drug benefit, the legislative process has been bent to serve immediate presidential interests and have often resulted in poorly crafted and stealthily passed laws. Strong majority leadership in Congress, the authors conclude, led not to a vigorous exertion of congressional authority but to a general passivity in the face of executive power. A vivid portrait of an institution that has fallen far from the aspirations of our Founding Fathers, The Broken Branch highlights the costs of a malfunctioning Congress to national policymaking, and outlines what must be done to repair the damage.

The New Campaign Finance Sourcebook has been integrated with the award-winning and frequently visited Brookings website to provide a timely, interactive tool for policymakers, journalists, and scholars. Four of the country's leading experts on campaign finance reform have contributed original essays on important facets of finance law and administration. The essays are accompanied by a list of corresponding documents available on the website. The book offers a thorough overview and analysis of this highly controversial issue, including the history of campaign finance regulation and the current state of the law, current practices and trends in the flow of money, the constitutional debate, the use of political party money, issue advocacy, public financing of presidential elections, implementing and enforcing campaign finance laws, and campaigning on the internet. The authors conclude with a broad overview of alternative approaches to reform. The related website (www.brookings.edu/campaignfinance) features sidebars that correspond to the book's chapters as well as associated documents. The site is frequently updated with recent developments in campaign finance regulation and analyses of current court cases and administrative decisions. There are also links to advisory opinions from the Federal Elections Commission, nonprofit organizations that study reform, and related publications-.

It is not uncommon to hear that poor school performance, welfare dependancy, youth unemployment, and criminal activity result more from shortcomings in the personal makeup of individuals than from societal forces beyond their control. Are American values declining as so many suggest? And are those values at the root of many social problems today? Shaped by experience and public policies, people's values and social norms do change. What role can or should a democratic government play in shaping values? And how do these values conditon the efficacy of public policy? In this book, six distinguished social scientists identify trends in America's values and their consequences, and consider public policy tools with which some of those values might be changed. Daniel Yankelovich begins with a discussion of how American values have shifted in the last half-century, and argues that affluence is the driving force behind these changes in values. James Q. Wilson argues that destructive habits which can lead to social pathologies, like crime and drug use, are set early in life; he examines how public policy might intervene when children are young to promote better values. David Popenoe maintains that America has veered too far towards industrialist values, and explores the resulting decline of families and many attendant social ills. Nathan Glazer describes the history and present status of the dispute over multicultural education. Jane Mansbridge examines the process of building cooperation, consensus, and public spirit. And George Akerlof and Janet L. Yellen discuss the problem of gang criminality. Inthe past, social scientists have often sidestepped questions about values as undefinable, unquantifiable, and somehow unscientific. The essays in this volume address these questions at last. Henry J. Aaron, director of the Economic Studies program at Brookings, is the authorof numerous books, including most recently Serious and Unstable Condition: Financing America's Health Care (1991), and coeditor of Setting Domestic Priorities (1992). Thomas E. Mann is director of the Brookings Governmental Studies program, coeditor of Media Polls in American Politics (1992), and coauthor of the Renewing Congress series (1993). Timothy Taylor is managing editor of the Journal of Economic Perspectives at Stanford University.

Vital Statistics on Congress remains the quintessential source of authoritative information on America's legislature. This important series tracks the elements that define and describe Congress in the post–World War II era, and in this new edition, three of America's most esteemed political analysts extend their examination through the 109th Congress. They combine historical context with insightful analysis and copious data to produce a valuable and authoritative picture of the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives. Norman Ornstein, Thomas Mann, and Michael Malbin track the changing makeup of Congress through history and across several dimensions, such as region, party, occupation, religion, committee assignments, staff size, and political stances. They document trends in critical areas such as voter turnout, ticket splitting, incumbency and turnover, and margin of victory. The authors, acknowledged experts in campaign finance, provide detailed information on candidate, party, and PAC spending. The material presented in l Statistics on Congress 2008 rev reveals a fascinating and important picture of America's chosen representatives, as politicians and as people. It will be an important addition to the bookshelves of media, political professionals, scholars and their students, and political junkies everywhere.

In recent years Congress has been in a state of siege. The healthy skepticism that had long characterized public attitudes toward Congress degenerated into corrosive cynicism. The reservoir of support among political elites appears to have collapsed as well. Part of the explanation for this growing public hostility lies in objective conditions: stagnant wages, huge budget deficits, sustained divided government, scandals and deadlock on Capitol Hill. But another important factor may be how Congress is presented to and interpreted for the broader public.This book explores the connections between Congress, the press, and the public. Public opinion scholars analyze historical data to discern trends in and sources of public hostility toward Congress. Media specialists examine patterns of congressional coverage in national print and television news and attitudes toward Congress among producers, editors, and reporters. And students of Congress explore the tools and techniques leaders and rank-and-file members use in presenting themselves and their institution to the public. The book concludes by assessing the role the media plays in presenting Congress to the public and what the media and Congress might do to improve public understanding.The contributors are Herb Asher and Michael Barr, Ohio State University; Karlyn Bowman and Kimberly Coursen, the American Enterprise Institute; Ronald D. Elving, Congressional Quarterly; Stephen Hess, Brookings; Karl Kurtz, National Conference of State Legislatures; Everett Carll Ladd, The Roper Center; Robert Lichter, Center for Media and Public Policy; and Mark J. Rozell, Mary Washington College.This book is the third in a series by the Renewing Congress Project, a joint effort of the American Enterprise Institute and the Brookings Institution. The previous volumes are Renewing Congress: A First Report and Renewing Congress: A Second Report.

This volume pulls together key documents—statutes, court decisions, FEC advisory opinions, draft legislation—and scholarly articles that are essential references for any informed discussion of campaign finance reform. Each chapter includes a set of reprinted materials preceded by an explanation of the relevant issues by the editors. Topics include the history of federal statutes on campaign finance; major Supreme Court decisions; the constitutional contours of the current debate; a roadmap to the present rules of the game; political action committees; national parties; hard and soft money; express and issue advocacy; enforcing campaign finance law; and recent innovations and proposals.The volume is designed to help reformers and interested citizens understand how current campaign finance practices have evolved from previous decisions made by legislative, judicial, and executive bodies and what might be entailed in moving the system in a desired direction.Each of the editors has extensive practical experience in the field of campaign finance.

In 2002 Congress enacted the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA), the first major revision of federal campaign finance law in a generation. In March 2001, after a fiercely contested and highly divisive seven-year partisan legislative battle, the Senate passed S. 27, known as the McCain-Feingold legislation. The House responded by passing H.R. 2356, companion legislation known as Shays-Meehan, in February 2002. The Senate then approved the House-passed version, and President George W. Bush signed BCRA into law on March 27, 2002, stating that the bill had ""flaws"" but overall ""improves the current system of financing for federal campaigns."" The Reform Act was taken to court within hours of the President's signature. Dozens of interest groups and lawmakers who had opposed passage of the Act in Congress lodged complaints that challenged the constitutionality of virtually every aspect of the new law. Following review by a special three-judge panel, the case is expected to reach the U.S. Supreme Court in 2003. This litigation constitutes the most important campaign finance case since the Supreme Court issued its decision in Buckley v. Valeo more than twenty-five years ago. The testimony, submitted by some of the country's most knowledgeable political scientists and most experienced politicians, constitutes an invaluable body of knowledge about the complexities of campaign finance and the role of money in our political system. Unfortunately, only the lawyers, political scientists, and practitioners actually involved in the litigation have seen most of this writing—until now. Ins ide the Campaign Finance Battle makes key testimony in this historic case available to a general readership, in the process shedding new light on campaign finance practices central to the congressional debate on the reform act and to the landmark litigation challenging its constitutionality.

In 2002 Congress enacted the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA), the first major revision of federal campaign finance law in a generation. In March 2001, after a fiercely contested and highly divisive seven-year partisan legislative battle, the Senate passed S. 27, known as the McCain-Feingold legislation. The House responded by passing H.R. 2356, companion legislation known as Shays-Meehan, in February 2002. The Senate then approved the House-passed version, and President George W. Bush signed BCRA into law on March 27, 2002, stating that the bill had ""flaws"" but overall ""improves the current system of financing for federal campaigns."" The Reform Act was taken to court within hours of the President's signature. Dozens of interest groups and lawmakers who had opposed passage of the Act in Congress lodged complaints that challenged the constitutionality of virtually every aspect of the new law. Following review by a special three-judge panel, the case is expected to reach the U.S. Supreme Court in 2003. This litigation constitutes the most important campaign finance case since the Supreme Court issued its decision in Buckley v. Valeo more than twenty-five years ago. The testimony, submitted by some of the country's most knowledgeable political scientists and most experienced politicians, constitutes an invaluable body of knowledge about the complexities of campaign finance and the role of money in our political system. Unfortunately, only the lawyers, political scientists, and practitioners actually involved in the litigation have seen most of this writing—until now. Ins ide the Campaign Finance Battle makes key testimony in this historic case available to a general readership, in the process shedding new light on campaign finance practices central to the congressional debate on the reform act and to the landmark litigation challenging its constitutionality.

The devastating and politically consequential defeat of President Clinton's comprehensive health plan in Congress has unleashed a torrent of speculation over ""who or what killed reform."" One class of explanation deals with the institutional arrangements by which policy is made in the United States and, more specifically, with the rules and organization of Congress. This volume weighs the importance of Congress in the failure to enact health reform by examining more broadly how Congress shapes health policy—on matters ranging from ambitious plans to achieve universal health insurance coverage to annual appropriations for public health agencies.Part One examines how Congress has organized and equipped itself to make health policy. Individual chapters consider how committee jurisdictions, budgeting procedures, information, and oversight influence health policymaking. Part Two uses recent health policy episodes—the 1988-89 adoption and repeal of Medicare catastrophic coverage and the 1993-94 failure to pass national health reform—to generalize about how process shapes policy.This book is a product of the Renewing Congress Project, a joint undertaking of the Brookings Institution and the American Enterprise Institute. The contributors include C. Lawrence Evans, College of William and Mary; Mark Nadel, General Accounting Office; Julie Rovner, freelance health policy writer; and Allen Schick and Joseph White, Brookings.Copublished with the American Enterprise Institute

Public opinion pools have become staples of contemporary political reporting, and most national news organizations have sophisticated in-house polling operations. The increased number and quality of polls conducted and reported by the press give the public a chance to help see the agendas of campaigns and define the meaning of elections.Yet competition and the need for fast responses to events often lead news organizations to misuse polls in a way that diminishes rather than enhances democracy. Polls can shape public opinion as well as describe it; they can set the news agenda and influence the coverage of political events in ways hostile to a constructive dialogue between citizens and their leaders.In this volume, media specialist and well-known reporters provide a comprehensive survey of the problems and possibilities of polling by media organizations in the 1990s and beyond. Thomas Mann and Gary Orren analyze the strengths and weaknesses of media polls and their impact on American politics. Everett Carll Ladd and John Benson discuss the extraordinary growth of polling in news organizations for the past two decades. Kathleen Frankovic addresses the tension between the needs of news organizations for quick results and the need to preserve the standards of survey research. Henry Brady and Gary Orren examine the most serious methodological problems with news media polls. Michael Kagay explores the sources of well-publicized variability in poll findings. Michael Traugott considers the complicated question of how polls influence the public and whether their effects are benign or harmful. Finally, E. J. Dionne, Jr. examines media organizations' obsession with polls and the impact polls have on reporters.The authors offer recommendations for improving the conduct and use of media polls so that citizens can make better informed and enlightened decisions about the public agenda.

It is not uncommon to hear that poor school performance, welfare dependancy, youth unemployment, and criminal activity result more from shortcomings in the personal makeup of individuals than from societal forces beyond their control. Are American values declining as so many suggest? And are those values at the root of many social problems today? Shaped by experience and public policies, people's values and social norms do change. What role can or should a democratic government play in shaping values? And how do these values conditon the efficacy of public policy? In this book, six distinguished social scientists identify trends in America's values and their consequences, and consider public policy tools with which some of those values might be changed. Daniel Yankelovich begins with a discussion of how American values have shifted in the last half-century, and argues that affluence is the driving force behind these changes in values. James Q. Wilson argues that destructive habits which can lead to social pathologies, like crime and drug use, are set early in life; he examines how public policy might intervene when children are young to promote better values. David Popenoe maintains that America has veered too far towards industrialist values, and explores the resulting decline of families and many attendant social ills. Nathan Glazer describes the history and present status of the dispute over multicultural education. Jane Mansbridge examines the process of building cooperation, consensus, and public spirit. And George Akerlof and Janet L. Yellen discuss the problem of gang criminality. Inthe past, social scientists have often sidestepped questions about values as undefinable, unquantifiable, and somehow unscientific. The essays in this volume address these questions at last. Henry J. Aaron, director of the Economic Studies program at Brookings, is the authorof numerous books, including most recently Serious and Unstable Condition: Financing America's Health Care (1991), and coeditor of Setting Domestic Priorities (1992). Thomas E. Mann is director of the Brookings Governmental Studies program, coeditor of Media Polls in American Politics (1992), and coauthor of the Renewing Congress series (1993). Timothy Taylor is managing editor of the Journal of Economic Perspectives at Stanford University.

Public opinion pools have become staples of contemporary political reporting, and most national news organizations have sophisticated in-house polling operations. The increased number and quality of polls conducted and reported by the press give the public a chance to help see the agendas of campaigns and define the meaning of elections.Yet competition and the need for fast responses to events often lead news organizations to misuse polls in a way that diminishes rather than enhances democracy. Polls can shape public opinion as well as describe it; they can set the news agenda and influence the coverage of political events in ways hostile to a constructive dialogue between citizens and their leaders.In this volume, media specialist and well-known reporters provide a comprehensive survey of the problems and possibilities of polling by media organizations in the 1990s and beyond. Thomas Mann and Gary Orren analyze the strengths and weaknesses of media polls and their impact on American politics. Everett Carll Ladd and John Benson discuss the extraordinary growth of polling in news organizations for the past two decades. Kathleen Frankovic addresses the tension between the needs of news organizations for quick results and the need to preserve the standards of survey research. Henry Brady and Gary Orren examine the most serious methodological problems with news media polls. Michael Kagay explores the sources of well-publicized variability in poll findings. Michael Traugott considers the complicated question of how polls influence the public and whether their effects are benign or harmful. Finally, E. J. Dionne, Jr. examines media organizations' obsession with polls and the impact polls have on reporters.The authors offer recommendations for improving the conduct and use of media polls so that citizens can make better informed and enlightened decisions about the public agenda.

In recent years Congress has been in a state of siege. The healthy skepticism that had long characterized public attitudes toward Congress degenerated into corrosive cynicism. The reservoir of support among political elites appears to have collapsed as well. Part of the explanation for this growing public hostility lies in objective conditions: stagnant wages, huge budget deficits, sustained divided government, scandals and deadlock on Capitol Hill. But another important factor may be how Congress is presented to and interpreted for the broader public.This book explores the connections between Congress, the press, and the public. Public opinion scholars analyze historical data to discern trends in and sources of public hostility toward Congress. Media specialists examine patterns of congressional coverage in national print and television news and attitudes toward Congress among producers, editors, and reporters. And students of Congress explore the tools and techniques leaders and rank-and-file members use in presenting themselves and their institution to the public. The book concludes by assessing the role the media plays in presenting Congress to the public and what the media and Congress might do to improve public understanding.The contributors are Herb Asher and Michael Barr, Ohio State University; Karlyn Bowman and Kimberly Coursen, the American Enterprise Institute; Ronald D. Elving, Congressional Quarterly; Stephen Hess, Brookings; Karl Kurtz, National Conference of State Legislatures; Everett Carll Ladd, The Roper Center; Robert Lichter, Center for Media and Public Policy; and Mark J. Rozell, Mary Washington College.This book is the third in a series by the Renewing Congress Project, a joint effort of the American Enterprise Institute and the Brookings Institution. The previous volumes are Renewing Congress: A First Report and Renewing Congress: A Second Report.

The devastating and politically consequential defeat of President Clinton's comprehensive health plan in Congress has unleashed a torrent of speculation over ""who or what killed reform."" One class of explanation deals with the institutional arrangements by which policy is made in the United States and, more specifically, with the rules and organization of Congress. This volume weighs the importance of Congress in the failure to enact health reform by examining more broadly how Congress shapes health policy—on matters ranging from ambitious plans to achieve universal health insurance coverage to annual appropriations for public health agencies.Part One examines how Congress has organized and equipped itself to make health policy. Individual chapters consider how committee jurisdictions, budgeting procedures, information, and oversight influence health policymaking. Part Two uses recent health policy episodes—the 1988-89 adoption and repeal of Medicare catastrophic coverage and the 1993-94 failure to pass national health reform—to generalize about how process shapes policy.This book is a product of the Renewing Congress Project, a joint undertaking of the Brookings Institution and the American Enterprise Institute. The contributors include C. Lawrence Evans, College of William and Mary; Mark Nadel, General Accounting Office; Julie Rovner, freelance health policy writer; and Allen Schick and Joseph White, Brookings.Copublished with the American Enterprise Institute

The legitimacy of the American electoral system depends on sustaining reasonable levels of fairness, accountability, responsiveness, and common sense. Recent Congressional elections fly in the face of those requirements, however, with a startling lack of competition, growing ideological polarization, and a fierce struggle between the parties to manipulate the electoral rules of the game. Party Lines addresses these problems head on in an authoritative and timely analysis of redistricting in the United States. The practice of state legislatures redrawing district lines after the decennial census has long been a controversial aspect of our governing system. Recent developments have added new urgency to earlier debates. The sorry spectacle of mid-decade partisan gerrymandering in Texas renewed public attention to the potential problems of redistricting, reinforcing the view that it is unfairly dominated by self-serving elected officials and parties. The perfunctory character of Congressional elections is another growing problem—in 2002, only four House incumbents were defeated in the general election, the lowest in American history. Despite a hotly contested presidential contest in 2004, that number increased by only three. In Pa rty Lines, eminent political analysts explain the legal and political history of redistricting since the one person–one vote revolution in the 1960s and place it in the larger context of American politics. The authors document the impact of redistricting on competition, polarization, and partisan fairness, and they assess the role technology played in the redistricting process. The final chapter analyzes options for reform, including most importantly the use of independent redistricting commissions as an alternative to the normal state legislative process. Redistricting reform is no panacea but it is a start toward ensuring that American voters still have the largest say in who will represent them. Contributors include Micah

Vital Statistics on Congress remains the quintessential source of authoritative information on America's legislature. This important series tracks the elements that define and describe Congress in the post–World War II era, and in this new edition, three of America's most esteemed political analysts extend their examination through the 109th Congress. They combine historical context with insightful analysis and copious data to produce a valuable and authoritative picture of the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives. Norman Ornstein, Thomas Mann, and Michael Malbin track the changing makeup of Congress through history and across several dimensions, such as region, party, occupation, religion, committee assignments, staff size, and political stances. They document trends in critical areas such as voter turnout, ticket splitting, incumbency and turnover, and margin of victory. The authors, acknowledged experts in campaign finance, provide detailed information on candidate, party, and PAC spending. The material presented in l Statistics on Congress 2008 rev reveals a fascinating and important picture of America's chosen representatives, as politicians and as people. It will be an important addition to the bookshelves of media, political professionals, scholars and their students, and political junkies everywhere.

The New Campaign Finance Sourcebook has been integrated with the award-winning and frequently visited Brookings website to provide a timely, interactive tool for policymakers, journalists, and scholars. Four of the country's leading experts on campaign finance reform have contributed original essays on important facets of finance law and administration. The essays are accompanied by a list of corresponding documents available on the website. The book offers a thorough overview and analysis of this highly controversial issue, including the history of campaign finance regulation and the current state of the law, current practices and trends in the flow of money, the constitutional debate, the use of political party money, issue advocacy, public financing of presidential elections, implementing and enforcing campaign finance laws, and campaigning on the internet. The authors conclude with a broad overview of alternative approaches to reform. The related website (www.brookings.edu/campaignfinance) features sidebars that correspond to the book's chapters as well as associated documents. The site is frequently updated with recent developments in campaign finance regulation and analyses of current court cases and administrative decisions. There are also links to advisory opinions from the Federal Elections Commission, nonprofit organizations that study reform, and related publications-.

The legitimacy of the American electoral system depends on sustaining reasonable levels of fairness, accountability, responsiveness, and common sense. Recent Congressional elections fly in the face of those requirements, however, with a startling lack of competition, growing ideological polarization, and a fierce struggle between the parties to manipulate the electoral rules of the game. Party Lines addresses these problems head on in an authoritative and timely analysis of redistricting in the United States. The practice of state legislatures redrawing district lines after the decennial census has long been a controversial aspect of our governing system. Recent developments have added new urgency to earlier debates. The sorry spectacle of mid-decade partisan gerrymandering in Texas renewed public attention to the potential problems of redistricting, reinforcing the view that it is unfairly dominated by self-serving elected officials and parties. The perfunctory character of Congressional elections is another growing problem—in 2002, only four House incumbents were defeated in the general election, the lowest in American history. Despite a hotly contested presidential contest in 2004, that number increased by only three. In Pa rty Lines, eminent political analysts explain the legal and political history of redistricting since the one person–one vote revolution in the 1960s and place it in the larger context of American politics. The authors document the impact of redistricting on competition, polarization, and partisan fairness, and they assess the role technology played in the redistricting process. The final chapter analyzes options for reform, including most importantly the use of independent redistricting commissions as an alternative to the normal state legislative process. Redistricting reform is no panacea but it is a start toward ensuring that American voters still have the largest say in who will represent them. Contributors include Micah

American democracy was never supposed to give the nation a president like Donald Trump. We have never had a president who gave rise to such widespread alarm about his lack of commitment to the institutions of self-government, to the norms democracy requires, and to the need for basic knowledge about how government works. We have never had a president who raises profound questions about his basic competence and his psychological capacity to take on the most challenging political office in the world. Yet if Trump is both a threat to our democracy and a product of its weaknesses, the citizen activism he has inspired is the antidote. The reaction to the crisis created by Trump’s presidency can provide the foundation for an era of democratic renewal and vindicate our long experiment in self-rule. The award-winning authors of One Nation After Trump explain Trump’s rise and the danger his administration poses to our free institutions. They also offer encouragement to the millions of Americans now experiencing a new sense of citizenship and engagement and argue that our nation needs a unifying alternative to Trump’s dark and divisive brand of politics - an alternative rooted in a New Economy, a New Patriotism, a New Civil Society, and a New Democracy. One Nation After Trump is the essential book for our era, an unsparing assessment of the perils facing the United States and an inspiring roadmap for how we can reclaim the future.