Malcolm Rivera
The salaries of politicians have been a contentious issue in the United States for centuries. The Twenty-seventh Amendment to the US Constitution, ratified in 1992, states that No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of Representatives shall have intervened. This amendment limits changes to Congressional salaries, ensuring that any pay raises or decreases will only occur after the next election of representatives. The amendment's history is complex, with Congress experimenting with different compensation methods, facing public outrage, and dealing with the challenge of balancing independence from corruption. The debate around congressional salaries continues, with arguments for and against salary increases, and the topic remains a sensitive issue for politicians and the public alike.
| Characteristics | Values |
|---|---|
| Who decides the salaries of Congress members? | From the Founding to 1967, Congress passed legislation setting its rates of pay. In 1967, a quadrennial commission was created to propose salary levels for top officials of the Government, including Members of Congress. |
| Who decides the salary of the President? | Article II, Section 1, Clause 7 provides that Congress may not increase or decrease the President's compensation during their term in office. |
| Who pays the salaries of Congress members? | Seeking to narrow state powers over the central government, the Constitution's authors provided that congressional salaries would come from the federal treasury, with Congress setting the actual amount. |
| What are the arguments for increasing the salaries of Congress members? | a) Making the position more accessible, especially for people from lower socioeconomic backgrounds. b) Making congress members more impervious to corruption, as a higher income would diminish the effectiveness of bribes from lobbyists and PACS. |
| Has there been any attempt to limit the salaries of Congress members? | The 27th Amendment, sometimes called the "congressional pay amendment," prohibits salary changes for members of Congress until after an election of representatives. |
Explore related products
What You'll Learn
- The Twenty-Seventh Amendment limits changes to Congressional salaries
- Congress members' salaries are set by Congress
- The Domestic Emoluments Clause isolates the President from Congressional influence
- The Framers' decision to have Congress compensated by the Federal Government
- Congress has voted to increase, decrease, and freeze their salaries
The Twenty-Seventh Amendment limits changes to Congressional salaries
The Twenty-Seventh Amendment, or the Congressional Compensation Act of 1789, is a constitutional amendment in the United States that limits changes to Congressional salaries. The amendment states that any law that increases or decreases the salary of members of Congress may only take effect after the next election of the House of Representatives has occurred.
The Twenty-Seventh Amendment's history spans over two centuries, from the Colonial Era to the 1990s. In 1787, the Framers debated whether compensation for Members of Congress should be determined by the Constitution, the Members themselves, or the state legislatures. Ultimately, it was decided that the national government would compensate Members of Congress, with their salaries set by congressional legislation.
James Madison, a congressman from Virginia, led the effort to amend the Constitution. On September 25, 1789, he proposed what would become the Twenty-Seventh Amendment to Congress as one of twelve amendments, ten of which were quickly ratified and became the Bill of Rights. The Twenty-Seventh Amendment, however, lay dormant for nearly 200 years. In 1982, Gregory Watson, a student at the University of Texas at Austin, wrote a paper arguing that the amendment was still pending ratification by the states. This sparked a 10-year campaign to revive it, and the amendment was finally ratified on May 7, 1992.
The Twenty-Seventh Amendment prevents laws that modify Congressional compensation from taking effect until after an intervening congressional election. This is to reduce corruption in the legislative branch by allowing the public to remove members of Congress from office before their salaries increase.
Constitution of 1791: Economic Impact and Legacy
You may want to see also
Congress members' salaries are set by Congress
The salaries of Congress members are set by Congress itself. From the founding of the nation until 1967, Congress passed legislation setting its rates of pay. In 1967, a law was passed that created a quadrennial commission to propose salary levels for top government officials, including Congress members. This commission system was designed to maintain pay comparability with private-sector employees. However, some members of Congress dissented, arguing that using commissions to set congressional compensation violated the Compensation Clause mandate that compensation be ascertained by law.
The Twenty-seventh Amendment to the United States Constitution, ratified in 1992, prohibits any law affecting the compensation of senators and representatives from taking effect until after the next election. This amendment ensures that any changes to the salaries of Congress members cannot take effect until the people have had a chance to elect new representatives.
The Government Ethics Reform Act of 1989 provides for an automatic annual increase in the salaries of Congress members as a cost-of-living adjustment. However, since 2009, Congress has voted to not accept this increase, keeping the salaries of rank-and-file legislators at $174,000 annually. Leaders of the House and Senate are paid higher salaries, with the Speaker of the House earning $223,500 per year.
There have been ongoing debates about raising congressional salaries. Proponents of salary increases argue that higher pay would make the position more accessible to people from diverse socioeconomic backgrounds and reduce the influence of corruption. On the other hand, when Congress members suggest raising their salaries, it is often frowned upon by the public, who may perceive it as a form of self-serving corruption.
Challenges in Framing the Constitution
You may want to see also
The Domestic Emoluments Clause isolates the President from Congressional influence
The Domestic Emoluments Clause, or Article II, Section 1, Clause 7, is a provision in the U.S. Constitution that isolates the President from Congressional influence by fixing their salary for the duration of their term in office.
The Clause states that the President shall receive "a Compensation, which shall neither be increased nor diminished during the Period for which he shall have been elected". This fixed salary ensures that Congress cannot use financial incentives to influence the President's actions, thereby preserving the President's independence and integrity.
The inclusion of the Domestic Emoluments Clause in the Constitution was influenced by the belief that a leader's independence could be compromised if their salary was not of a "fixed and permanent value". This belief is reflected in the Massachusetts Constitution of 1780, which states that "the public good requires that the governor should not be under the undue influence...it is necessary that he should have an honorable stated salary, of a fixed and permanent value".
During the Constitutional Convention, Benjamin Franklin initially proposed that the President should receive no compensation at all. However, this motion was politely postponed, and the Convention later unanimously agreed to the fixed salary provision for the President on July 20, 1787. On September 15, 1787, Franklin and John Rutledge moved to bar the President from receiving any other emolument from the federal or state governments, which was approved by a 7-4 vote without noted debate.
Alexander Hamilton, in Federalist No. 73, explained the intent behind the Domestic Emoluments Clause, stating that it "was intended to isolate the President from potentially corrupting congressional influence". Hamilton further commented that because the President's salary is fixed for each term, "Congress can neither weaken his fortitude by operating on his necessities, nor corrupt his integrity by appealing to his avarice".
Bill Tillman's New Constitution: The Story
You may want to see also
Explore related products
The Framers' decision to have Congress compensated by the Federal Government
The Framers of the American Constitution were visionaries who designed the Constitution to endure. They sought to address the specific challenges facing the nation during their lifetimes and to establish the foundational principles that would sustain and guide the new nation into an uncertain future.
One of the decisions made by the Framers was to have the Federal Government compensate the Members of Congress. This decision was driven by the concern that state frugality in compensating Members of Congress would reduce the pool of candidates to serve in Congress. George Mason of Virginia commented during the Constitutional Convention that:
> [T]he parsimony of the States might reduce the provision so low that ... the question would be not who were most fit to be chosen, but who were most willing to serve.
Nathaniel Gorham shared a similar sentiment, stating that he did not wish to refer the matter to the State Legislatures, who were always reducing salaries in such a way as to keep the most capable people out of office.
From the founding of the United States until 1967, Congress passed legislation setting its rates of pay. In 1967, a law was passed that created a quadrennial commission to propose salary levels for top government officials, including Members of Congress. In 1975, Congress legislated to bring Members of Congress within a separate commission system, authorizing the President to recommend annual increases for civil servants to maintain pay comparability with private-sector employees.
The Twenty-seventh Amendment to the United States Constitution, ratified in 1992, prohibits any law affecting the compensation of Members of Congress from taking effect until after the next election. Despite this, there has been debate over raising congressional salaries, with many members of Congress continuing to advocate for a salary raise. Proponents of raising congressional salaries argue that it would make the position more accessible, especially for people from lower socioeconomic backgrounds, and make congress members less susceptible to corruption, as higher incomes would diminish the effectiveness of bribes.
Bill Riders: Are They in the Constitution?
You may want to see also
Congress has voted to increase, decrease, and freeze their salaries
The 27th Amendment to the US Constitution, ratified in 1992, allows Congress to increase or decrease the salaries paid to US Representatives and Senators. The Amendment prohibits salary changes for members of Congress until after an election of representatives. This means that senators and representatives have the power to increase or decrease their own salaries, but any changes will not come into effect until the next session of Congress.
Congress has historically voted to increase, decrease, and freeze their salaries. In 1873, the 42nd Congress passed the "Salary Grab" Act, which instituted a retroactive pay raise of $7,500 for its members. Public outrage ensued, and Congress ultimately repealed the Act. During the Great Depression, Congress twice voted to reduce its salary, the only times it has ever done so. Congress has also regularly voted to increase salaries, marking a shift from part-time to full-time politicians.
In 1967, Congress created the Commission on Executive, Legislative, and Judicial Salaries, which would recommend a new salary every four years. This led to further public resentment. In 1989, the Government Ethics Reform Act provided for an automatic increase in salary each year as a cost-of-living adjustment. Since 2010, Congress has annually voted not to accept this increase, keeping salaries at the same nominal amount since 2009.
In 2024, a bipartisan temporary spending bill proposed ending a long-time pay freeze, allowing lawmakers to be eligible for a 3.8% salary increase. This was misrepresented in some quarters as a 40% pay increase. Congress members' salaries have been a source of public resentment, and any mention of congressional salary increases is generally frowned upon by the public and seen as a form of corruption. However, it has been argued that an increased salary for members of Congress would make the position more accessible, especially for people from lower socioeconomic backgrounds, and make Congress members less susceptible to corruption.
Restraining Order Violations: Illinois Laws and Penalties
You may want to see also
Frequently asked questions
The Twenty-seventh Amendment to the United States Constitution, ratified in 1992, prohibits any law affecting congressional compensation from taking effect until after the next election.
The Emoluments Clause, also known as the Domestic Emoluments Clause, states that the President shall receive a fixed salary that cannot be changed during their term in office.
The purpose of the Emoluments Clause is to preserve the President's independence from Congress and state governments by ensuring their salary cannot be influenced by congressional or state powers.
Congress members' salaries have changed throughout history. In the late 1700s and 1800s, they received a per diem rate for each day they attended Congress and for travel. In 1817, this was changed to a fixed annual salary, which caused public outrage. Since then, Congress has continued to pass pay raises, causing further public resentment.
![The Wages of Fear (The Criterion Collection) [4K UHD]](https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/71uMZtd3AmL._AC_UY218_.jpg)
