The "Contract with America" turns 25
In November 1994, Republicans swept elections across the country. It’s typical that the out-of-the-White-House party makes big gains in that cycle, but the size of those gains were atypically large and fueled by, among other things, the kinds of concerns that yielded a chaotic three-way race in the 1992 presidential election. Republicans took control of both chambers of Congress for the first time since 1954.
One shorthand reference of this moment, led by would-be Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich, was the “Contract with America.” It may be the case that the slogan has been oversold in terms of its electoral success. And it’s true that not everything promised came into fruition in Congress.
Still more, I’m hardly an expert in legislative history. But I wonder if it’s fair to say that the 104th Congress’s lawmaking in 1995 and 1996 represented the last high water mark of legislation, in an era today bogged down with divided government, heightened partisanship in each party and separating them from one another, inaction from the out-of-power party, increased use of the filibuster, and so on.
To name a few statutes enacted in this era, with Wikipedia links: the Lobbying Disclosure Act, the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act, the Communications Decency Act, the Line Item Veto Act, the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act, the Defense of Marriage Act, the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, “Welfare Reform,” the Prison Litigation Reform Act, and the Congressional Review Act.
Some (like the line item veto, a portion of DOMA, and the anti-decency provisions of the CDA) have been found unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. Some have had sporadic use like the CRA; others, like Section 230 of the CDA, are under renewed attack. And still others like AEDPA and PSLRA have, I think, fairly dramatically transformed areas of the law.
I’m a little surprised I’ve seen no academic fanfare or discussion, no law review symposia planned or academic conferences (much less panels) dedicated to it. (Academics love looking at milestone anniversaries of major cases, constitutional amendments, or statutes.)
There were a scattered few op-eds on it last fall. But I’ve seen essentially no attention given to the Contract with America this year—supporting or opposing, critical or reflective, looking back or looking forward.
I don’t know that I’ll be the one to lead the charge about examining these statutes or this particular moment in federal lawmaking, but the anniversary struck me as one worth remembering, even if in a brief blog post.