This year’s congressional primaries are seeing a number of challengers to incumbants. But for any of the fresh candidates who win in November, new members of Congress from both parties will face unprecedented challenges to delivering for constituents. The combination of increasing fundraising demands and political violence, paired with shrinking legislative power, makes this one of the hardest moments in modern history for a new member to push an agenda forward. Congress must reckon with these obstacles, and there are signs that this reckoning has begun.
Many have compared this moment to the Watergate era, another turning point in American politics. In 1974, fueled by outrage over executive abuse of power and foreign wars, a wave of 92 new members swept into Congress and overhauled the institution. One of them, former Rep. George Miller (D-CA), later declared, “We destroyed the institution by turning the lights on.”
After reforming the legislative process, members of the Class of ‘74 were able to chair committees and push forward votes on their bills, unusual feats for junior members. The 1970s saw Congress strengthen its spending power, control over foreign policy, and many other aspects of congressional authority that the executive branch threatens today.
Since then, though, the power of a member of Congress has been drained to a dangerously low level. New members will face far greater obstacles to legislating than their predecessors. Achieving the full potential of this moment to revitalize Congress requires addressing these challenges.
Many members of Congress now spend the lion’s share of their time dialing for dollars rather than legislating or meeting with constituents. According to an analysis by the Brookings Institution, the average amount raised by winning candidates per campaign cycle more than doubled between 1986 and 2018 after adjusting for inflation. A recent study showed legislating occupies only about a third of an average member’s schedule, while political fundraising eats up a huge chunk of the remaining time.
For my new book, I spoke with one representative who told me that he spends every mealtime fundraising over the phone in order to raise the money needed to run a competitive reelection campaign while doing his job. Former Rep. Zach Wamp (R-TN) said of the high number of recent retirements, “I don’t know of a single member that is leaving that does not include the pressures of raising money . . . as one of the contributing factors. . . . There is more focus on that than solving the country’s problems.”
Moreover, new members, and even established rank-and-file members, from either party wield less legislative power than they did a few decades ago. Back in 1974, bills moved through the normal committee process on the course to passage, with many opportunities for members to weigh in. Over the past few decades, however, procedural changes have increasingly centralized power in party leadership. This allows bills to be brought quickly to a vote, bypassing normal committee deliberation and often leaving little to no time for most members to read the bill. New members are also less likely to chair committees or hold other leadership positions necessary to push forward their agendas, further limiting their legislative power.
The increasing level of political violence presents another major obstacle. The Capitol Police reported nearly 15,000 threats against members of Congress in 2025, some 6,000 more than in 2020. Members of Congress I spoke to shared that fear of violence deters them from going to certain parts of their districts or holding as many events in their communities as they would otherwise. Threats and harassment dissuade others from running or remaining in office altogether. Former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), whose husband Paul was attacked in their home in 2022, said, “When I speak to . . . young people about running for office . . . too often I hear their reluctance to put their families in harm’s way. What they most often mention now as their greatest fear is the attack on Paul. . . . We cannot ask people to serve in public life if the cost is risking the safety of their families.”
Furthermore, when they speak publicly on an issue or vote on a bill or an impeachment, members must weigh the potential for violent backlash. Former Rep. Liz Cheney (R-WY) said, “I have had a number of members say to me, we would have voted to impeach, but we were concerned about our security.”
Unable to campaign, vote, or legislate without the pressures of money and violence — and constricted by current congressional process — junior members today are hard-pressed to do their jobs. But this isn’t the way it has to be.
Seeds of reform over the past few years already offer hope. Last summer, the House began granting members monthly stipends for personal security costs and increased funding for residential security. Public appetite and political momentum for campaign finance reform are building in Congress.
History shows that Congress is malleable, shaped and reshaped by people and processes. Political scientist Burdett Loomis described the Watergate era election as “a breaking point for American politics.” The bipartisan outpouring of frustration and hope for change that colors this election cycle suggests the dam may again be close to breaking, with the potential for a new wave to reshape Congress once again. Congress must seize the moment to institute campaign finance reform, combat political violence, and give its members the power to better represent the American people.
Maya Kornberg is the author of the book Stuck: How Money, Media, and Violence Prevent Change in Congress, which chronicles 50 years of reform efforts in Congress, documents the mounting forces of money and violence that have kept these reforms from creating meaningful change, and makes the case for urgent reforms.
