During the 1970s, the U.S. House debated whether to televise its floor proceedings and, if so, how best to do it. Should there be a network pool of cameras, or should they use an House-owned and operated system? With the strong guidance of Speaker Thomas “Tip” O’Neill, Jr. (D-Mass.), lawmakers opted for the latter. On March 19, 1979, the House went live to the nation. The Senate did not begin broadcasting its sessions until 1986.
Despite overwhelming House support for the innovation, there were some members who remained highly skeptical that it was a good idea. One of those was Rep. Del Clawson (R-Calif.), who filed minority views on one of those final reports by the Rules Committee. Clawson conceded that “the temptations of television are seductive,” but warned that “the risks are many and serious.” Clawson’s main concern, he said, was that instead of “maintaining the dignity of the House, television may encourage circus antics,” and “corrode and cheapen” the democratic process.
It wouldn’t be long before some of Clawson’s concerns played out. One of the longstanding traditions of the House, dating back to 1937, had been to allow members some free time each day to deliver “one-minute speeches” at the outset, and “special order speeches” before adjourning for the day.
Among the dictates handed down by O’Neill from the start was that the House cameras were to focus only on the member speaking at all times, with no reaction shots or panning of the chamber. One group that took advantage of the longer free-speech period at the end of the day was the Conservative Opportunity Society, founded by Rep. Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) in 1983. It capitalized on this opening to criticize the Democratic majority and its policies, even going after some Democrats by name. No one could see on TV that the chamber was virtually empty during such speeches, and those being attacked were not present to defend themselves.
When O’Neill saw what was being done, on May 10, 1984, he angrily reacted and, without notifying the House in advance, directed the control room to show periodic views of the entire empty chamber. That in turn set off a firestorm among minority party members, who charged the Speaker with going back on his order that cameras only show the member speaking. The day after the incident, the House disciplined O’Neill for using unparliamentary language in a floor speech loudly denouncing the Republicans’ tactics. The whole brouhaha even acquired its own scandal term: “Cam scam.”
While observers correctly predicted that televising House floor proceedings would encourage some members to dramatically promote their special causes to the viewing public, a twist in that scenario occurred on June 21-22, 2016, when a group of House Democrats staged a sit-in on the House floor protesting the lack of gun legislation. The protest continued even after the Speaker gaveled a recess and the cameras and extra TV lights were turned off.
The members then used their smart phones to continue to broadcast their protest to the outside world, and the feed was picked up by C-SPAN and other news outlets. While House rules prohibited members from using their cell phones in the chamber, the rule did not apply when the House was not in session. The age of social media had arrived.
Now, with nearly a half century of broadcasting Congress’s proceedings, it’s fair to ask whether televising Congress has had the effect of dumbing down the people’s House. Most members will concede that in the last 20-30 years Congress has become more politically polarized and poisonous, focusing more on partisan messaging than on problem-solving. The parties have their theme teams to solidify ranks each week around particular messages. It has become a regular exercise in building and maintaining party solidarity in the run-up to the next election rather than conducting in-depth policy debates.
Theme-team messaging is reflected not only in floor speeches but in the type of legislation brought to the floor, often in “sense of the House” resolutions that go nowhere in the Senate. There is little evidence that House televised tactics are changing public views. For one thing, only about 4 percent of the public watches C-SPAN on a regular basis. For another, the news networks get most of their on-air clips from interviews their Hill correspondents conduct outside the chamber with individual members. The in-House debate clips are ordinarily ignored unless there is a fiery exchange on the floor between opposing forces.
Otherwise, the only major exceptions occur during a president’s State of the Union address, when the network pool covering the proceedings picks up on disruptions by members and their cameras zero in on the perpetrators. O’Neill’s warnings about reaction shots have been vindicated in spades.
The larger question today is to what role social media will play in Congress in an electronic morass fraught with misinformation and disinformation. With public approval ratings of Congress dipping into the teens, the warning lights are already flashing red. A wake-up call is long overdue for Congress to reverse its performative antics and get back to legislating for the nation.
Don Wolfensberger served as a congressional staffer for 28 years, finishing as chief of staff of the House Rules Committee in 1995. He is author of “Congress and the People: Deliberative Democracy on Trial” (2000), and “Changing Cultures in Congress: From Fair Play to Power Plays” (2018).