How does the U.S. Congress, as it exists in its current structure, support and/or limit authentic representation?

I think that at the heart of this authenticity question is the fact that our current Congress may not resemble what the founding fathers intended Congress to look like. However, I also believe that there are so many changes that have occurred in our country that the founding fathers could never have predicted or envisioned would have happened that have shaped our Congress to be the way it exists today. 

Having said that, I believe that the current structure of the U.S. Congress mostly limits “authentic” representation. I think that this limitation is the result of many different things.   Firstly, I believe that this limitation may result from the vast power that has been granted to Congress. While I do believe that the founding fathers intended Congress to have substantial power I believe that it's important to point out that "in almost every other democracy, the national legislature lacks the kind of authority the American separation of powers system places in Congress." (Draper 210) I also believe that the founding fathers intended for the other two branches of the government to provide a checks and balance system for Congress. However, it would appear that this very separation of powers has actually empowered Congress to an extent that is no longer as subordinate as it was prior to the 1960s. "Into the 1960s, Congress continued to play a mostly subordinate role to the presidency in initiating policy proposals and setting the agenda of government. Congress was content to let the president provide leadership, and even encroach on congressional powers, because it largely agreed with the president's policies." (Draper 217)

Secondly, I think that the evolution of lobbyists has also led to the decline of authenticity in Congress. Lobbyists were certainly never conceptualized by the founding fathers and their current power has led to the possibility of buying representatives to a certain extent. Lobbyists spend huge amounts of money to make sure that their “clients” causes are represented in Congress. In fact, "the pharmaceutical industry has more registered lobbyists than there are members of Congress." (Draper 241) I think that this has led to the decline of authenticity mostly because the more money you can spend on a cause the more exposure that cause will have and then the possibility of that cause’s goals being enacted in Congress grow exponentially. Lastly, what I really worry about is that after some crucial supreme court decisions the future holds the prospect of unlimited campaign contributions and therefore accelerated lobbying. As one author put it: "if you think spending on the 2010 election broke records, wait until the 2012 race heats up later this year. So long, campaign disclosure. Hello, unlimited secret spending." (Schneider) This prospect frightens me. 

 I believe that the current structure of the U.S. Congress supports “authentic” representation in that our Congress has, for the most part, always remained true to the vision of the founding fathers. We have, and hopefully always will have, a system of checks and balances that ensure that each branch of the government remains accountable to the others. The fact that the Congress, or any other branch of the government, has never tried to “do away” with our system of checks and balances shows that the U.S. Congress does support “authentic” representation.  

I think that all this begs the critical question: What remedies do you think the founding fathers provided to "check and balance" the Congress? Do you think they are effective?

Draper, Alan. The Politics of Power a Critical Introduction to American Government. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, Inc., 2011.

theday.com. "Democracy can't survive shrouded in secrecy." Schneider, Gabriela. Published 03/13/2011 12:00 AM. http://www.theday.com/article/20110313/OP03/303139957/1044.