It's an argument I've tried out before:

As professional lobbyists grow ever more powerful, it is increasingly consequential that members of Congress spend significant stretches of time hundreds or thousands of miles from their constituents, but mere minutes away from every K Street firm. An e-Congress wouldn't merely result in legislators more attuned to their constituents by virtue of spending their working lives among them -- it would make influence peddling far more difficult on lobbying firms, who'd find it more expensive and time-consuming to get face-time with multiple senators and Congressional representatives, or to simultaneously court a senator, six members of the federal bureaucracy, a few political journalists, and a dozen House underlings.

Neither should the impact an e-Congress would have on congressional staff be underestimated. Staffers in their twenties and their thirties are enormously influential in shaping the agenda of the men and women for whom they work, and they are, by and large, denizens of Washington. This changes the characteristics of those willing to apply to be staff members -- it skews the labor pool toward people who want to live Inside the Beltway, making a career there. Inevitably, whoever is hired loses touch with constituents, at least relative to a hypothetical staffer who ate, drank and dated among the folks back home, as opposed to living among other District of Columbia politicos.

Removed from Washington, would these staffers be less able to cultivate personal relationships with other members of Congress, their staffs and people in the bureaucracy?

Undoubtedly. And although lost social lubricant would be one cost of an e-Congress, it would be mitigated by an important benefit: fewer folks would get jobs as congressional staffers, put in a few years at a mediocre wage, and cash out by using their contacts as leverage when they negotiate their starting salary at a lobbying firm. Ask yourself whether social cohesion among D.C. insiders results in good governance -- or the opposite.

This would be a positive change.

You can read the rest here. I'd love to hear feedback in comments or via e-mail at