Several Supreme Court decisions expanding federal authority, together with the direct election of U.S. Senators, have contributed to significant growth in the federal government. However, the role of the Seventeenth Amendment in this transformation is not often discussed.
The constitutional change that transferred the selection of Senators from state legislatures to the electorate fundamentally shifted power from the states to the federal government. While the change occurred with limited debate and under intense political pressure, its impact was significant: it made it easier for powerful economic and political interests to influence 96 Senators rather than contend with 48 independent state legislatures. This shift—not democratic idealism—drove much of the support for direct election. Large corporations and labor unions supported an expansive federal government precisely because it weakened the states’ influence.
The constitutional debate itself is straightforward. Article I, Section 3 of the original Constitution vested the selection of Senators in state legislatures, giving states control over federal legislative power. The Seventeenth Amendment changed this structure by assigning this role to the electorate, thus reducing state governments’ influence in national affairs. While the change was intended as a democratic reform, it altered the balance of power established by the Framers.
The context behind this transformation offers needed perspective.
According to the National Center for Constitutional Studies:
No issue was more important to the Framers of the U.S. Constitution than the balance of power between the states and the new federal government. This issue sparked the most heated debates throughout the convention, and if it hadn’t been for a compromise initiated by Roger Sherman, the convention would most likely have failed.
Our Founders were guided by fear of the potentially tyrannical, harmful powers of a democratic majority.
The original structure worked for over one hundred years until the Progressive movement roused several Western states to seek direct election of Senators.
According to many sources, the pivotal movement occurred when the unholy alliance of national unions, large corporations, and political parties supported the publishing giant Hearst, who commissioned novelist David Graham Phillips to write articles titled The Treason of the Senate. The articles are characterized by the U.S. Senate as unsympathetic (and largely fictionalized) accounts of senators as pawns of industrialists and financiers. The articles galvanized public support for reform.
In 1911, Senator Bristow of Kansas introduced a constitutional amendment to provide for the direct election of Senators. By 1912, 29 states were directly electing Senators. The Constitutional amendment was quickly ratified. Between May 22, 1912, and April 8, 2013, thirty-six states ratified the Amendment. It was certified on May 31, 1913, as part of the Constitution.
The impact on federalism.
Yale Law Professor David Schleicher has posed the critical question: Why were state legislatures willing to surrender their power to select Senators—and why was federalism barely discussed during the debates on the Amendment?
His answer points to the rise of national political parties and the nationalization of state elections. As state races increasingly revolved around federal issues, state legislators sought insulation from national political battles. Ironically, by abandoning their constitutional role, states accelerated the very federal dominance they hoped to avoid.
Political parties did not prioritize federalism, leading to a shift where state politics became more nationalized and state interests diminished.
Who now guards state interests?
The resulting effects are evident.
- Federal Supremacy: The federal government now asserts authority over nearly every aspect of state governance, including areas traditionally reserved to state police powers.
- Exploding National Debt: In 1914, federal debt stood at $2.9 billion (about $72 billion in today’s dollars). Today it exceeds $38 trillion—roughly $925,000 per taxpayer.
- Fiscal Dependency: In 1914, federal aid to states was minimal. Today, Washington transfers approximately $1.2 trillion annually to state and local governments through thousands of grant and assistance programs.
These funds represent revenues collected from state residents that are returned only when states meet federal requirements. This relationship involves dependency rather than autonomy for the states.
Corruption was the alleged reason for the Seventeenth Amendment.
Corruption of Senators was the issue that resonated with the public. Yet, from 1787 to 1914 (127 years), only four Senators were indicted. From 1915 to 2026, eight senators were indicted (111 years). While in almost the same number of years, the number of indictments doubled, the remarkable fact is that the Senate has had little corruption.
The fact that individuals spent money in their quest for a Senate seat by lobbying the state legislature to elect them is, by today’s standards, insubstantial. The primary incident of offering bribes to become a Senator involves William A. Clark from Montana. He gave $100,000 to the legislature to choose him. In today’s dollars, that would be $3.9 million. Compared to the cost of seeking a Senate seat today, that amount is small.
In 2024, the average spending in a Senate race is $28.5 million. Many races, however, are much more expensive. The total spent by Brown and Moreno in Ohio was $405 million. Outside groups spent $213 million. In Pennsylvania (Casey vs McCormick), the race cost $289 million. Outside groups spent $214 million. Montana, the home of Hearst’s villain, Senator Clark, cost $261 million, with outside groups spending $156 million.
What Was Gained—and What Was Lost.
Direct election offers symbolic satisfaction but little real influence for average citizens. As the American Legislative Exchange Council observes, individual voters have virtually no ability to meaningfully engage with or influence their Senators.
This reality is confirmed by the landmark study by Martin Gilens and Benjamin Page, which analyzed 1,779 policy outcomes. Their conclusion is blunt: economic elites and organized interests dominate policymaking, while average citizens exert near-zero influence—even when large majorities favor change.
Reversing Course.
In return for giving up state sovereignty and some ability to limit federal power, the citizens of the respective states get to elect individuals to the Senate who greet themselves in the mirror every morning and say, Good morning, Mr. President.
Bad political decisions do not doom a republic. Persisting in them does.
By surrendering their constitutional role in the Senate through the Seventeenth Amendment, states lost their key mechanism to check federal power. This change shifted control to the electorate but provided citizens with limited real influence, resulting in states losing meaningful influence over federal legislation.
It is time to reconsider that trade. Repealing the Seventeenth Amendment would restore the original mechanism through which states exercised a check on federal authority, helping to recover the constitutional balance of power that the Founders intended.
William L. Kovacs served as senior vice president for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and chief counsel to a congressional committee. His books include: Congress: An Irrelevant Institution or Guardian of the Republic which received three-five star editorial reviews, Reform the Kakistocracy, the recipient of the 2021 Independent Press Award for Social/Political Change, and Devolution of Power: Rolling Back the Federal State to Preserve the Republic received five stars from Readers’ Favorite. He can be contacted at wlk@ReformTheKakistocracy.com
