[81alum]

The salary for most members of congress is 174k.  I would be surprised if members of congress were unable to earn similar or better compensation in the private sector.  The ones who are lawyers could easily hang a shingle and make decent money.  The nationwide median compensation for lawyers is not so far from 174k, and most of those people have no book of business.  Members of Congress have a big enough profile that they could easily generate 20 hours per week of billable time.  Even working half time at modest hourly rates, and after paying the limited expenses for a solo shop, they still would net more than the congressional salary.  They could be their own boss and wouldn't need to travel much for work.  

In sum, I think most members of congress are there because they want to be, not for the paycheck.  That seems strange to me because politics are so toxic these days.  And, in fact, there are some members of Congress who have retired recently because the job sucks.  But the ones who are left probably want to stay because they like the job.  Again, weird to me, but likely true.

Having worked on the Hill for a Senator, I can say that in those days (long ago) your analysis would have been correct.  It still may be.  Most people who run for Congress do so for good motives.  People like Santos are rare.  And nearly all members could have far more lucrative careers if they were not in Congress.  They don't start out as self-interested.

But the motives for getting to Congress supply the ends, and the system of campaigns and policy making supply the means, and the means rapidly grow to dominate the lives of members of Congress.  The ends must be temporarily put aside, and sometimes they are altogether forgotten.

The classic analysis of this phenomenon is now very old, but is still very much worth reading:

https://politicalscience.yale.edu/public...connection

[81alum]

The salary for most members of congress is 174k.  I would be surprised if members of congress were unable to earn similar or better compensation in the private sector.  The ones who are lawyers could easily hang a shingle and make decent money.  The nationwide median compensation for lawyers is not so far from 174k, and most of those people have no book of business.  Members of Congress have a big enough profile that they could easily generate 20 hours per week of billable time.  Even working half time at modest hourly rates, and after paying the limited expenses for a solo shop, they still would net more than the congressional salary.  They could be their own boss and wouldn't need to travel much for work.  

In sum, I think most members of congress are there because they want to be, not for the paycheck.  That seems strange to me because politics are so toxic these days.  And, in fact, there are some members of Congress who have retired recently because the job sucks.  But the ones who are left probably want to stay because they like the job.  Again, weird to me, but likely true.

Having worked on the Hill for a Senator, I can say that in those days (long ago) your analysis would have been correct.  It still may be.  Most people who run for Congress do so for good motives.  People like Santos are rare.  And nearly all members could have far more lucrative careers if they were not in Congress.  They don't start out as self-interested.

But the motives for getting to Congress supply the ends, and the system of campaigns and policy making supply the means, and the means rapidly grow to dominate the lives of members of Congress.  The ends must be temporarily put aside, and sometimes they are altogether forgotten.

The classic analysis of this phenomenon is now very old, but is still very much worth reading:

https://politicalscience.yale.edu/public...connection