I'm sure there is. They look at the effects on their power, pocketbook and re-electability. In the case of campaign finance they liked the job security it provided, that it polled well and it was believed the Supreme Court would do their job for them. W believed this also and the joke was on us.

>Isn't there a group in Congress that studies the effects of laws before they are signed off on? Is that only in England?
>
>
>>A television ad in which the speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, and a former speaker, Newt Gingrich, warn about the dangers of climate change may violate federal election law, according to two campaign finance lawyers.
>>
>>Lawyers said the rules apply, regardless of whether the ads are intended to aid the campaign. “The reformers including Speaker Pelosi insisted on this blanket prohibition,” Mr. Baran said. “Well-meaning ads still violate the statute.”
>>
>>“Pelosi has been a big cheerleader of all of this,” Mr. Bopp added. “I’ve been arguing that these rules were going to entangle a member of Congress when they’re simply doing their job working with a nonprofit group. Well, here it is.”
>>
>>Mr. Gore’s group and Ms. Pelosi may soon find themselves adopting arguments conservatives have long made against the federal rules. “The only defense has got to be that it’s unconstitutional,” Mr. Baran said.
>>
>>http://nysun.com/news/national/lawyers-say-ad-featuring-pelosi-may-violate-election-law
>>
>>Hopefully this will lead to the reversal of the incumbent-friendly anti-speech campaign finance laws. I won't hold my breath.