BAD BLUES: Some of the House Democrats Who Deserve to Be 'Primaried'

By Norman Solomon, Sam McCann, Pia Gallegos and Jeff Cohen, RootsAction

25 June 19

 

he following report is by no means exhaustive -- only illustrative. There may well be a Democratic member of Congress near you not included here who serves corporate interests more than majority interests, or has simply grown tired or complacent in the never-ending struggles for social, racial and economic justice as well as environmental sanity and peace. Perhaps you live in a district where voters are ready to be inspired by a progressive primary candidate because the Democrat in Congress is not up to the job.

It isn’t easy to defeat a Democratic incumbent in a primary. Typically, the worse the Congress member, the more (corporate) funding they get. While most insurgent primary campaigns will not win, they’re often very worthwhile -- helping progressive constituencies to get better organized and to win elections later. And a grassroots primary campaign can put a scare into the Democratic incumbent to pay more attention to voters and less to big donors.

__________________________________________

CHERI BUSTOS (IL-17)

Few Democrats in Congress have earned faster or fiercer notoriety among progressives nationwide than Cheri Bustos. Just 10 weeks after becoming chair of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee in early January, she imposed a new policy that blacklists any consultant or vendor who works for a primary challenger against an incumbent House Democrat. Despite withering and ongoing pushback from a wide range of progressive forces, including dozens of chapters of College Democrats and leaders of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, Bustos has been immovable. “We are an incumbent-friendly organization,” Bustos told College Democrats of Illinois leaders who challenged her about the DCCC blacklist at their convention in May.

“Incumbents are being protected, even when their policies are out of step with their constituents,” Our Revolution board member James Zogby wrote. “The Democratic Party is hurting itself with this policy, but more importantly, it is hurting millions of Americans who need radical change right now.” Activists warn that the Bustos blacklist policy will actually undermine party growth, jeopardizing rather than protecting the party’s hold on the House. “This isn’t about keeping a majority, it’s not about Democratic priorities, and it’s not about real representation,” said a statement from Justice Democrats. “It’s about powerful insiders protecting powerful insiders against the true will of the people, no matter what the cost.”

Bustos is in her fourth term representing the sprawling 17th District in northwest Illinois -- a (slightly altered) district that was represented by the late populist Democrat Lane Evans, one of six co-founders of the Congressional Progressive Caucus. Bustos, a member of the corporate-allied New Democrat Coalition, is out of sync with large numbers of progressive constituents. After defeating her GOP opponent by more than 20 points in November 2016 (in a district Donald Trump won by less than 1 percent), Bustos went back to Capitol Hill and voted with President Trump more than one-third of the time in 2017-18, according to FiveThirtyEight’s tally. Whether her record at the DCCC and on the House floor will cause her problems with a progressive primary challenger next year remains to be seen.

__________________________________________

JIM COOPER (TN-5)

With Nashville as its main population center, the 5th Congressional District is something of a progressive oasis in Tennessee; Hillary Clinton topped Trump there by 18 points. Yet voters have been saddled for more than 16 years with Jim Cooper, an old-style GOP-type deficit hawk who supports austerity economics that hurts the vast majority of his constituents.

Cooper, a longtime leader of the almost-Republican “Blue Dog Democrats” and member of their “Budget Taskforce,” is a staunch proponent of “PAYGO,” a conservative policy designed to stop new federal expenditures unless offset by budget cuts or tax increases. PAYGO undermines Congress’ ability to confront major challenges, from funding a jobs-producing Green New Deal to providing universal healthcare -- both of which are broadly popular with voters, especially Democrats. In 2009, when the country was reeling from recession, Cooper was one of just 11 Democrats to vote against the stimulus bill. In 2010, Cooper sponsored the PAYGO bill; he’s the kind of Democrat who helped keep the austerity measure in place this year when Democrats took control of the House.

In 2010, Nashville experienced the sort of disaster that climate change fuels, when the Cumberland River flooded, killing 11 in the Nashville area. Cooper decried the Army Corps of Engineers’ decision not to produce a post-flood report. But for a future safe from ecological catastrophe, government will have to make big infrastructure expenditures, the kind Cooper frowns on. In 2012, Cooper underscored his refusal to spend what it takes to confront warming-intensified disaster when he was the only Democrat to vote against $51 billion in federal relief for areas hit by Hurricane Sandy -- leading to a Daily Kos headline: “Democrat Jim Cooper's Vote Against Sandy Relief Shows, Once Again, Why He Needs to Be Primaried."

Cooper is in no way stingy when it comes to limitless war spending; last year, he supported Trump’s record-breaking $717 billion Pentagon budget. Nor is Cooper a cost-cutter when it comes to federal surveillance; in 2013, he was one of three dozen Democrats on The Atlantic’s list of “Exactly Who to Blame in Congress for Authorizing Government Spying."

As far back as the early 1990s, during an earlier 12-year stint in Congress representing a rural district that did not include Nashville, Cooper fought healthcare reform that might impinge on insurance company profits. In turn, the industry heavily backed his failed US Senate bid in 1994; Cooper tried to make light of his donors: “I thought about only accepting money from Mother Teresa -- but then she's in the healthcare business.”

A primary challenger would have little trouble explaining to voters why Cooper should be retired after 30 years in Congress.

__________________________________________

JIM COSTA (CA-16)

In 2018, Data for Progress found that 64 percent of Democrats support a Green New Deal, reflecting the view that a massive government commitment to fighting climate change is the only way to save the planet -- while providing jobs and economic justice. A Hart research poll pegged support at 83 percent among likely Democratic primary voters. Given these numbers, how can a congressmember in a Democratic district stay in office when plainly doing the bidding of our nation’s largest polluters?

Eight-term Congressman Jim Costa is a fossil from another era. Representing a Latino-majority district in California’s central San Joaquin Valley, Costa has extracted a political career from the pockets of big oil and big agriculture. In 2015, he was one of 28 House Democrats to vote with the GOP to authorize construction of the Keystone XL pipeline. In 2011, he was one of only 19 House Democrats who voted to prohibit the EPA from regulating greenhouse gas emissions. He has a lifetime score of just 49 percent from the League of Conservation Voters -- the third lowest among all Democrats in the House.

Costa’s decision to side with big business over planetary health makes sense when you glance at his campaign coffers. Last election cycle, agribusiness donated $492,047 to Costa and the energy sector chipped in another $174,055. Together, that represents 36 percent of his contributions. He is a member of both corporate-allied Democratic caucuses in Congress -- the New Democrat Coalition and the Blue Dog Coalition. The right-wing Koch Industries PAC made him one of only four Democrats in Congress to receive its funding in the 2018 cycle.

Costa has also been allied with Saudi Arabia in its horrific war in Yemen. Last year, he was one of just five House Democrats to join with Republicans to pass a farm bill that included a provision preventing Congress from blocking Saudi military assistance. “Jim Costa’s Unconscionable Yemen Votes” was the headline of a Sacramento Bee editorial .

__________________________________________

HENRY CUELLAR (TX-28)

Henry Cuellar is in his fifteenth year of representing a south Texas district that’s now two-thirds Hispanic. Yet, mis-representing this thoroughly Democratic district (which went for Clinton over Trump by a margin of 20 percent), Cuellar voted with Trump 68.8 percent of the time in 2017-18 as calculated by FiveThirtyEight -- including on bills weakening the Dodd-Frank Act, privatizing veterans’ healthcare and opposing a carbon tax. No Democrat in Congress had a higher vote-with-Trump score than Cuellar; none had a higher ranking in 2018 from the US Chamber of Commerce.

Although nominally a Democrat, he is close to Texas Republicans like former Governor Rick Perry, now Trump’s Secretary of Energy. Cuellar crossed party lines to endorse George W. Bush for president in 2000. He’s one of the rare Democrats to receive Koch Industries PAC funding, including a donation in 2019.

Roughly 25 percent of Cuellar’s constituents live below the poverty line, and Cuellar often votes to make their lives more difficult. In 2015, for example, he was one of only a dozen Democrats who voted with Republicans to eliminate Obamacare coverage for employees who work 30 to 39 hours a week. Last year, he supported a bill that would result in a $3 wage cut for agricultural guest workers, to $8.34 an hour.

On immigration, Cuellar is also out of touch with a district in which 22 percent of residents are foreign-born (almost all from Latin America). In 2014, Cuellar joined Texas GOP Senator John Cornyn in launching a bill to speed up deportation of unaccompanied minors from Central America, allowing border patrol agents to turn away vulnerable children at the border. (Fox News hailed Cuellar for his “hardline talk” and for being “One of Obama’s Biggest Critics on Border Crisis.”) In 2017, he was one of 11 House Democrats who voted with Republicans to allow the government to deport or detain immigrants “suspected” of gang membership, even if never arrested for any crime.

Cuellar has regularly voted to restrict abortion rights. Both NARAL and Planned Parenthood Action Fund rank him among the worst Democrats on women’s reproductive health.

Cuellar has a lifetime environmental ranking of 42 percent from the League of Conservation Voters, the second-lowest among all Democrats in the House.

While Cuellar’s district includes urban areas like Laredo and part of San Antonio, he votes in line with the NRA, which gave him 93 percent ratings in both 2016 and 2018; he also collects checks from the NRA Political Victory Fund, leading to headlines like this: “Meet the Last NRA Democrat.”

Cuellar's vote-like-a-Republican dance is an old routine. What’s new is that he’s facing a progressive primary challenger -- immigration lawyer Jessica Cisneros, endorsed by Justice Democrats. 

__________________________________________

ELIOT ENGEL (NY-16)

For someone in the Democratic leadership, this 16-term Congressman and chair of the House Foreign Affairs Committee is notable for repeatedly breaking with his own party to support Republican foreign policy positions. In 2003, when most House Democrats refused to authorize an invasion of Iraq, Engel voted for President Bush’s disastrous war. In 2015, he was one of only 25 House Democrats to join Republicans in opposing President Obama’s historic Iran nuclear deal.

Engel’s support for hawkish Republicanism has continued into the Trump era. Engel sided with President-elect Trump’s machinations and against President Obama by castigating Obama for not vetoing a UN resolution (the US abstained) against Israel’s expansion of illegal settlements. He was one of the few House Democrats to applaud Trump’s destabilizing move of the US Embassy to Jerusalem. A defender of strong US-Saudi relations, Engel helped delay a Democratic initiative last year to end US support for the devastating Saudi bombing of Yemen. His ascent to House Foreign Affairs chair was cheered by Republican-aligned hawks, including one who called Obama “a Jew-hating anti-Semite.”

Covering parts of the Bronx and Westchester County, NY-16 is a thoroughly Democratic district where Clinton beat Trump by 75 to 22 percent. The district is now more than 60 percent black, Latino or Asian. It’s 12 percent Jewish, and Engel’s hardline views on Israel (and Iran) are out-of-step with most Jewish Democrats.

Since entering Congress back in 1989 by primarying a Democratic incumbent, Engel hadn’t faced a serious primary challenge himself in two decades. Until now. Two progressives have entered the primary, both highlighting their opposition to Engel’s pro-war record -- special education teacher Andom Ghebreghiorgis and middle school principal Jamaal Bowman, who is endorsed by Justice Democrats, a group that was crucial to Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s 2018 victory.

Congressman Engel has long affiliated with the corporate wing of the party, as part of the New Democrat Coalition and formerly the Democratic Leadership Council. Although liberal on many domestic issues, his militarism and support of ever-higher military budgets subvert the possibilities for an expansive domestic agenda.

Engel, whose district borders that of Ocasio-Cortez, is active in the intraparty battle against progressives who question the foreign policy status quo. When Muslim-American Representative Ilhan Omar challenged the Israel-right-or-wrong lobby, Engel was one of two Democrats who sparked the effort to censure Omar for supposed “anti-Semitism.” A few years earlier, Engel was a featured speaker at a “pro-Israel” rally that also featured infamous right-wing anti-Muslim bigot Pamela Geller. No resolution was proposed to censure Engel.

__________________________________________

JOSH GOTTHEIMER (NJ-5)

Very few House Democrats are more eager to align with the GOP than Josh Gottheimer. During his first two years in Congress, he voted with Trump a whopping 55 percent of the time. Gottheimer cochairs the reach-across-the-aisle Problem Solvers Caucus; his official website says he leads the group “to find areas of agreement” for such goals as “lowering taxes” and “cutting burdensome and unnecessary regulation.” Gottheimer’s generous Wall Street patrons are no doubt gratified.

A former precocious speechwriter for President Bill Clinton at age 23, he has won acclaim from corporate leaders for his congressional efforts. Last year, the US Chamber of Commerce gave Gottheimer its “Spirit of Enterprise Award” -- which, his office noted, made him “one of only 13 Democrats in the House” to receive the plaudit. Gottheimer quickly returned the compliment, declaring that the anti-union and anti-environmental Chamber “has been a voice for economic growth and a champion for opportunity and prosperity for Americans and businesses of all sizes.”

Gottheimer “has deep ties to the lobbies for Saudi Arabia and Israel,” The Intercept’s Ryan Grim reported in May -- and deep hostility toward the two progressive Muslims who became colleagues this year, Congresswomen Rashida Tlaib and Ilhan Omar. After meeting with him, Tlaib recalled: “He was using a very stern tone, like a father to a child. At that moment, I realized he’s a bully. He had a goal of breaking me down.”

As the first Palestinian-American in Congress and a strong advocate for the human rights of Palestinian people, Tlaib has been a logical target for Gottheimer, who has few equals as an Israel-can-do-no-wrong lawmaker. Overall, Grim describes him as a centrist “willing to take the fight directly to the squad of freshmen trying to push the party in a progressive direction.”

In 2016, Gottheimer flipped a longtime GOP district in northern New Jersey. Since then -- on a range of issues including the US-backed Saudi war on Yemen and predatory banking practices -- he has maneuvered to undermine efforts by progressive Democrats in the House. A prodigious big-check fundraiser, he entered this year’s second quarter with almost $5 million in his campaign coffers.

__________________________________________

JIM HIMES (CT-4)

“Wall Street’s Favorite Democrat.” That’s how a Bloomberg profile described Jim Himes in 2011, with a subtitle: “Jim Himes works to dial back laws that get in the big banks’ way.” During his decade in Congress, the Connecticut congressman has done much to win Wall Street’s favor.

Himes hails from Goldman Sachs, where he worked in its Latin America division and eventually became a vice president. His ties to finance run deep: in 2008, while the industry pillaged low-income and middle-class homes, bankers made sure to steer funding to their ex-colleague’s congressional campaign. That election cycle, Himes raised $500,000 from the finance sector, including $150,000 from his old cohorts at Goldman Sachs.

That’s proven to be a sound investment. Upon arriving in Washington in 2009, Himes promptly joined the aggressively pro-business, light-regulation New Democrat Coalition, where he served on its “Financial Services Task Force.” Himes remains Chair Emeritus of the NDC.

During the Obama years, Himes worked to undermine the mild regulations that Democrats implemented in the wake of the financial crisis. In 2013, just three years after Congress managed to pass the Dodd-Frank Act, Himes cosponsored legislation to undercut one of its key elements, a provision separating federal insurance from risky swap trades. The Treasury Department opposed the change pushed by Himes and Republican colleagues. The New York Times exposed that two key paragraphs of the bill were literally written by Citigroup, at a time when Himes -- then the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee’s finance chair -- received more Citigroup funding than any other member of Congress.

Mercifully, that bill died in the Senate. But Himes had more allies when he took his next big swing at financial regulations in 2018, with Trump in the White House and a Republican-controlled Congress. This time, Himes was one of 33 House Democrats who joined Trump’s GOP in loosening a host of regulations that included “reporting requirements used to counter racial discrimination in lending practices.”

Connecticut’s 4th district -- largely middle class in the southwestern corner of the state -- is strongly Democratic and unfriendly to Trump collaboration. Clinton won the district by 23 points in 2016. A savvy challenger could spotlight Himes’ subservience to corporate interests and the 29 percent of the time that he voted in line with Trump’s positions in 2017-18.

__________________________________________

STENY HOYER (MD-5)

Consummate power broker Steny Hoyer has long served as the number-two Democrat in the House, often using leverage for policy agendas that are unpopular with the party’s base but popular with Wall Street and the military-industrial complex. In late 2002, he was among the minority of House Democrats voting to authorize war on Iraq. In 2008, he angered civil-liberties advocates when he helped draft a “compromise bill” with Republicans that expanded government surveillance power and immunized telecom firms for privacy abuses. (Senator Russ Feingold called it “a capitulation.”) In 2012, he urged a “grand bargain” budget deal that would cut entitlement programs.

Hoyer’s prodigious corporate services haven’t flagged. These days, he’s busy obstructing progressive initiatives from Medicare for All to a Green New Deal. (Only 15 House Democrats have a lower lifetime environmental score from the League of Conservation Voters.)

And Hoyer’s heavy hand extends well beyond Capitol Hill. Last year, as heard on secretly recorded audio, he overtly pressured a progressive candidate to bow out of a Denver-area congressional primary in deference to an opponent anointed by party leaders.

At age 80, Hoyer represents a southern Maryland district that is two-fifths people of color. For nearly four decades, he has routinely coasted to re-election while lavishly funded by corporate interests. Next year he’ll face at least one primary challenger.

Mckayla Wilkes could hardly be more different than Hoyer. She’s young, black, working-class, a single mother, formerly incarcerated -- and committed to thoroughly progressive policies. Hoyer “has no idea what everyday District 5 folks face with excruciating commutes, lack of affordable housing, exorbitant healthcare costs and underfunded public schools,” Wilkes told us.

Wilkes faults Hoyer for “not supporting Medicare for All” and “not supporting the Green New Deal” -- “we are represented by a climate delayer who refuses to support meaningful action.” She adds: “His contributions alone tell us what we need to know: he privileges the wealthy and corporations over the regular people in his district. His largest donors include defense contractors, pharmaceutical companies and the fossil fuel industry.”

__________________________________________

DEREK KILMER (WA-6)

Now representing a Democratic, largely working-class district that includes the Olympic Peninsula and most of Tacoma, 45-year-old Derek Kilmer has been an elected lawmaker for most of his adult life. Currently in his seventh year in Congress after eight years in Washington’s state legislature, Kilmer chairs the corporate-friendly New Democrat Coalition.

Kilmer’s rise in power is appreciated by the US Chamber of Commerce. The anti-union, anti-environment group honored him in April with its annual “Spirit of Enterprise Award,” praising his “pro-growth” policies. The Chamber’s assessment of 2018 voting records ranked only a dozen House Democrats higher. Impressing corporate interests is not new for Kilmer; when in the Washington state senate, he was one of only three Democrats opposing labor on a key bill affecting unions’ ability to support political campaigns.

Kilmer’s increased clout on Capitol Hill means that he has more leverage against the interests of many constituents in a district where the median household income is scarcely $63,000. Meanwhile, the congressman gets plenty of corporate money. During the last term, Kilmer -- who sits on the powerful House Appropriations Committee -- received nearly a quarter of a million dollars combined from the casinos/gambling and securities/investment industries. The military and tech sectors also contributed; Northrop Grumman and Microsoft each chipped in more than $30,000. His campaign and PAC ended last year with more than $3 million cash on hand.

In three races as an incumbent, Congressman Kilmer never finished less than 23 percent ahead of his Republican opponent. He has yet to face a serious challenge from another Democrat. But that might be about to change.

In early June, a progressive city councilman in Bainbridge announced an exploratory committee to run against Kilmer -- and lost no time drawing sharp distinctions. “We will not accept any donations from corporate PACs, trade associations or fossil fuel companies,” Democrat Matthew Tirman declared on his website. Tirman’s positions include support for a Green New Deal, Medicare for All and a $15-an-hour national minimum wage, as well as a commitment to “close corporate tax loopholes and ensure that the wealthiest among us pay their fair share.” He told a local newspaper: “We need to define what it means to be a Democrat and what it means to be an establishment, corporate Democrat.”

__________________________________________

DAN LIPINSKI (IL-3)

It took a while for Speaker Nancy Pelosi to notice that "Trump is goading us to impeach him," but activists in Illinois’ heavily-Democratic 3rd Congressional District have long known that their Democrat-in-name-only representative, Dan Lipinski, keeps goading us to primary him.

In the 2018 primary, Lipinski narrowly defeated (by 2,145 votes, 51 to 49 percent) liberal challenger Marie Newman. Yet Lipinski remains mostly conservative. In January, he spoke at the anti-choice March for Life in Washington, D.C.; he cochairs the Congressional Pro-Life Caucus. He is the only Democrat in Congress who refused to co-sponsor the Equality Act, the LGBTQ civil rights legislation introduced in March. (After pressure, he voted for the bill.)

A leading member of the “fiscally conservative” Blue Dog Coalition, the eight-term congressman is not generous toward working-class needs (he voted against Obamacare), but he’s lavish in supporting military spending and domestic surveillance. He was one of a few dozen Democrats who voted against the 2010 Dream Act.

The district in southwest Chicago and outlying suburbs is so overwhelmingly Democratic that Republicans hardly contest it (the only person willing to run as a Republican last year was an avowed neo-Nazi). In 2016, Clinton beat Trump in the district 55 to 40 percent, after Bernie Sanders had bested Clinton in the primary by a nine-point margin.

Lipinski was smuggled into his congressional seat by his dad Bill Lipinski, a conservative Democrat (now a DC lobbyist) and 11-term Congress member who won the Democratic primary for a twelfth term in 2004 and then stepped aside after finagling to have his son replace him on the November ballot.

Marie Newman is running again to end the four-decades-long Lipinski dynasty, backed by a solid coalition that includes MoveOn, Democracy for America and pro-choice groups. (Although Newman reportedly supported Sanders in 2016, she endorsed Kirsten Gillibrand for 2020.) One complicating factor is the blacklisting efforts of DCCC chair Cheri Bustos that could undermine Newman’s challenge. Another factor is a second Democrat running as a progressive alternative to Lipinski.

__________________________________________

GREGORY MEEKS (NY-5)

After Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez stunned Queens Democratic machine boss Joe Crowley -- who left Congress and became a corporate lobbyist -- the machine needed a new boss. So establishment Democrats in the borough turned to 12-term congressman Gregory Meeks, who became the Queens party chair without opposition, backroom-style, at a meeting not publicly announced. Meeks has a long history of serving wealthy interests and his own, not the middle-class and working-class residents of one of the most diverse counties in the nation.

Meeks’ corruption problems are an open secret. The watchdog organization Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington has repeatedly chosen Meeks as among the most corrupt inside the Beltway, calling him one of three who “really stand out.” Meeks bought a million-dollar-plus home built for him by a campaign contributor, paying far less than its value. He founded a nonprofit that collected $31,000 in Hurricane Katrina relief but paid out only $1,392. He traveled to the Caribbean at least six times on the dime of a convicted Ponzi schemer (who also donated to Meeks’ campaign).

Meeks serves on the House Financial Services Committee and has received millions over the years in finance-sector donations, including almost half a million dollars during the last cycle. His preference for Wall Street over Main Street has prompted strong denunciations from labor. When the 2007-8 financial crisis hit and devastated homeowners of color, he would not support a moratorium on foreclosures being urged by unions and the NAACP. Meeks has recently taken a lead role in opposing legislation backed by many Democrats, including New York Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, to tax financial transactions. Unlike most House Democrats, Meeks aggressively supported the corporate-friendly Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal.

Back in Queens, undeterred by opposition from local activists and officials, Meeks championed the plan to grant tax breaks to Amazon (a trillion-dollar corporation run by perhaps the world’s richest person) to induce its move to Queens in a deal that would have displaced working-class residents.

In a borough that offered grassroots support to the strong insurgent campaigns of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez for Congress in 2018 and Tiffany Cabán for Queens District Attorney this year, experienced activists could fuel a challenge to Meeks. A former AOC campaign staffer, Shaniyat Chowdhury, has announced his candidacy.

__________________________________________

BRAD SCHNEIDER (IL-10)

“Brad’s been named one of the most bipartisan members of Congress because he’s interested in solving problems,” Schneider’s campaign website declares. A big problem he seems interested in solving is how to impress middle-class constituents without fighting for their economic interests. Instead of backing such proposals as Medicare for All and tuition-free public college, Schneider prefers to talk vaguely about “affordable” healthcare and “affordable” college.

Schneider told the Chicago Sun-Times last fall that “working across the aisle to find common ground . . . has always been a priority for me.” He found common ground with President Trump about one-third of the time in 2017-18, voting with the White House on such matters as chipping away at Dodd-Frank Act regulations on banks, boosting military budgets and reauthorizing warrantless domestic surveillance along with other violations of civil liberties.

As a member of the GOP-friendly Blue Dog Coalition, Schneider signed a letter in June decrying budget deficits and calling on House Democratic leaders to “abide by PAYGO” -- the rule requiring that new federal spending be offset by new taxes or budget cuts. His fiscal conservatism doesn’t prevent him from supporting Trump’s engorged military budgets.

Schneider is also a leader of the corporate-centrist New Democrat Coalition, where he cochairs its National Security Task Force -- with a decidedly hawkish approach to the Middle East. Very few in Congress are more avid supporters of AIPAC and whatever actions Israel takes. Schneider gained some prominence this spring as the lead sponsor of House Resolution 246, which aims to stigmatize boycotts as anti-Semitic when they target Israel’s violations of Palestinian rights; the free-speech-violating bill gained more than half of the House as cosponsors.

After one House term, Schneider lost his seat representing Chicago’s northern suburbs to a GOP challenger in a close 2014 election. It was a notable loss in a blue district, where Schneider’s “Republican-lite voting record . . . discouraged Democratic base voters” from turning out in that midterm election, says political analyst Howie Klein. (While out of office, Schneider was a vocal opponent of the 2015 Iran nuclear deal negotiated by the Obama administration.) Schneider regained the seat in 2016 by a 5 percent margin, while Clinton bested Trump in the district by nearly 30 points. Last year, Schneider captured almost two-thirds of the vote against his Republican opponent.

As an incumbent, Schneider has yet to face a primary challenge. Given the contrast between his avowedly “moderate” record and the leanings of many Democrats in his district (where roughly 45 percent voted for Sanders against Clinton), there could be an opening for a progressive in the March 2020 primary.

__________________________________________

KURT SCHRADER (OR-5)

Since getting to Congress a decade ago, “moderate” Democrat Kurt Schrader has defeated Republican opponents by comfortable margins that grew to double digits. As for primary challenges, the closest one fell short by more than 40 percent. But 2020 could be quite different. Schrader’s slightly blue district -- which includes much of the Willamette Valley and the Oregon coast -- will see a primary contest pitting the incumbent against a self-described progressive with an electoral toehold on the southern outskirts of Portland.

Mark Gamba, now in his fifth year as the mayor of Milwaukee (pop. 20,000), is running to replace Schrader. “He likes to pretend that he’s reaching across the aisle to get things done,” Gamba told us, “but it almost always goes back to the corporations that back him financially.” Schrader, a longtime member of the Blue Dog Coalition, gets a lot of money from corporate interests, including from the Koch Industries PAC. Last year, only one House Democrat was ranked higher on “key issues” by the US Chamber of Commerce. During 2017 and 2018, one-third of Schrader’s House votes were aligned with Trump. And like Trump, he’s not a defender of young Dreamers who have grown up undocumented in this country; he was one of a few dozen House Democrats to oppose the 2010 Dream Act.

Gamba intends to make climate a central issue of the campaign to unseat Schrader -- who, he says, “has been notably absent on any substantive climate policy.” A professional photographer who often went on assignment for National Geographic, Gamba advocates for “a Green New Deal or some other powerful response to climate change which is broad-reaching, deep and meaningful.” (Only four House Democrats have a lower lifetime environmental score than Schrader.) Gamba also supports Medicare for All, while his opponent “is quietly but actively opposing Medicare for All or any law that actually cuts into the profits of the pharmaceutical and insurance industries.”

Some of Gamba’s other campaign priorities include “beginning to rectify the vast and growing income inequity by increasing the taxes on the rich including capital gains; protecting the unions which have been slowly and purposefully eroded; beginning to slow the spending on the military-industrial complex; dramatically increase funding for education: pre-K through college.” If all that sounds like a certain political revolution, it’s no coincidence. “I endorsed and campaigned for Bernie Sanders in the 2016 primary,” Gamba recalls. In that primary, Sanders came out well ahead of Clinton in the district Gamba hopes to represent in Congress.

__________________________________________

DAVID SCOTT (GA-13)

After sixteen years as one of the most conservative African-American Democrats in Congress, David Scott is facing a primary fight in a deep blue district that includes southwest Atlanta and neighboring suburbs, where Clinton beat Trump by nearly 3-to-1. The challenge is coming from a former chair of the Democratic Party in populous Cobb County, Michael Owens, who launched his uphill campaign in May while signaling that he’ll make Scott’s big-business entanglements a central issue in the race.

“Owens said Scott, a member of the House Financial Services Committee, has gotten too cozy with the payday lending industry and other corporate interests,” the Atlanta Journal-Constitution reported. “He singled out Scott’s vote last year in favor of rolling back portions of the Dodd-Frank financial regulatory overhaul.” During the last election cycle, Scott’s campaign and PAC raised $318,750 from securities, investment and commercial-banking interests. Just seven Democrats in Congress earned a higher ranking last year from the corporatist US Chamber of Commerce, which placed Scott above almost 100 Republicans.

Seeking to oust the incumbent in a district that is 70 percent people of color, the Owens campaign aims to bring political issues home. Says Owens: “I want to make sure that we stop allowing and supporting policies that are directly attacking our black and brown communities.”

A member of both corporate-allied caucuses of Democrats -- the Blue Dog and New Democrat coalitions -- Scott is fond of reaching across the aisle, to the point of publicly backing GOP incumbents for re-election. He has sided with Republicans on some key issues. Scott supported the Keystone XL pipeline, and more recently voted against environmental protection on clean water standards, nuclear storage and pesticides pollution. Only 18 Democrats in the House have a lower lifetime environmental score.

Scott’s approach to foreign policy tends to be hawkish. He opposed the Iran nuclear deal in 2015, and last December he was one of just five House Democrats to vote for continuing arms sales to Saudi Arabia and supporting the Saudi war on Yemen.

__________________________________________

JUAN VARGAS (CA-51)

Juan Vargas represents an overwhelmingly Latino and Democratic district (where Clinton beat Trump by a 50-point margin) that includes California’s entire US-Mexico border. Since being elected to the House in 2012, he has become known for one pet issue, far from uppermost in the minds of his largely working-class constituents: defending Israel no matter what.

Unlike most Jewish Democrats, who are often willing to question the actions of Israel, Vargas says it’s wrong to do so. (His district is estimated to be less than 1 percent Jewish.) When Congresswoman Ilhan Omar was under attack earlier this year, Vargas -- who sits on the House Foreign Affairs Committee with Omar -- injected himself into the controversy by tweeting that “questioning support for US-Israel relationship is unacceptable.”

In January 2017, Vargas criticized President Obama -- and sided with President-elect Trump -- when the Obama administration refused to veto a UN resolution against Israel’s expansion of illegal settlements. Israeli expansion does not seem to bother him, as evidenced by a bizarre quip made last November to the San Diego Jewish World : “Vargas says he has absolutely no objection if Israel is made to return to its 67 borders -- just so long as the people demanding it are talking about the year 67, not the year 1967.” Vargas was quoted: “If you want to go back to 67, that will probably take in Lebanon, parts of Syria, Jordan and some portions of Egypt.”

In 2015, Vargas was one of the 25 House Democrats to join all Republicans in opposing President Obama’s landmark nuclear agreement with Iran; like other pro-Israel hardliners, he remains against the Iran deal in the Trump era. He was one of the few Democrats who repeatedly undermined Obama’s diplomacy by joining Republican efforts to sanction Iran.

Vargas joined with a Republican in early 2015 as lead co-sponsor of a trade bill -- drafted by the Israel-right-or-wrong AIPAC lobby -- aimed at countering the Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions (BDS) movement against Israel. That same year, Vargas tried (unsuccessfully) to stop a lecture at Mt. San Jacinto College by an Israeli critic of Israel, author Miko Peled, sponsored by the campus Amnesty International Club.

Vargas can be liberal on domestic US issues. But while the Congressional Progressive Caucus includes 50 House members of color (half of its total), Vargas instead is in the corporate-allied New Democrat Coalition. Last year, he did not join the dozens of progressives who voted against Trump’s swollen military budget that diverts vital resources from human needs. In the last election cycle, a hefty $337,500 -- half of his PAC donations -- came from the “FIRE” sector (finance, insurance, real estate).

A progressive challenger focused on constituent concerns might thrive in a primary against Vargas.

_____________________________________

Norman Solomon is the author of War Made Easy and the national coordinator of RootsAction.org.

Sam McCann is a writer and researcher whose recent projects include Michael Moore’s Fahrenheit 11/9 .

Pia Gallegos is communications chair of the Adelante Progressive Caucus, Democratic Party of New Mexico, a member of the state party’s Rules Committee and a civil rights attorney.

Jeff Cohen is the founder of the media watch group FAIR and co-founder of RootsAction.org.

Donald Trump and the Politically Weaponized Executive Branch

By Bob Bauer, Lawfare

25 June 19

 

here is no reason to doubt that in seeking reelection, President Trump will consider once more breaking or skirting laws or ethical limits to win. He has already proclaimed a willingness to accept campaign support from a foreign government, retreating only somewhat under public pressure. He rejected an official recommendation that senior aide Kellyanne Conway be dismissed for serial violations of the legal limits on political activity by federal government employees under the Hatch Act. He has repeatedly suggested that the Department of Justice prosecute his political opponents. And to read about the way Trump conducted his business affairs is to appreciate that he will likely run his campaign no differently—with a “whatever it takes” mentality, disdainful of legal and moral constraints.

It may be tempting to imagine that Trump, and Trump alone, is the source of the problem—that once he’s gone, the problem will go with him. But in his unapologetic embrace of a politicized executive branch, he is feeding off, while also aggressively building on, a feature of the powerful modern presidency: presidents’ use of executive branch powers and resources for partisan political purposes, particularly the waging of their reelection campaigns.

Presidents have long attempted to exploit to the fullest the political advantages of incumbency. At the same time, there are legal limits and associated norms that function to keep the federal government from operating as an arm of the executive’s campaign organization and party. But Donald Trump, never keen on limits, has begun to challenge them frontally, unlike any president before him.

There are three predominant sources for the politically weaponized executive branch, all of which arise out of the structure of American politics and the centrality and power of the presidency.

First, the institutional party system is weak and presidents do not depend on their national and state parties to run their campaigns. Instead, their own reelection committees carry the weight of the organizational effort and the parties become annexes to the president’s own campaign apparatus. But all that these organizations plan for and do remains subject to discussion with and approval from 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. As a result, it is only through the White House’s central involvement that the campaign can achieve the necessary coordination with the principal’s wishes and the president can control his or her own campaign.

Second, in a highly fractured media environment, the White House has a peerless advantage in breaking through the noise. It can “drive” the message in a way that parties and reelection committees cannot. The chair of a campaign or of the Republican National Committee cannot command attention in the way that the president or the White House communications staff can. This has long been true, but in the absence of a dominant “mainstream” media, and with round-the-clock digital campaign coverage, the president who takes advantage of his or her perch in the White House can achieve exceptional control of the headlines and shape campaign coverage.

Third, in competitive elections, no candidate or party fails to seize every possible advantage in the search and effective deployment of resources. The executive branch can support the campaign in numerous ways irresistible to the president-as-candidate. Rulemakings of considerable constituency interest can be launched—or abandoned. Discretionary grants of federal funds can be targeted to key voter targets or states. The president can trumpet new legislative proposals to Congress, or showcase global leadership with unilateral foreign policy or trade initiatives. All of this is familiar in the strategies and practices of past administrations. As long ago as the Carter presidency, complaints were brought unsuccessfully to the courts about the strategic use of federal power for campaign purposes.

Politics is politics: It “ain’t beanbag.” The political use of incumbency is common to all modern presidencies. There have remained limits, transgressed most notoriously in the Nixon era. But because Richard Nixon and his associates took their improper electioneering to an extreme—no one would defend burglaries as “politics as usual”—it was possible to believe that Watergate was the product of a particular pathology, to dismiss it as extraordinary and to discount or ignore other factors that might lead future presidents seeking reelection to accelerate down the same path.

It did not take long for this belief to be proved false. First Jimmy Carter and then Ronald Reagan set up a special and specifically designated political office within the White House to assist with campaign planning, among other tasks. Funded by the White House budget, it was first named the Office of Political Affairs and Personnel. Later, in the Reagan administration, it became the White House Office of Political Affairs (OPA). The campaign politics of the presidency had come to be institutionalized.

The question presented by more overt White House partisan political activity was never whether the president and his staff breached a duty or expectation by failing to steer entirely clear of partisan politics. It has been widely understood that, as a practical matter, the president as leader of his party—and often a candidate for reelection—is a political figure and neither can nor should leave the White House and cross the street to private office space to conduct campaign activity or planning. But the president cannot entirely dispense with senior staff support for this activity. The issue is how far this staff support extends down the chain and throughout the executive branch, and with how much latitude staff are able to draw on taxpayer resources and official influence for this purpose.

The story of the OPA is one more episode in the ongoing struggle over this issue, and it brings to light the significance of what is playing out in the Trump administration.

On a fairly limited level, the challenge presented by an OPA—or by any other White House political activity—is enabling presidents to engage with their campaign and party while avoiding any direct, more than de minimis commitment of government resources for this purpose. Presidents have room under the rules to receive, to comment on and direct campaign or party programs and planning, and to communicate and coordinate effectively with political allies. An OPA could, for example, maintain regular contact with party organizations and political allies to ensure consistency of messaging in the course of a reelection campaign or midterm congressional election. But the executive branch cannot be an affiliate of the campaign, defraying with taxpayer dollars expenses that the president’s reelection committee or the party should bear. This is a misuse of funds appropriated for official purposes, and federal law prohibits it.

For example, the White House cannot provide office space for campaign aides on the reelection committee or party payroll. No staff can solicit campaign contributions on federal property or with government equipment or the assistance of government-paid support personnel. Parties and candidates have to reimburse the government for any campaign travel by the president or the vice president, on Air Force One or Two, on their behalf. During Bill Clinton’s 1996 reelection campaign, for example, questions were raised about the Clinton campaign’s alleged use of White House facilities, such as the Lincoln Bedroom, to support its fundraising program, and congressional Republicans pursued that issue after the election as part of a broader investigation into the financing of Clinton’s 1996 campaign.

Another danger, overlapping with the first, is the abuse of official power to achieve political advantage. The Hatch Act was designed in part to prevent government officials from pressuring those in federal service to contribute campaign funds or otherwise support the political aims of the party in power. The law prohibits the abuse of “official authority or influence for the purpose of interfering with or affecting the result of an election.” For the most part, partisan activity in the executive branch is permissible only off premises and outside normal hours, and those engaging in it (other than the president and vice president, who are exempt) are barred from using their titles or government positions to convert what they may do in a personal capacity into the impression of a campaign initiative that is government approved or sponsored.

The law carves out an exception for the time committed to campaign matters by senior White House staff and Senate-confirmed cabinet and other officials. On the theory that their jobs require them to be “on duty” at all times and wherever they happen to be, they are provided with more of an accommodation for politics in the workplace. They may conduct politics in official space and during regular working hours so long as any identifiable use of government resources is reimbursed. Reimbursement from a private source is required only for increases in the cost to the government over and above “any costs that the Government would have or have incurred regardless of whether the activity was political.”

In 2011, the Office of Special Counsel (OSC), an independent agency charged with the enforcement of the Hatch Act, issued a report finding pervasive violations associated with the OPA’s activities in the George W. Bush administration. The OPA had conducted extensive briefs of executive branch agency officials on the status of the 2006 midterm elections, urged their “volunteer” support for the Republican campaign effort, and coordinated the travel of administration officials to states and congressional districts to support Republican candidates in competitive races. In some cases, the OPA was acting as a clearinghouse for requests from campaigns for administration “surrogate” support at clearly political events. In other cases, the travel was for supposedly “official” purposes, but the objective was to target these appearances and actions for maximum election-year benefit.

The OSC concluded that the “OPA has come to represent the centralization of electoral politics in the White House”: In 2006, it was nothing less than a “partisan political organization.” The OSC found that most of the OPA staff and virtually all of the agency officials did not qualify for the exemption from the rule prohibiting political activity on premises and during regular business hours.

This was in certain respects a restrictive reading of what the Hatch Act allowed. Some of what the OPA did in the Bush administration was not unique to that presidency, and not all lawyers familiar with the Hatch Act had previously read the rules the same way. I was White House counsel at the time and among the lawyers who took note of what seemed a new direction in the OSC’s interpretation of the rules. But there was no question that the OSC’s position was the last word on the subject and established a requirement for Hatch Act compliance.

In any event, shortly before the OSC’s issuance of the report, the Obama administration had announced the closing of the OPA as the 2012 reelection campaign was launched and headquartered in Chicago. Three years later, in 2014, the administration created a new Office of Political and Strategic Affairs but defined its function more narrowly as a channel of information to the president on political matters. Administration spokespersons announced that the new office would not have an operational role in supporting the administration’s strictly political projects.

Now the Trump administration is taking the very different course of mounting a frontal challenge to OSC interpretation and enforcement of Hatch Act limits. In the wake of the OSC’s recommendation for Kellyanne Conway’s dismissal, the White House counsel attacked the OSC on the primary jurisdictional issue of whether that office may promulgate rules or guidance at all. It has further taken direct issue with the OSC’s interpretation of when an official like Conway is expressing a constitutionally protected personal opinion or when that official is engaged in impermissible electioneering in her official capacity. The details for present purposes do not matter. What is striking is the Trump administration’s choice to undermine the capacity of the OSC to address apparent Hatch Act violations in the future or even to clarify the law’s requirements.

The same president who has questioned why he cannot direct the law enforcement judgments of the Justice Department was most unlikely to accept the strictures that the OSC sought to impose. The Hatch Act is an obstacle to the efficient conduct of a full-scale White House-directed political campaign. So are the norms of Justice Department independence and distance from partisan politics that the president has questioned. Prior administrations facing these limits have felt compelled to acknowledge them, even when there have been disagreements about their application. The Obama administration adjusted to the OSC’s more stringent reading of the rules. In 2007, the Bush administration denied charges that it had dismissed U.S. attorneys unwilling to use their power to advance partisan political projects, but, critically, it did not dispute that any such motivation would have been wrong. Trump, by contrast, seems intent on defending pervasive partisanship in the operation of the executive branch.

Even when Trump is forced to cede some ground to these rules and norms, his acknowledgment is grudging and highly qualified, and it seems unrealistic to read too much into it. He backtracked somewhat on his announcement that he would accept political opposition research from a foreign government and not report the contact to the FBI. But he suggested that he would still review the information to determine if it was “incorrect,” and he said nothing about refraining from using it in his campaign.

In this respect, Trump may have been sending a message—intentionally or unintentionally—to those in Moscow and other foreign capitals who are potentially ready if not eager to help him in his reelection campaign. The danger here is potentially starker than in the 2016 presidential campaign, when Trump was just a candidate and his prospects for success were widely underestimated. Foreign powers must deal with the president and do so regularly, and the incentive for them to help him in his campaign—and the levers a president possesses to extract this information—is considerably greater than in the case of a long-shot, nonincumbent candidate. Moreover, Trump may be emboldened to seek or accept help from this direction by Robert Mueller’s decision to decline to find campaign finance violations arising out the Trump campaign’s active solicitation of support from the Russian government. While Trump and his campaign associates would have to know that, after 2016 and the Mueller investigation, they will face closer scrutiny of any such political ties to foreign interests, the legal risks they are prepared to take may simply turn on how much value they attach to the information they think they can get.

No small part of the dangers of these developments can be chalked up to the immorality and disregard for law that characterizes this presidency. But the steady concentration of power in the presidency, and the president’s singular role within a weak institutional party system, invites this abuse. It is inevitable that each president has to judge how far he or she will push the legal and ethical limits in putting the power of incumbency and the resources of the federal government to partisan political use.

Donald Trump is evidently prepared to go far and push hard. He is now working to legitimate, by effectively legalizing and normalizing, the weakening of these constraints. He may be dismantling these guardrails and undermining norms only in his own interest, but presidents who follow him may appreciate and take advantage of the opportunities he has afforded them.