Democrats Courting ‘Gold Standard’ to Unseat Young in Iowa

Democrats may be getting a candidate in Iowa’s only tossup congressional election — just not the one they’re ready for.

Iraq war veteran Jim Mowrer told CQ Roll Call on Friday that he’s “very seriously considering” challenging freshman Rep. David Young in the 3rd District and that he’s going to make a decision and an announcement “very soon.” Democrats in Iowa confirmed that he’s expected to announce his candidacy as early as next week.

If Mowrer’s name sounds familiar it’s because he ran in 2014 — in the 4th District, where despite impressive fundraising he lost to seven-term Rep. Steve King by 23 points.

Democrats aren’t altogether unhappy with Mowrer.

“There’s a lot of goodwill toward him for taking on King,” one Democrat with extensive knowledge of Iowa politics said.

Mowrer ran in the 4th District in 2014. (Tom Williams/CQ Roll Call File Photo)

It’s just that Democrats think they’ve got stronger potential candidates who some of them think should have right of first refusal.

“If he were to cool his jets, and let other candidates pass, then I think there’d be a Mowrer movement,” one Iowa Democratic operative said.

Meanwhile, Nick Klinefeldt, the U.S. attorney for the Southern District of Iowa, is the “gold standard in terms of a candidate,” the first source said.

Earlier this summer Klinefeldt suggested he was not going to run, but some Iowa Democrats are eagerly trying to convince him to get in, especially now that Mowrer seems to be going ahead with his candidacy.

“The door is cracked. It’s not open, but it’s certainly not closed,” the Iowa Democratic operative said of Klinefeldt’s consideration of the race, adding that his U.S. attorney tenure will soon be coming to a close.

With no voting record and a compelling record as a U.S. attorney, Democrats think Klinefeldt paints an easy contrast to Young. A one-time aide to former Sen. Tom Harkin, who recommended him for U.S. attorney, Klinefeldt has close ties to Harkin’s inner circle.

If he were to call donors and say, “I’m in,” the Iowa Democratic operative said, “those would not be cold calls.”

“If I were the DCCC [Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee], I’d clone him then run him in a bunch of other places,” the same operative added.

His future political prospects, the operative said, may be part of what’s giving Klinefeldt pause about running.

“He will run for something, and he will be a star. So ‘when and where am I going to engage’ is what he’s trying to figure out.”

Although Mowrer was, by all accounts, a formidable candidate in the 4th District last cycle, he only moved into the 3rd District this spring (he bought a house there in 2007.)

“It was more of a personal decision with my family,” Mowrer said of his district-switching.

Among some Democrats, there’s a fear that Mowrer might not be able to raise the same kind of money he did in 2014 when he challenged King, a nationally known (and loathed by the left) Republican.

But Mowrer maintains that he has support where he needs it, including at the national level.

“I’ve got a great relationship with folks at the DCCC from my previous experience,” he told CQ Roll Call. “I’ve always been in touch with them in the last couple years, including recently. I will continue to have that relationship and continue to chat.”

“I think Young won in a fluke in 2014,” Mowrer said, chalking his loss up to the GOP wave. “There are a lot of things that I learned,” he said, adding that this cycle, he has an “even better idea of what it takes.”

But there’s another Democrat in the state who could shake things up. For a long time, it seemed former Gov. Chet Culver, despite alienating parts of the labor community during his tenure, would be the Democrat to beat given his high name recognition and ability to raise money. Three Democratic sources with knowledge of Iowa said that if Culver decided to get in, that could still be the case.

The problem is that Culver hasn’t made a move in one direction or the other (“He’s gone radio-silent,” one Democrat said), and that’s frustrating the party. He wasn’t included in a recent DCCC poll of the district that both Klinefeldt and Mowrer were.

“He’s squandered his window of opportunity,” the same Democrat added.

But “the rules don’t apply to him,” another Democrat said, suggesting that there’s no point at which it’d be too late for Culver to get in and possibly still clear the field.

Democrats have been slow to recruit in the 3rd District, where both parties consider Young vulnerable. The former chief of staff to Sen. Charles E. Grassley won by more than 10 points last November, but his district went for President Barack Obama by single-digit margins in 2008 and 2012. That’s enough to earn him a spot on the National Republican Congressional Committee’sPatriot Program and to get Democrats enthused about picking up his seat in a presidential year.

Earlier this week, state Sen. Matt McCoy, whom Democrats had tried to discourage from running, announced that he would not launch a bid.

Multiple Democratic sources said that the one Democrat who has declared his candidacy, businessman Desmund Adams, is not competitive.

“This is why the DCCC is boxed in,” said an Iowa Democrat in reference to the party’s delicate recruiting dance.

“Mowrer stepping up is a good thing — unless he chases one or two candidates out,” he said.

Correction 5:40 p.m.

An earlier version of this article misspelled Desmund Adams’ name.

Via: Roll Call

Continue Reading...

House Spending Review: Do Members Need Accounting Lessons?

If rules change after Schock, how will members get up to speed?  (Tom Williams/CQ Roll Call File Photo

)When Rep. Scott Rigell came to Congress in 2011, he wore two phones on his hip. One was government-issued for official use; the other was a personal phone.

The official handbook for House members lists bills for telecommunications devices and services as one of 15 advance payments that can be cut from the more than $1 million each member is allotted to run Capitol Hill and district offices. But additional rules govern where, when and how those cellphones and tablets can be used, depending on the purpose and who pays.

The Virginia Republican’s election to the House was the former auto dealer’s first political position, other than a four-year stint on a state motor-vehicle dealer board. And he was determined to abide by the laws governing official resources — a set of rules and procedures under scrutiny in the wake of Illinois Republican Aaron Schock’s resignation.

A congressional colleague, spotting the two-phone arrangement, eventually told him, “Oh, Scott, I don’t do any of that,” Rigell said in a recent interview. “I just pay for the personal only, and I’m able to make my personal calls and my campaign calls and everything else,” the friend explained.

“We checked into that and found that was all right to do, so I actually go down that path,” Rigell said. “I just pay for it, actually personally, not even through the campaign.”

Members still need to be mindful of their telecom usage, though.

In August 2014, the House Ethics Committee offered some guidance, stating in a memo, “You may wish to designate a regular time outside of official time when you will not be in an official building to check campaign email and voice mail.”

And it’s not simply use of electronic devices members need to be cognizant of.

Circumstances surrounding Schock’s downfall led the House Administration Committee to launch a review of the rules and procedures governing how members seek reimbursement for official expenses incurred while representing their districts. The day-to-day responsibility for managing the account in accordance with those rules lies with the member. It often involves navigating the blurry lines between holding office and campaigning for one.

Reps. Rodney Davis, R-Ill., and Zoe Lofgren, D-Calif., have met with key staff for House Chief Administrative Officer Ed Cassidy, including employees who work in the Office of Financial Counseling. They process, on average, more than 4,000 expenses each week.

The panel also interviewed chiefs of staff and financial administrators who prepare vouchers and receipts for purchases in each member’s office. According to a letter Lofgren sent to her colleagues, obtained by Roll Call, they are seeking feedback on the level of training employees have available from the House Ethics Committee staff and the support provided by administrative staff.

But Rigell and Rep. David Cicilline, D-R.I., see one glaring problem with that approach: The panel’s review does not appear to address the lack of annual ethics training for House members, effectively the CEOs of each office.

“If you had 535 executives of a company, a larger, privately held company, you wouldn’t expect to find as high of a percentage as we’ve experienced in Congress having real ethics difficulty,” Rigell said, pointing to members such as Schock and others who have had “bumpier rides,” but survived.

“If you look at the world’s best-run companies, for profits and nonprofits, they will have four hours of mandatory ethics training, maybe two hours, and they don’t make any apology about it,” he added.

Since last Congress, the bipartisan pair has been pushing for a measure that would mandate members of the House undergo the same hourlong annual ethics training that senators and Hill staffers must complete. It has 44 co-sponsors — 26 co-sponsors were added the day Schock announced his exit. But it appears to be a stretch for House leadership to push for mandatory training.

“This is one of many examples where changes in policies or changes in procedures would be an important occasion to provide ethics training to folks, to let them know about this change in procedures,” Cicilline said.

A change adopted in January required the 58 members of the 114th Congress’ freshman class to undergo the same one-hour ethics training that is required for new House staff. But they are only trained once — “de minimus,” Rigell said — not on an annual basis, as his bill would require.

The House embarked on an effort to overhaul its administrative operations in December 1994, under the direction of Speaker Newt Gingrich, R-Ga., and his transition team. Under that system, all 435 member offices, 20 standing committees and various leadership offices became a collection of independent business units with individual budgets and staff. In 1996, expense accounts were consolidated into one lump sum, known as the Members’ Representational Allowance.

Working for Georgia Republican John Linder at the time the new system took effect, Rep. Rob Woodall, R-Ga., agreed House staff took on more responsibility for proper accounting. Woodall, who rose to chief of staff before campaigning for Congress in 2010, praised the system for its clarity.

“I can’t think of a special burden it puts on members because, you know, if you’re the chief of staff or if you’re the office manager, there’s no reason to be worried about anything,” Woodall said. “If it looks gray to you, you call somebody [and] they’ll put it in black or white, and you just move on.”

It became harder to see how exactly members were spending that money after July 2009, when the House began posting its spending books online. For example, airline ticket purchases generally reported the name of the traveler and the destination. But after the change, the Office of the Chief Administrative Officer scrubbed the data to remove these details.

Davis, who helped manage office expenses for 16 years as an aide to Rep. John Shimkus, R-Ill., said it may be better for the transparency of the entire financial process to go back to earlier procedures.

“The issue that came up in our initial meetings with fellow members and with chiefs of staff was inconsistent advice from the House Administration Committee not being in conjunction with the Ethics Committee advice,” Davis told CQ Roll Call, explaining that lawmakers who lead both panels were part of the review.

“Hopefully we’ll be able to get a process in place so that there’s a consistent message,” he said. Joint “pink sheets,” generally the term for guidance memos from the Ethics Committee, could be in the works. Davis was noncommittal when asked if mandatory ethics training is on the table.

Before Congress, Rigell built his businessman reputation as the owner of Freedom Automotive, operating Ford and Volvo dealerships in Virginia’s 2nd District. For new employee orientation and annual training at his company, Rigell would have his team imagine a visit from Ford’s manufacturer warranty audit team, or another oversight body.

“If they all coincidentally showed up in the showroom one day and started taking employees off to different corners and asking them how they run our business, I said, ‘I don’t want my heart rate to go up one beat per minute, because I know that to the best of our ability we are in full compliance.'”

Rigell says that is how he tries to run his congressional office.

“I think the track record of Congress speaks for itself,” he said. “I think it’s self-evident that we need annual training. That’s how I see it.”

Via: Roll Call

Continue Reading....

Voting Rights Act Used to Strike Down Texas Voter ID Law

Veasey celebrated the ruling as a victory for all Texas voters. (Bill Clark/CQ Roll Call File Photo)

On the eve of its 50th anniversary of the Voting Rights Act, a federal appeals court on Wednesday affirmed a lower court’s ruling that Texas’ strict voter ID law violates Section 2 of landmark civil rights legislation.

Texas Rep. Marc Veasey, the lead plaintiff in the original suit brought against the photo ID law, heralded the ruling as a victory for Lone Star minority voters.

“As a champion for voting rights, I am proud that with this decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit has taken the first steps towards ensuring that all Texans have unfettered access to the ballot box,” he said in a statement. 

Veasey, joined by the U.S. Justice Department and minority rights groups, had argued that the voter ID law first passed by the state’s GOP legislature in 2011 was intended to discriminate against minority voters. As such, the plaintiffs argued, it amounted to a poll tax.

The appeals court agreed with the district court that the law has had a “discriminatory effect,” which violates Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. But it disagreed with the lower court’s ruling that it was crafted with discriminatory intent and remanded it back to the lower court for further consideration.

It’s unclear what the fallout of the ruling will be at Texas polling places because the court did not suggest a remedy for its ruling. It remanded that question, too.

Because of its narrow ruling, the unanimous decision can’t be called a complete victory for the plaintiffs, University of California Irvine professor Rick Hasen wrote on his Election Law Blog.

“This also strikes me as an opinion written as narrowly as possible to still give a victory to the plaintiffs. (Perhaps that was the price of a unanimous opinion?),” he wrote.

Despite its limited scope, Texas Democratic Party Chairman Gilberto Hinojosa cast the ruling as a win for Democrats. “Once again, the rule of law agrees with Democrats. The Republican voter ID law is discriminatory. Republicans made it harder for African-Americans and Latinos to cast their vote at the ballot box.”

Hinojosa is optimistic that further court consideration of the matter will end in Democrats’ favor.

“We remain confident that the courts will find justice for Texas voters and ultimately strike down this racist and discriminatory law.”

But Texas Republicans insist that a voter ID law is still necessary.

“In light of ongoing voter fraud, it is imperative that Texas has a voter ID law that prevents cheating at the ballot box,” Gov. Greg Abbott said in a statement Wednesday afternoon. “Texas will continue to fight for its voter ID requirement to ensure the integrity of elections in the Lone Star State.”

Via: Roll Call

Continue Reading....

Capitol Food Workers Bring Income Inequality to Congress’ Steps

For the third time in the past eight months, food-service workers at the Capitol have gone on strike to push for higher wages and union representation, a rare example of a national issue — income inequality — hitting close to home for Congress.

Forty Capitol workers, the highest number so far, joined roughly 650 federal contract workers from across the District of Columbia Wednesday who went on strike and rallied in Upper Senate Park.

The previous Capitol protests called on President Barack Obama to take executive action to raise contract-worker wages, which would not have affected workers in the legislative branch. But on Wednesday, workers called on Congress to raise the minimum wage, and Sen. Bernard Sanders, I-Vt., and Rep. Keith Ellison, D-Minn., announced at the rally they would introduce legislation to more than double the federal minimum wage to $15 an hour.

With the Republican-led Congress, it is extremely unlikely the measure will move through either chamber. In the meantime, workers in the Senate and Capitol Visitor Center are trying to raise awareness about their low wages and lack of collective bargaining rights.

One such worker, Sontia Bailey, 34, lives in D.C., and works in the Senate Refectory, the a-la-carte cafe on the first floor of the Senate. Bailey penned an op-ed in The Guardian Tuesday, stating that her $10.59 per hour wage at the Capitol forced her to get a second job at Kentucky Fried Chicken. But she said the 70-hour workweek took a toll on her body and when she recently suffered a miscarriage, she could not afford to take time off work.

“The truth is, I couldn’t afford to grieve,” Bailey told the workers gathered at the rally. “I had to get back to work so I could have a proper and decent funeral for my baby. … If I made $15 an hour at the U.S. Capitol, I wouldn’t have to work two jobs. If I had just one good paying job, I would be a new mother today. We need Congress to pass $15 an hour and give us a union.”

After the rally, Bailey said in an interview that $15 an hour would help her ensure she has stable housing.  “And then $15 and a union?” Bailey noted, “We could go to someone that’s higher above us to accommodate us in issues that we have on the job.”

Bailey said she is comfortable approaching management with issues, but many of her colleagues are not for fear they will lose their jobs. She also noted a union could help workers deal with a persistent problem for Capitol food workers: layoffs when Congress leaves town.

Bailey described the “first-in, first-out” policy for layoffs during recess, and the difficulty in obtaining unemployment insurance or a second job in the interim.

“Besides myself, there’s multiple workers that have two jobs, three jobs, that try to make ends meet,” Bailey said. “When the senators go on recess, if you don’t have another job, you can’t survive. They tell us to apply for unemployment, but as soon as you apply for unemployment, it’s time to go back to work so you’re missing out.”

Senate and Capitol administrators are currently in the process of renegotiating the Senate contract with Restaurant Associates, which expires on Dec. 1. But those involved in negotiations are mum on the issue, citing the ongoing process.

The Senate Rules Committee and the Architect of the Capitol have jurisdiction over the contract, though a Rules Committee spokesperson noted in an email that the Architect of the Capitol is involved in the preliminary negotiations, and committee staff are not in the negotiating room.

However, some Capitol workers have been working behind the scenes to push their issues. One Senate worker, who asked not to be identified, said a handful of workers have met with Rules Committee staff four or five times in recent months to push to have a voice in the negotiations.

“We go in and we voice our opinion and let them know what we want, what we’re looking for,” the worker told CQ Roll Call. “And letting them know that we need a seat at the table too, because Restaurant Associates have their people, Rules have their people, but no one from the restaurant is there.”

The worker said staffers listened and took notes when workers expressed the need for “a livable wage” and a seat at the negotiating table. The worker said staff noted they are “not trying to get into the running of the cafeteria,” but staff also said, “They’re trying, they’re working on issues, trying to make some things right for employees downstairs in the cafeteria.”

But as negotiations continue, some workers say they are left in the dark about what happens next.

“I just know that they’re up for renegotiation and that’s it,” Bailey said when asked about the food service contract. “They really don’t touch bases with workers at all.”

Though negotiations are currently between Restaurant Associates and the Architect of the Capitol, Senate Rules Chairman Roy Blunt, R-Mo., does have to sign off on the contract.

Blunt said Wednesday he could not comment on contract negotiations. But, he did say, “I’m very interested and very sympathetic to a number of these topics: available hours to work, difficulty of getting here, things like that.”

“And that’ll be part of the discussion as we renew the contract that our friends on the other side … negotiated seven years ago,” he said, referring to Democrats’ negotiation of the current contract when they were in the majority.

Via: Roll Call

Continue Reading....

Rep. Darrell Issa Is Wealthiest Member of Congress

 Rep. Darrel Issa, R- Calif. (Andrew H. Walker/Getty Images)

Rep. Darrell Issa is the richest member of Congress with a total worth of $768 million altogether, according his most recent financial disclosure. 

Roll Call has placed the California Republican in the number one spot for the second year in a row with a net worth of $357 million and a minimum of $432 million in assets. 

However, his actual worth may be far more than what he is required to report, or far less, Roll Call notes. 

Issa reportedly included seven high-yield bonds in his disclosure that are worth more than $50 million, but it doesn't say how much those bonds are actually worth. It is possible that they are each worth hundreds of millions of dollars — which would make his wealth far more than what was disclosed. 

In the same vein, his wealth might actually be lower than what is disclosed. 

The congressman also has two liabilities in the form of personal loans — a $25 million loan from Union Bank and a $50 million loan from Merrill Lynch. 

While the loan from Merrill Lynch is put in the $50 million category, it could be worth significantly more than what Issa has to report. 

Following Issa is Republican Rep. Michael McCaul of Texas, Democrat Rep. John Delaney of Maryland, Democrat Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia, Democrat Sen. Mark Warner of Virginia, Democratic Rep. Jared Polis of Colorado, Democratic Sen. Richard Blumenthal of Colorado, Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California and Democratic Rep. Suzan DelBene of Washington, who make up the top ten wealthiest members of Congress. 

Via: Newsmax

Continue Reading....

Half of Capitol Hill Staff Could Qualify for New Overtime Rules

Nearly half of Capitol Hill staffers could qualify for overtime pay under the new Obama administration overtime rules to move the threshold to $50,440. Whether the new rules will apply to staffers is an open question for Congress.

According to a custom report produced for CQ Roll Call by LegiStorm, 5,617 staffers, or 43 percent, are making less than $50,440 annually. The report analyzed 13,092 Capitol Hill staffers who work in committee, leadership and personal offices of the House and Senate and adjusted for anomalies, which include staffers who leave midway through a fiscal quarter and those paid out for vacation days.

The new overtime regulations are expected to affect nearly 5 million Americans. On a recent conference call with reporters, White House Domestic Policy Council Chief Cecilia Muñoz said the Office of Personnel Management is likely to adopt the new threshold for federal government workers as well.

However, legislative branch employees — including Capitol Hill staff — are exempt from many labor rules unless Congress takes proactive action, such as amending the landmark Congressional Accountability Act that brought workplace rights, including the Fair Labor Standards Act, to Capitol Hill staffers.

While several offices — including that of House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif. — provide overtime pay, many do not. Long hours are considered the de rigueur workplace norm on Capitol Hill, as is lower-than-market-value pay.

Capitol Hill jobs are competitive — many want to work on the Hill and some are willing to do so for free. Offices are small, compact units, often functioning as their own separate small businesses with their own workplace rules and norms. For many staffers, the day begins before the boss arrives and lasts well into evening receptions at night, which can often mean 50- or 60-hour workweeks when Congress is in session.

Under the previous overtime threshold of $23,660, only 244 staffers, or less than 2 percent, would have qualified for overtime pay. However, a source familiar with the LegiStorm data believed the number to be even smaller, as the low salary likely included temporary workers, such as interns or part-time staff.

The Obama administration announced plans in June to amend the Fair Labor Standards Act to move the overtime threshold from $23,660 to $50,440. An open-comment period will last through September, and the new overtime threshold would be implemented in 2016. Workers who make less than $50,440 would be paid time-and-a-half for working more than 40 hours a week.

While Congress has previously been unwilling or slow to take action on implementing employment laws for its own employees, the overtime rules fall into a gray area. Parts of the FLSA were adopted as part of the Congressional Accountability Act in 1995, including overtime provisions.

“I think there is going to be a lot of pressure for Congress to keep current with the FLSA,” said Kelly A. Magnuson, a labor and employment attorney with Tully Rinckey PLLC. “The CAA does follow the FLSA. To now say that they are not going to make the changes is going to cause a lot of upheaval.”

It’s possible that even as new overtime regulation changes sweep the private sector and executive branch, Congress may remain resistant to modifying its own employment rules. If not, staff on Capitol Hill, even those making as little as $23,661 annually, may see no changes.

The overtime rules are most likely to affect staffers in House personal offices, said Jock Friedly, president and founder of LegiStorm, who produced the data for CQ Roll Call.

“As a general rule, people make more in the Senate than they do in the House; it’s a very clear trend that we see,” Friedly said. “Even for the same job, the Senate will pay more than the House does.” Committee and leadership offices often pay more as well, with Friedly noting that certain committees have one-fourth of the staff making close to the staffer maximum salary of $174,000.

Certain Hill offices may adopt the overtime changes, said Julie Kashen, a former House and Senate staffer and current senior policy adviser for Make It Work. “That is the way so much already works on the Hill. Some offices have much more flexible policies overall. And some are less generous,” she said.

Kashen believes the increase in transparency has helped provide more generous workplace policies on Capitol Hill, and that a younger generation of millennials are likely to speak up and demand workplaces that “work for them” rather than accepting an outdated status quo. “Younger staffers may be a huge part of that,” Kashen explained. “They are the ones most likely affected by it.”

One thing that is not likely to change is the high level of interest in pursuing Capitol Hill jobs. Even without adhering to the same labor laws as the rest of the workforce, enough staffers find the employment worthwhile and meaningful to do, even without extra compensation.

Via: Roll Call

Continue Reading....

House Rebels Warn of Blowback for Boehner

The House Freedom Caucus has a secret it wants to share with Democrats.

“If the Democrats were to file a motion to vacate the chair and were to vote for that motion unanimously, there probably are 218 votes for it to succeed,” one member of the House Freedom Caucus told CQ Roll Call Tuesday night, as he exited an meeting in the basement of Tortilla Coast.

If that’s true, Democrats could certainly use a vote to remove Speaker John A. Boehner as leverage in any number of upcoming battles: the Export-Import Bank, a highway bill, all sorts of spending measures. But absent any real talk from Democrats, the official response from Boehner’s communications director, Kevin Smith, was simply to dismiss CQ Roll Call’s reporter.

“Matt Fuller is a prop for Freedom Caucus propaganda,” Smith wrote via email.

While the HFC member in question wouldn’t say whether a vote to take Boehner’s gavel was part of the discussion Tuesday — and other members said it was not — it’s clear the decision to strip North Carolina Republican Mark Meadows of his subcommittee chairmanship has stirred the already excitable Freedom Caucus into a new frenzy.

The HFC looks ready for war, as does GOP leadership and more moderate Republicans who are sick and tired of conservatives voting against the team — and that could signal more retaliation to come from both sides.

Rep. Jim Jordan, the HFC chairman, and Raúl R. Labrador, one of the founding members of the secretive conservative group, had plenty to say to CQ Roll Call Wednesday about leadership’s recent moves against members who voted against the rule for Trade Promotion Authority.

“The reason this is happening is pretty clear,” Labrador said of Meadows’ demotion and the dismissal of other HFC members from the whip team. “The leadership is afraid.”

Labrador said GOP leaders sense their influence slipping, as 34 Republicans defied Boehner and others on the TPA rule. “And they know that that 34 is really not 34,” Labrador said. “They know that that number is really much larger.”

That may be true, with HFC membership now up to around 40 — according to Jordan’s best estimate, because he said he didn’t have the classified roster in front of him.

There’s been some discrepancy in reports on the size of the caucus — The Daily Caller put its total at 70. The Hill says it’s between 50 and 60 — but that’s due in part to group’s own obsessive secrecy about its rules and membership. And, for the record, it takes a four-fifths majority to reach an official position, according to members.

Via: Roll Call

Continue Reading....

House Democrats Pull Pages From the Rahm Playbook

Democrats have taken a few pages from Rahm Emanuel’s playbook in hopes of boosting their difficult quest to win the House majority in 2014.

The Chicago mayor served as chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee in 2006, when his party beat long odds to win the majority for the first time in more than a decade. This cycle, Democrats face a similarly tough challenge: picking up seats in 17 districts on a map drawn to give the GOP an advantage.

To accomplish this, DCCC ChairmanSteve Israel has sought to emulate his former mentor with relentless recruitment, an incessant focus on messaging and Emanuel’s aggressive style — minus a few four-letter expletives.

The two Democrats have a lot in common. Former aides note their shared religion, gregarious public personas, all-in approach to wooing candidates and their soundbite-driven quests to drive messaging.

Israel served as one of Emanuel’s recruitment lieutenants in 2006, along with Rep. Chris Van Hollen of Maryland, who ran the DCCC in 2008 and 2010. Israel and Emanuel met recently in Chicago and speak regularly by phone, the New York Democrat confirmed in a Tuesday interview with CQ Roll Call.

Via: Roll Call

Continue Reading.....

Bloomberg to Spend $1.1 Million for McAuliffe

Billionaire New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg's pro-gun-control super PAC will finance $1.1 million in advertising for Virginia Democratic gubernatorial candidate Terry McAuliffe in the final weeks of the race, Politico reported Monday.

The ads will roll out Tuesday. The election is Nov. 5.

McAuliffe journeyed to New York in August to seek the mayor's support.

Urgent: Should the House Have Agreed to Debt Deal? Vote Here 

Bloomberg, a political independent, has spent more than $15 million on various gun control initiatives — and spent $1 million helping elect Newark Mayor Cory Booker to a U.S. Senate seat in New Jersey's special election to replace the late Frank Lautenberg, who championed gun control, The New York Post reported.

McAuliffe supports stricter gun laws, including an assault weapons ban, universal background checks, limiting the size of magazines and preventing people from buying more than one gun a month.

Roll Call reported Monday that the political action committee of the National Rifle Association has spent $466,000 on television and Internet ads highlighting McAuliffe-backed gun control measures.

The campaign of Republican Ken Cuccinelli, who supports a focus on mental health to reduce gun violence, slammed the ads as out-of-state interference.

Via: Newsmax

Continue Reading.....

Shutdown Dents Legislators’ Fundraising

Earlier this week, CalWatchdog.com mentioned some of the political implications that the partial government shutdown will have on Congress, particularly a few vulnerable representatives from California. Members are dealing with the competing demands of winning leverage against the other party, while trying to stress their opposition to an ongoing shutdown. It’s likely the shutdown will continue into next week and potentially even longer, as some conservatives have decided that a prolonged shutdown is a better political fight than one over raising the nation’s borrowing limit.

So while the shutdown continues, lawmakers are now posed with a new question: To fundraise, or not to fundraise? In times of political crisis, lawmakers generally try to avoid fundraisers. After all, no elected official wants news to leak that they were eating shrimp with millionaires while 800,000 government workers are on furlough. But with the midterm elections just one year away, some politicians have decided it’s best to stay away. For some, it’s a matter of logistics: House Speaker John Boehner had to cancel a significant weekend fundraiser last month, and he may be forced to miss an upcoming event in Orange County, Calif. as well.

Vulnerable lawmakers are likely to avoid fundraising. Sen. Kay Hagan, D-N.C., was seen at a National Association of Realtors fundraiser earlier this week. Republicans blasted the vulnerable Democrat for raising money instead of negotiating over the impasse.

But politicians in safe seats who can take some political heat are continuing to fundraise, even sounding indignant at times. Roll Call reported:

Several more Democrats in safe seats continued to prime the pump. Reps. John D. Dingell and Sander M. Levin of Michigan and Reps. Charles B. Rangel and Nydia M. Velázquez of New York went forward with their fundraising events.

“Why shouldn’t I?” Dingell responded to a question about one of his events. “I don’t have to ask permission to have a fundraiser do I?”

Via: California Political Review

Continue Reading.....

Obscure Caucus: The Quiet Men of Congress

Obscure doesn’t mean ineffective or passed over. In fact, in the congressional context, some of the best work gets done behind the scenes by members who would rather build relationships with their colleagues than spar with cable news anchors. These members take on low-profile policy agendas, gain reputations for expertise and benefit from tenure to climb committees or lead issue-area caucuses.

Inclusion in this caucus is not mockery or criticism, but highlights the frequently unhighlighted legislators who spend time on parochial concerns or constituent service. Few lawmakers opt not to stuff a PR portfolio with press releases, television appearances and photo ops, but Obscure Caucus members have few national news mentions or moments in the public eye. Many of these members are big players in policy and political circles, but for whatever reason — political style, personal preference or the issue itself — they earned few or fleeting headlines for their achievements.

Not every member gets considered for this ever-shrinking club of those who avoid the spotlight. To make the first cut, a member must have served at least two full terms and be running for re-election to his or her House seat in 2014. (The size of the Senate provides too much visibility to its members, although there are some camera-shy senators — Republican Jim Risch of Idaho, for instance, doesn’t work the mic much.) Culling the showhorses, the newbies, the scandal-hounded and members who face tough elections leaves a rather short list of representatives. Social-media activity oriented toward local issues or restricted to retweets from party leaders won’t knock you off the list, but any kind of self-promotion (even not-very-successful attempts at it) will.

Perhaps their membership in the caucus isn’t indicative of their legislative achievements — as many have had bills signed into law and have teamed up with colleagues on notable measures — but it is indicative of what they haven’t done. They haven’t grandstanded, they haven’t brought bold personalities into a debate, they haven’t sent inappropriate Twitter messages and they haven’t, in recent years, sought a higher office than the House of Representatives.

Via: Roll Call

Continue Reading...