Another reason Congress doesn't work for America

The “DCCC Points Program,” as it is dubbed in an internal document, rewards members for their involvement in recruitment efforts and kicks them points if they raise money for the party’s House campaign arm, vulnerable incumbents, and candidates vying to flip swing districts. Pelosi is sitting atop the leaderboard with 279 points, while most members have none or just a few.

Power is accumulated in the House by raising and dispersing money to colleagues, a dynamic pioneered by Pelosi’s quasi-mentor, the late Rep. Phil Burton, who once held Pelosi’s seat; it’s now a bipartisan practice. This has been formalized with the DCCC’s decades-old practice of asking members to pay “dues” to the party committee in charge of reelection efforts and reallocating that money to contested races. Democrats in leadership positions, or who chair so-called money committees, are required to pay higher dues than back benchers. Members are also given a target amount of money they are expected to raise directly for the DCCC, which is separate from their dues payment.

Members of Congress who pay their dues and hit their targets are rewarded with better committee assignments in the future, and more favorable treatment of legislation they author, than members who shirk their dues. Members who don’t pay, for instance, are less likely to have their bills or amendments get a floor or committee vote.

  Intercept

A sort of mafia.

On those so-called money committees, like Ways and Means and Energy and Commerce, even freshman members are asked to pay higher dues. That’s because those committees have jurisdiction over effectively every major industry, giving members a leg-up in demanding checks from corporations who need — or oppose — legislation before the panel. It is also valuable for industries to have committee members write letters to agencies they oversee.

Chairs of committees not lucky enough to oversee commercially prosperous industries owe just $300,000 in dues and have a listed goal of raising $300,000, compared to the money committees’ $1.2 million. Indeed, even vice chairs of money committees owe more than chairs of regular committees. Yvette Clarke, vice chair of Energy and Commerce, and Terri Sewell, vice chair of Ways and Means, owe $400,000 each. Subcommittee chairs on money panels owe as much as chairs of plebeian committees: $300,000.

An individual seat on a money committee, meanwhile, will run a member of Congress $250,000. Sad sack rank-and-filers not privileged enough to sit on a money committee owe just $150,000.

[...]

The dues for the 2020 cycle, according to the DCCC dues document, range from $150,000 at the low level to $1,000,000 for the speaker of the House.

[...]

The points system the DCCC has worked out adds layers of nuance to the money chase. According to the internal document describing the points program, raising more than $15,000, or hosting an event that raises that amount for vulnerable incumbents, known as front-line members or Red-to-Blue candidates — Democrats running in swing seats — is worth five points. Traveling to a district to campaign for a candidate, having a staff member volunteer to campaign in a district, and hosting a get-out-the-vote phone bank are each worth three points. For two points, members can do press or fundraising work on behalf of a candidate, including phone or television interviews with local papers, town hall meetings, radio ads, robo calls, or finance meetings. The members are able to log their fundraising activities using an online form.

Members of Congress can also earn points by meeting with a candidate-recruit on behalf of the DCCC’s political department, solicit colleagues on behalf of the DCCC, and hold individual “money meetings” to benefit the DCCC. Contributing the maximum legal amount per election to a colleague’s candidate committee or leadership PAC, or serving as a special guest at an event that benefits the candidate’s committee or leadership PAC, are each worth one point.

There are no points to be earned by registering new voters.

[...]

When Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., learned of the dues structure, she asked if raising money online could qualify. She was told that it would not, and so she let the committee know she would not be paying dues. At the end of the first quarter, she raised roughly $30,000 each for three front-line members online.

According to the DCCC points system document, it appears that act should have qualified her for 30 DCCC points — redeemable, theoretically, for future favors from party leadership. The point system, though, is based on self-reported information, and Ocasio-Cortez appears not to have reported it to the committee.

The DCCC dues document confirms she has not paid dues and also marks her as having earned zero points total.

And good for her.

AOC taking on the DCCC

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

UPDATE:  Apparently, we can.  7:20pm eastern:

Campaign thuggery

THE DEMOCRATIC CONGRESSIONAL Campaign Committee warned political strategists and vendors Thursday night that if they support candidates mounting primary challenges against incumbent House Democrats, the party will cut them off from business.

[...]

To apply to become a preferred vendor in the 2020 cycle, firms must agree to a set of standards that includes agreeing not to work with anyone challenging an incumbent.

[...]

The news was officially announced Friday morning, paired with a statement on the committee’s commitment to diversity in consulting — “which, obviously, is just to give themselves cover,” a Democratic political consultant who learned of it Thursday told The Intercept. The consultant asked for anonymity given their relationship with the DCCC, and the party organization’s professed strategy of blacklisting firms that don’t fall in line.

[...]

“There was never an enforcement that I’ve ever seen,” the strategist told The Intercept. “This is the first time that they are ever making it open policy.”

[...]

It’s no secret that the DCCC and national party leaders often interfere on behalf of preferred candidates. Or that they otherwise jump into the game too late, if they don’t completely write off newcomers who don’t meet their standards. The DCCC is known for prioritizing candidates and direct them to its own consultants, most of whom are alumni of the DCCC, which is known in Washington as a “consultant factory.” The latest move only reaffirms that reputation and sends a warning shot to grassroots and progressive consultants.

[...]

Collective PAC, which works to elect black Democrats, sent a letter to the DCCC last year asking why the group didn’t include any black candidates in its “Red to Blue” program, which targets seats that have a promising chance to flip. They added several candidates after that, including current Reps. Lauren Underwood of Illinois and Colin Allred of Texas.

[...]

Alex Rojas, the head of Justice Democrats, the bane of the DCCC, is backing a primary challenge to incumbent Henry Cuellar in Texas, while looking for other candidates across the country. “Make no mistake — they are sending a signal that they are more afraid of Ayanna Pressley and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez winning primary challenges than Henry Cuellar who votes with Trump nearly 70 percent of the time,” she said.

[...]

Rebecca Katz, a longtime Democratic consultant, also said she’d be happy to work with the challengers. “The people who can’t understand the party is stronger because we have Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Ayanna Pressley in Congress should not be in the business of choosing who can run for Congress,” she said.

  The Intercept

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

Why Congress doesn't work

I didn't realize that to be on a major committee in Congress, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee expects Congressional members to raise funds for the DCCC (or D-Trip to insiders). And not for just any Democratic candidates of their choice, bur for the Committee itself to dole out.  Enforced party support to buy your way onto a committee.  Democracy at its finest.  Of course, the same is true of the Republicans and the NRCC.

Freshman Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, recently named to the House Financial Services Committee, joined Ryan Grim and Briahna Joy Gray on a special podcast for The Intercept where she talks about that, among other things.  Interesting.  Enlightening.

And here's a story about it from last October in the Courier Press: Campaign cash trumps work in Congress, ex-members say | Secrets of the Hill

Excerpts:

[A] Florida Republican congressman from 2014 to 2017 [...] remembers seeing a “board of shame” outside grubby cubicles where colleagues made fundraising calls at the National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC). Democrats make their calls from the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC).

“They had a huge whiteboard with every (Republican House) member’s name and how much money you’ve raised, and it’s red, green or black, depending if you’re over your target or under your target.

[...]

“[There's] a hallway with 10 to 15 of these miserable cubicles. They have these little radiators, or wall air conditioners. [...] These things are probably three feet by three feet. You get a chair and a phone, and they are ratty."

[...]

Federal law forbids seeking or receiving campaign contributions from federal offices, so the NRCC and DCCC set up their call centers in their headquarters just a few blocks from the Capitol.

[...]

Many ambitious members also raise money to fund “leadership PACS,” which help members make friends – particularly if they aspire to rise within party or House committee ranks.

“If he wants to climb to the leadership of his committee, he’ll want to give out money to other members of the committee in his party,” Arkedis said. “The (congressional party) leadership might ask him to kick in money to candidates who aren’t incumbents. They’ll say, ‘We think candidate X in such-and-such district is within striking distance. We’d like you to give him 5,000 bucks.’”

[...]

“If you put yourself in the role of congressional leadership, policy, ideology — all of that is secondary to maintaining (party) control (of Congress) or to attaining control. And the only way to do that is with money. And so leadership wants their rank-and-file members out there raising money [at a torrid $18,000-a-day clip], not legislating.”

No wonder they don't have time to read the bills they vote on.  Few buck this system, because the DCCC and the RNCC hand out money to congressional members and candidates for their campaigns, and withhold seats on committees and support for agendas of those who don't play along.

Here's a Huffington Post article on the subject from 2013 when they got hold of a PowerPoint presentation to newly elected Democratic Congress critters: Call Time For Congress Shows How Fundraising Dominates Bleak Work Life

Two whole hours to do the actual work of an elected official to Congress, and one to two to meet with your constituents.  Now you know why you only get form letters when you write your Congressperson.

Rep. Alcee Hastings (D-Fla.) has largely managed to buck his fundraising obligations, he said, thanks to a safe district and, ironically, to the high name recognition he garnered from his judicial career and subsequent impeachment. But the congressman said the emphasis on fundraising makes more sense for freshmen members of Congress, who are contending with the era of Citizens United and unlimited independent political expenditures.

[...]

“Yours truly, in 20 years, I have combined — on behalf of DCCC, DNC and myself — been to DCCC for call time less than six hours in 20 years. I’m still standing.”

Hastings added that if he was forced to spend the majority of his time on fundraising, it would take a considerable toll on his ability to focus on his legislative responsibilities as an elected official. “It would cause me not to have the basic attitude that I have, and that is that I’m my own man,” Hastings said. “I would feel like I’m hooked, and that’s what happens here. That’s how this institution is run.”

[...]

Hastings noted the hypocrisy inherent in the system, which includes a law barring members from raising money while in their official office or the Capitol itself. “They don’t have to go to the DCCC to do it. They can get a cell phone on their campaign, and step outside of this place where you ain’t supposed to raise money  [...] and make calls,” he said. The incongruity is even starker outside the upper chamber, he said.

“I don’t know if you’ve been on the Senate side,” Hastings said. “But they go outside and sit in their cars and make calls.”

  Huffington Post January 2013

There's a bill languishing from the 115th Congress that tries to address a small portion of the issue by prohibiting congressional members and candidates from soliciting funds while Congress is in session:







Full text

It may never come to a vote.  Who's going to go on record voting for it when they're dependent upon the respective campaign committees for their own funding?  I'll try to keep tabs on it.


If you'd like further reading on this subject...


When Bill Clinton defeated George H.W. Bush in 1992, their campaigns spent a total of $192 million—combined! In 2012, Barack Obama and Mitt Romney spent over $7 billion, including outside funding from superPACs—nearly 37 times more than just 20 years earlier.
 [...] 
In Political Mercenaries, Lindsay Mark Lewis tells the outrageous tale of the fledgling days of fundraising and how he raised over $200 million for the Democratic Party, its candidates, and its causes over a fifteen-year career. Sure to raise the eyebrows of everyone from ordinary citizens to Citizens United, he pulls back the veil of secrecy that has shrouded the relationships between politicians and their financial backers in this thought-provoking and laugh-out-loud insider account.
 [...]  
Lewis' tactics aren't for the faint of heart. Along the way, he launders $40,000 from an (allegedly) murdered casino mogul, smuggles marijuana, and passes an Elvis impersonator off as Bill Clinton! But he becomes increasingly conflicted as he continues to sell access to politicians in exchange for ever-larger checks and a loss of control over the party's priorities. Lewis eventually rises to his party's top fundraising post at the Democratic National Committee, and attempts to redeem himself by waging an ultimately losing battle against the party's elite billionaire donors, who force him out.


...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.