Manchin and the For the People Act

ALL 50 SENATE Democrats voted to move forward to a debate Tuesday on S. 1, the “For the People Act,” in an unusual display of party loyalty that was met by equal party unity on the Republican side.

In technical terms, Democrats made a motion to invoke cloture to overcome a silent Republican filibuster of a motion to proceed to debate the legislation. In other words, without actually talking on the Senate floor, Republicans successfully blocked the bill from even moving toward a floor debate. Under Senate rules in place since 1975, 60 votes are needed for cloture. The motion fell 10 votes short of 60.

[...]

Manchin continues to tell colleagues that he hopes to find 10 Republican votes to move forward with his legislation, though so far he has only gotten Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska to express general support for a voting rights bill.

  The Intercept

Give it up, Joe.

Manchin’s legislation is still being negotiated and will include new provisions to counter Republican takeovers of election boards.

They will never go for that. They have to cheat to win.

In a statement Tuesday, Manchin said his compromise requires disclosure of any political spending above $10,000. It would also ban partisan gerrymandering, a key goal for Democrats ahead of the 2022 midterms.

They won't go for that, either. That's how they win with fewer votes than Democrats get.

With 50 Democrats on board for some significant voting rights reform, the question will be whether Manchin agrees to reforms to the filibuster once he concludes that there are nowhere near 10 Republicans willing to go along.

Beter hurry up. We're not that far from the 2022 elections cycle, and if you get too close to that, the Republicans will refuse on those grounds, and publicly castigate the Democrats for doing it then.

With 50 Democrats on board for some significant voting rights reform, the question will be whether Manchin agrees to reforms to the filibuster once he concludes that there are nowhere near 10 Republicans willing to go along.

[...]

Voting to move to debate would allow Republicans and Democrats to offer amendments, Manchin said — the type of legislating he often elevates as the goal of the Senate.

“Unfortunately, my Republican colleagues refused to allow debate of this legislation despite the reasonable changes made to focus the bill on the core issues facing our democracy,” Manchin said.

That's the point, Joe. They are not going to cooperate in any fashion. What have they got to lose by it? They'll force Democrats to change the rules for how many votes they need and then blast them in public for grabbing power. When will Joe learn that the Republicans do not act in good faith? That they are determined to hold power by any means necessary?

The final showdown over the filibuster is likely to come in late July, once it becomes clear that the new version of S. 1 has no serious Republican support. The argument will be helped along if bipartisan infrastructure talks, which have hit a logjam over the fundamental question of financing and taxes, have collapsed by then.

I'm not feeling optimistic. I've seen the Democrats in action - or rather inaction.

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

Manchin gets changes to For the People Act

Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) said Tuesday that he will vote in favor of advancing a sweeping election bill after striking a deal with Senate Majority Leader Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) on a compromise proposal

Schumer, speaking to reporters after a closed-door caucus lunch, announced that he and Manchin had reached an agrSen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) said Tuesday that he will vote in favor of advancing a sweeping election bill after striking a deal with Senate Majority Leader Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) on a compromise proposal. Schumer, speaking to reporters after a closed-door caucus lunch, announced that he and Manchin had reached an agreement that will allow Democrats to be unified in support of advancing the For the People Act as it faces a 60-vote procedural hurdle.

[...]

Manchin has said he can't support the bill as it was introduced. Instead, he circulated a list of what he can and cannot support. He said he supports making Election Day a public holiday, mandating at least 15 consecutive days for early voting in federal elections, banning gerrymandering and setting up voter registration through state motor vehicle departments.

Manchin is also ready to back tighter campaign finance requirements currently in the For the People Act, including requiring online and digital ads to disclose their sources, similar to TV and radio ads, imposing tighter ethics requirements for presidents and vice presidents, and requiring campaigns and committees to report foreign contacts.

But he’s also recommending jettisoning one of the more controversial parts of the bill — public financing of campaigns. While he supports absentee voting, he doesn’t endorse no-excuse absentee voting, and, in a move likely to upset some Democrats, Manchin is proposing voter ID requirements with the possibility of alternatives such as a utility bill to provide proof of identity in order to vote.

  The Hill

Sounds reasonable to me. But it doesn't matter, because they would still have to get 10 Republicans to vote yes in order to pass the bill without using some other measure.

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

Leaked Joe Manchin meeting with billionaire donors

I don't know what the fallout of this leak will be, but no doubt there will be fallout.

I'm not even going to excerpt or summarize the article, because I think it's all important. And if you don't want to read the article, maybe you can listen to the accompanying podcast (link is embedded at the beginning of the article).

Okay, I'll add this one excerpt:

Regarding [Missouri GOP Senator Roy] Blunt, Manchin appears to be suggesting — without, perhaps, quite explicitly saying so — that the wealthy executives on the call could dangle future financial opportunities in front of the outgoing senator while lobbying him to change his vote. Senate ethics rules forbid future job negotiations if they create a conflict of interest or present even the appearance of a conflict of interest. Manchin, notably, doesn’t suggest that the donors discuss a job, but rather says that people who Blunt may later be working with would be likely to have significant influence, reflective of the way future job prospects can shape the legislative process even when unspoken.

  The Intercept

I have a feeling I'll be updating this post with reactions, so you might want to check back.

UPDATE:

Joe Manchin is a DINO

Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.V.) wrote in a Charleston Gazette-Mail op-ed Sunday that he will not support congressional Democrats' expansive election and anti-corruption bill, suggesting the measure is partisan.

  Axios

Christ. What does he think all those Republican state-level voter suppression bills are?

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

UPDATE:

Dems try again for voting and campaign finance reform

The House has once again passed [H.R. 1, the For the People Act] aimed at voter reform and campaign finance overhaul. The Wednesday night vote was 220-210.

  NPR

No GOP support.

The bill seeks to "to expand Americans' access to the ballot box, reduce the influence of big money in politics, strengthen ethics rules for public servants, and implement other anti-corruption measures for the purpose of fortifying our democracy, and for other purposes."

[...]

Included in the act is mandatory automatic voter registration, restoring voting rights to people with completed felony sentences, and a reversal of state voter ID laws that would allow citizens to make a sworn statement affirming their identity if they are unable to produce an ID.

[...]

In addition to revamping voting laws, the bill also takes aim at "dark money" in politics by requiring organizations to disclose large donors and creates a matching system for small donations.

Measures desperately needed at a time when 43 states are considering voting rights restrictions.

The 2021 "For the People Act" is a reboot of a 2019 bill of the same name. At the time, the House passed the bill along party lines, but it never had a chance to move forward in the Senate, which was controlled then by Republicans.

By Mitch McConnell, more precisely. It's pretty ridiculous that the Senate Majority Leader is able to block bills from even being brought to a vote. 

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