Katie Hill, Bye-Bye

PVIs are backward looking and are rarely up to date. Take CA-25, the district represented by Katie Hill, Officially the PVI is "even" but the Santa Clarita Valley-Antelope Valley-Simi Valley district is way bluer than that would indicate. Obama won it narrowly against McCain and then lost it narrowly against Romney. Hillary beat Trump convincingly-- 50.3% to 43.6%. Blue America has been working to flip this district for well over a decade. We started when powerful GOP crook-- now lobbyist-- Buck McKeon was congressman there. He had to go but the district was much redder then, R+7 in 2006. It was a mammoth district-- biggest in California-- that did not include Simi Valley but instead crawled up the California border with Nevada, nearly as far north as Sacramento.

We jumped in to support Roberto Rodriguez, a recent Harvard graduate who hailed from a working class family in Barstow (no longer part of the district). At the time, McKeon was chair of the Education and Workforce Committee and under his stewardship-- and while he raked in over a quarter million dollars from student loan vendors, more than anyone else in Congress-- federal student loan programs were cut by $12.7 billion (the worst cuts in history) and student loan rates went up by 2.4%. Pure sleaze... but not the kind you go to prison for. Getting rid of McKeon would be up to the voters-- and the young and under-funded Rodriguez, who was running a very grassroots campaign concentrating on registering the district's Latino non-voters. McKeon spent $1,370,664 and Rodriguez spent $200,516. The only outside spending in the race was from Blue America ($5,000) and the National Education Association ($3,412) in favor of Rodriquez. The DCCC ignored the race entirely as if CA-25 didn't exist. McKeon beat Rodriguez 61-35%. The district was slowly, demographically, getting bluer but in 2008 and 2010, a vanity candidate went up against McKeon-- whose 61% backing didn't budge. In 2012 it was time to get serious about the district again.

Lee Rogers ran a strong, animated campaign, forcing McKeon to spend $1,769,400 (Rogers spent $360,091). He brought McKeon's win number down to 55% and did significantly better than any Democrat ever had in the district. The DCCC didn't care and studiously ignored the race. Blue America was the only group that spent in the district-- $39,810. McKeon heard the bell tolling and decided to retire. A glitch in the ballot left 2014 with two Republicans, mainstream conservative Tony Strickland and far right neo-Nazi Steve Knight. Though outspent $2,057,642 to $410,835, the neo-Nazi won. The district's Republicans are pretty extreme.

In 2016, the Democratic candidate was a wealthy carpetbagger, a garden variety Democrat-- Bryan Cafario with nothing to recommend him at all except that he wasn't a Republican. He managed to spend the same $1.6 million as Knight but it still came down to 54.2% (Republican) to 45.8% (Democrat). This time though, the DCCC was satisfied that Caforio was their kind of nothing-candidate who wouldn't make waves and they put $3,164,363 into the race, while Pelosi's House Majority PAC spent $242,487.

Now CA-25 was on the national radar. Katie Hill (now 32 years old) jumped into the race and first beat Caforio, massively outraised the hapless neo-Nazi, $7,156,033 to $829,932 and beat him 133,209 (54.4%) to 111,813 (45.6%), despite Paul Ryan's Congressional Leadership Fund spending $8,022,525 on Knight's behalf. (The DCCC and Pelosi's super PAC spent about $3.5 million combined, but Independence USA came in with over $5 million to combat Ryan's $8 million). In the end 61 outside groups spent independently on Hill's race! The Democrats had a slight registration advantage over the GOP and independents were eager to show their disdain for Trump. So Hill won.

Blue America was the first group to endorse her, an endorsement we quickly rescinded. A mutual friend introduced me to her over dinner a month or so before she began her campaign. I loved her energy and wanted to hear something that wasn't really there-- namely that she is a progressive. She didn't have to try too hard to convince me. But once the campaign got started in earnest I slowly began realizing that she duped me (and that I had been eager to be duped). The final straw was when she vowed to me that she would not become a New Dem and then turned around and joined the New Dems. That was blatant dishonesty-- a bad trait in any member of Congress. We quietly withdraw our endorsement.

In Congress, Katie was elected one of the co-presidents of the freshman class and she demonstrated a lot of energy and was seen as a comer. Pelosi sensed she was a leader and started inviting her to caucus leadership meetings. A New Dem, she quickly started running up a crappy voting record. ProgressivePunch has her rated as an "F" and her crucial vote score is 73.33, in the neighborhood of the other non-courageous California freshmen nervous about losing their jobs. Mike Levin's district is slightly redder (R+1) but his voting record is considerably better-- "B" with a 84.44 crucial vote score. Still, Katie is voting somewhat better than fellow New Dem freshmen Gil Cisernos (71.11), Harley Rouda (68.89) and Josh Harder (63.64).

A couple of weeks ago I read the Red State post about the scandal and realized she was a goner. It isn't something I ever wrote about and even refused to discuss it on David Feldman's radio show when he kept asking me about it. There was no need for me to help push her off the cliff she was heading right for. I did begin feeling out potential candidates for the seat though-- something I'm still working on.

Since Hill's resignation announcement (above) late Sunday, Washington Post reporters Meagan Flynn and Michelle Ye He Lee, in separate articles, presented her story-- or the seamy side of it-- without any political context. Sunday night Lee broke the story for Post readers. "Last week, the House Ethics Committee opened an investigation into allegations that Hill was romantically involved with her legislative director, Graham Kelly, a relationship that would violate House ethics rules... Her departure came swiftly after allegations surfaced about a week ago in an article on the conservative website RedState.org. The article alleged that Hill and her husband were in a consensual three-person relationship with a woman on her campaign team. The article included text messages it said were between Hill and the woman as well as intimate photos of them together. Hill is openly bisexual. The article also alleged that Hill was involved romantically with Kelly. Under House ethics rules adopted last year in response to high-profile sexual harassment claims involving members of Congress, it is against the official code of conduct for members to 'engage in a sexual relationship with any employee' who works for the member."

Presumably it was Pelosi who made the call that Hill had to resign (rather than retire and just not run for reelection), a strategy that will make it easier for a Democrat to hold the seat. Pelosi announced that Hill "acknowledged errors in judgment that made her continued service as a Member untenable. We must ensure a climate of integrity and dignity in the Congress, and in all workplaces."




Hill's claim that she did not have a romantic relationship with Kelly-- the only thing that would have broken any House rules-- is sketchy. She said "Allegations that I have been involved in a relationship with Mr. Kelly are absolutely false. I am saddened that the deeply personal matter of my divorce has been brought into public view and the vindictive claims of my ex have now involved the lives and reputations of unrelated parties." Since I know from personal experience that she's a liar, I wouldn't believe the denial for two seconds. Lee added that "In her statement Sunday, she said she is pursuing legal options against those who released private photos, saying that 'having private photos of personal moments weaponized against me has been an appalling invasion of my privacy.' ... Hill has accused Republican operatives and her husband of coordinating a 'smear campaign' amid the couple’s pending divorce."

Monday morning, Meagan Flynn built on Lee's story. "For the first time," she wrote, "a House ethics rule that forbids sexual relationships with subordinates, passed in the wake of the #MeToo movement, has forced a lawmaker out of Congress. But to many observers, rather than drive home a warning about the consequences of sexual misconduct, Rep. Katie Hill’s resignation pointed to the disturbing power of 'revenge porn.' The California Democrat’s announcement Sunday that she would resign comes after the House Ethics Committee opened an investigation into allegations that she had a romantic relationship with her legislative director, which would violate House ethics rules, and which Hill denied. Hill was also accused of having a three-person sexual relationship with a female campaign staffer and her now-estranged husband, which she admitted was improper. But the allegations only came to light after a conservative news site and British tabloid published nude images of Hill without her consent-- circumstances that have led many critics to note that Hill is both accused of sexual impropriety and is a victim of sexual exploitation."

Hill herself has acknowledged both aspects of her case, previously saying she knew “even a consensual relationship with a subordinate is inappropriate,” while vowing Sunday to mount a legal fight regarding the leak of intimate photos. She has accused her “abusive husband,” with whom she is undergoing a contentious divorce, of engaging in a “smear campaign built around cyber exploitation,” saying he enlisted “hateful political operatives” for help. The nude photos were published by the conservative site RedState.org and the Daily Mail.

“Having private photos of personal moments weaponized against me has been an appalling invasion of my privacy,” she said Sunday. “It’s also illegal, and we are currently pursuing all of our available legal options.”

But fewer lawmakers have outwardly addressed the problem of revenge porn, or nonconsensual pornography. Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-FL) was a notable exception. Last week, Gaetz called the House ethics investigation “absurd,” questioning, “Who among us would look perfect if every ex leaked every photo/text?” He suggested the real reason Hill was being investigated “is because she is different.” Hill is also one of the first openly bisexual members of Congress.

Jill Filipovic, an attorney who authored the 2017 book The H-Spot: The Feminist Pursuit of Happiness, pointed out that the dominant focus in Hill’s case appeared to be on the alleged affairs rather than on the revenge porn, which she argued could deter other women from aspiring to public office.

“It’s important to have consistent standards and say that sexual relationships with underlings are not appropriate, whether the boss is male or female,” she wrote in a Medium essay last week. “But if we care about gender equality and the ability for women to fully participate in the public sphere, the sexualized attacks against Hill are the most pressing matter.”

Other critics noted that Rep. Duncan D. Hunter (R-CA) was accused by federal prosecutors in June of using taxpayer money to fund extramarital affairs with congressional staffers and lobbyists. The House Ethics Committee launched an investigation into Hunter’s conduct in September 2018, after he was originally indicted on charges of wire fraud and misuse of campaign funds. But despite pressure to resign from some lawmakers, Hunter has remained in Congress. Hunter has denied wrongdoing, and as The Post reported previously, the ethics panel has deferred taking action as federal prosecutors conclude their own probe.

The House rule that prompted the ethics panel to launch an investigation into Hill’s alleged relationship with congressional staffer Graham Kelly was passed in February 2018, during the peak of the #MeToo movement fallout. For the first time in Congress, the House resolution addressed the improper power dynamics of consensual relationships between members of Congress and their employees by banning any such relationship, while further protecting accusers who come forward with sexual harassment claims.

At the time the law passed, nine members of Congress had recently resigned or announced their looming departure amid allegations of sexual misconduct or related impropriety-- including one case that also involved leaked nude photos.

Former Texas congressman Joe Barton announced he would not seek reelection in 2018 after a nude photo of him circulated on Twitter and across the Internet, leading to revelations that the Republican, who was then married but separated from his wife, was having affairs with multiple women. In a November 2017 statement, Barton apologized for not using “better judgment,” saying he let down his constituents while acknowledging consensual sexual relationships he had had with other women.

A recording of a phone call Barton had with one woman, obtained by the Washington Post, revealed him telling the woman not to disseminate the explicit photos or else he would report her to the Capitol Police. Some argued Barton was a victim of revenge porn, while others questioned whether the nude photo he had sent was unsolicited.

But one notable difference between the Barton case and Hill’s is the fact that right-wing publications chose to release the photos, especially since they depicted “a politician of the opposing party,” Quinta Jurecic, managing editor of Lawfare, a legal blog, wrote in an op-ed.

“This is an ugly line to have crossed,” she wrote, adding: “The United States has not historically had a culture in which political media outlets publish nude photographs of opposition politicians for sport. It’s also a disappointing irony that this is taking place in a period in which legislatures are increasingly recognizing the harm of nonconsensual pornography.”

According to the Cyber Civil Rights Institute, 46 states and the District of Columbia have revenge porn laws-- and California, Hill’s home state, is among them. Reps. Jackie Speier (D-CA) and John Katko (R-NY) also reintroduced bipartisan legislation in May that would federally criminalize sharing sexually explicit images of someone without that person’s consent. Sen. Kamala D. Harris (D-CA), a Democratic presidential candidate, has introduced companion legislation in the Senate.

Mary Anne Franks, a professor at the University of Miami School of Law who assisted in drafting the first law against nonconsensual pornography, urged the passage of the bill, known as the SHIELD Act, and spoke out in support of Hill on Twitter.

“One of the many terrible effects of nonconsensual pornography is how it can be used to drive women out of politics,” she wrote. “As we at [Cyber Civil Rights Institute] have been emphasizing for years, ‘revenge porn’ very often serves as a tool of abusive partners and a means to silence women.”

Names being bandied about on the Democratic side are Secretary of State Alex Padilla (who represented the 20th Senate district east of CA-25), Assemblywoman Christie Smith (who made it official already! and appears to be the DCCC fave), Bryan Caforio and Lee Rogers (the most progressive name out there). On the Republican side there are over a dozen either in or talking about it-- from Russia-Gate jailbird George Papadopoulous to ex-L.A. County Supervisor Mike Antonovich, probably the strongest potential GOP candidate. Lancaster City Councillor Angela Underwood-Jacobs has already announced, as has Mike Garcia, who the NRCC was supporting when he was viewed as a sacrificial lamb. Now they will dump him as fast as they can find someone more electable. Steve Knight has told friends he's going to probably run.