11 Points Is Very Big

 

A new Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll of registered voters shows Trump losing in a 53% to 42% election-- an 11 point deficit. That's a lot. In the 1968 presidential election, the first time I was allowed to vote, Nixon beat Hubert Humphrey by seven-tenths of a point, about half a million votes. Carter beat Ford by 2 points. Four years later, Reagan's landslide win over Carter was 9.7 points. Clinton beat George HW Bush by 5.6 points and then beat ole Bob Dole by 8.5 points. Gore actually beat George W Bush 50,999,897 (48.4%) to 50,456,002 (47.9%) but the Republican Supreme Court blatantly stole the election for Bush. Four years later, Bush beat Kerry by 2.4 points. In 2008 Obama beat McCain by 7.2 points and then beat Romney by 3.9 points in 2012. Hillary beat Trump 65,853,514 (48.2%) to 62,984,828 (46.1%) but was denied the presidency because of the purposely anti-democratic electoral college (which should have been abolished long ago-- and would have been if it ever worked against a Republican or if the Democratic Party ever grew a pair).





Wall Street Journal reporter Eliza Collins wrote that "The poll holds warning signs for Republicans down-ballot, as well. Democrats came out ahead of Republicans by 8 points when voters were asked which party they planned to support for Congress... Biden continues to gain with groups that backed Mr. Trump in 2016, such as seniors and white women. At the same time, Mr. Trump’s lead has weakened among some core parts of his base, including white men without college degrees. A majority of voters are unhappy with the president’s response to the coronavirus pandemic. Some 41% approve of his handling of Covid-19 in the latest poll, compared with 57% who disapprove."

Even in states where a statewide loss is not likely for Trump, his unpopularity in suburban districts is going to kill his GOP enablers from coast to coast. It's what the silly Beltway prognosticators-- including at the DCCC-- don't understand about a wave. Even the very worst and least-deserving-of-reelection Democrats, like Blue Dogs Anthony Brindisi (NY), Kendra Horn (OK), Joe Cunningham (SC), Ben McAdams (UT) and Abigail Spanberger (VA), are all probably going to be reelected because of widespread antipathy towards Trump and his lackeys.

Progressive challengers in deep red districts who the DCCC wrote off early in the cycle, are now on the verge of defeating powerful entrenched Republican incumbents-- and some have even been embraced, albeit reluctantly, by the DCCC! Look at these 7 candidates. All are running in prohibitively red districts gerrymandered to elect Republicans; all were entirely ignored by the Democratic establishment; all are in districts where Trump's support is collapsing; and all are pulling even or surpassing their Republican opponents. These are the candidates whose campaigns we should be pouring resources into right now:

• Adam Christiansen (FL-03) R+9
• Audrey Denney (CA-01) R+11
• Nate McMurray (NY-27) R+11
• Julie Oliver (TX-25) R+11
• Liam O'Mara (CA-42) R+9
• J.D. Scholten (IA-04) R+11
• Mike Siegel (TX-10) R+9

7 races with an average PVI of about R+10... all once considered out of reach and absolutely impossible, but all now very much within reach and very much possible and worth investing in. For example, Julie Oliver's "impossible race" has now been endorsed by the DCCC, which is starting to get excited about seeing her replace one of the most vile of the Trump enablers in the House. "Everyone knows big money and the ultra-wealthy have too much power in Washington," Julie told me this morning, "and I’m a political outsider who has refused all PAC money and isn’t afraid to stand up to corrupt special interests and leaders in both parties. We need to end the culture of corruption in Washington, and Roger Williams has shown a disturbing pattern of unethical behavior-- whether it’s being investigated for amending a bill to support car dealerships by letting them rent out dangerous vehicles under active safety recall, cutting to the front of the line to take millions in bailouts for his car dealership while Texas small business owners lost everything and voting to keep that hidden from the public, or abusing his position to make backroom deals on behalf big money donors."

Progressive Democrat J.D. Scholten is running a campaign in Iowa based on the same kinds of ideas. Last night he told me that "All farmers can agree that we need to enforce our antitrust laws in agriculture because right now corporations are controlling the inputs, outputs, and choices for farmers. In my first year in Congress, my goal is to introduce legislation to modernize the Packers and Stockyards Act, level the playing field for farmers, and hold corporations accountable. Meanwhile, my opponent takes corporate PAC donations from Tyson, Smithfield, and Syngenta-- the very corporations that are helping to push farmers off the farm and into bankruptcy. My strong, unwavering support for enforcing antitrust laws has earned me support from farmers across the political spectrum."

This morning California progressive Audrey Denney told me that she has "consistently been running on: 1) Forest health and fire prevention, 2) Truly universal healthcare and an emphasis on rural health, 3) COVID recovery and economic growth, 4) Rural broadband. All with the underlying theme of the essential need to get money out of politics and fire corrupt self-serving politicians. Our message is getting through to voters and we are going to win... Since we sent Rep. LaMalfa back to DC for his 4th term:

• He voted against HR 968 that would have protected people with pre-existing conditions.
• He voted against HR 3 that would have lowered prescription drug prices.
• He voted against HR 1 which among many other things, would have strengthened ethics rules for members of Congress.
• He voted against S47 wildly bipartisan public lands funding bill-- when half of his district is public lands.
• He voted against the HEROES Act twice-- even though besides desperately needed COVID relief it would have provided: $500 million for Safer Grants (Fire emergency response), $500 million for Fire Fighter Assistance grants, assistance to livestock producers (we are now losing 4th generation cattle ranches), money for rural hospitals, and rural broadband.

Mike And Julie, The Key To Winning Back Texas

 

Republicans have controlled Texas for too long and have grown comfortable enough to overlook arrogance and embrace corruption. It's time for them to be put out to pasture. Many Texas voters-- particularly in the suburbs and exurbs around Dallas-Ft Worth, Houston, Austin and San Antonio-- are sick of Trump and giving up on his enablers. And whether Biden wins the state's 38 electoral votes or not, Texas is likely to flip as many as half a dozen congressional seats and possibly the state House as well.

Today, as the election barrels towards a denouement, we want to focus on the two most important congressional candidates running in Texas, Mike Siegel (TX-10) and Julie Oliver (TX-25), each in a gerrymandered district carved out of Travis County (Austin) and meant to dilute the votes of Austin Democrats by including rural and suburban counties that were GOP safe zones when the districts were drawn. Those safe zones are no longer safe and both Siegel and Oliver made tremendous headway against the GOP incumbents in 2018. Each is back to finish the job in November.

And each is polling so strongly that a reluctant DCCC-- never eager to endorse outright progressives in "red" districts-- was forced to add both Siegel and Oliver to their Red to Blue list this month. This morning, Siegel told us how clearly he understands the stakes. "When I beat Michael McCaul on November 3," he said, "it will send shockwaves through the political establishment. I'm running hard on the Green New Deal, to create millions of jobs while addressing climate change and the legacy of environmental racism. And when I defeat one of the wealthiest members of Congress, a person who has more money personally invested in oil and gas than any person in the House or Senate, in a district specifically gerrymandered to protect him (because his father-in-law is a media empire billionaire), and in a district that contains numerous fossil fuel concerns in the Houston "oil patch"-- that victory will make history. It will help to dispel this idea that to flip a red seat you need to be 'moderate.' It will show that progressive policies like the Green New Deal are winning issues BECAUSE they are bold, because they meet the scale of the crises we face. This victory will be about more than one seat, it will be about the movement.





Siegel, a civil rights attorney and a life-long union guy, is all about solidarity. He was quick to turn the conversation towards his neighbor and fellow-progressive. "And the same goes for my compatriot Julie Oliver. She is probably the most articulate House challenger right now when it comes to Medicare for All. Because of her personal story and her family's struggles with health care companies, and also because of her work as a lawyer with intricate knowledge of health insurance and spending, she is the perfect advocate for a national, comprehensive, single-payer healthcare system. And her opponent is a caricature of a wealthy, bigoted, out-of-touch Texas Republican. Who would you rather have as a representative, a grifting car salesman or a healthcare advocate and mom who is unafraid to knock every door in her 13-county district, who has fought for Medicare for All even when it wasn't universally popular, and who continues to lead on the most important issue during a national health crisis? I'll take Julie, thank you very much!"

He concluded that "The two of us-- staunch progressives who have built powerful campaigns that are even winning support from the political establishment-- have the opportunity to change the narrative of Texas politics. We can help usher in a new wave of progressivism in the South. As Bernie's recent town hall said, 'As Texas goes, so does America.' So let's make that real-- and win in November!"

Please consider contributing what you can to both Mike Siegel and Julie Oliver by clicking on the Blue America 2020 Texas thermometer on the right. Julie told us that "As the mother of a kid with pre-existing conditions and as someone with 20 years of experience in the healthcare industry, I understand exactly how the healthcare industry has failed Texans, how we can fund it more equitably and responsibly, and how our own Republican members of Congress worked to undermine care for millions of Americans. Both Roger Williams and Mike's Republican opponent Michael McCaul have voted more than 50 times to take healthcare from millions of Americans, including cancer patients, sick children, the elderly, and people with disabilities right here in Texas. They've voted at least ten times to end protections for people with pre-existing conditions, like the one my son has. So for me--just as it is for hundreds of thousands of people here in our district whose healthcare is threatened by our own Congressman--this was deeply personal."

As much about solidarity as Siegel, she said that "both Mike and I believe that real change is never top-down-- it is built and informed by Texas communities. That is why both of us have run such organizing-first, grassroots campaigns, with an emphasis on coalition building, working in solidarity with communities that the political status quo has ignored for too long-- whether that's blue collar Texans who haven't seen a pay increase; those who are being priced out of their own communities due to the soaring costs of healthcare, tuition, and housing; or the communities in Texas most severely impacted by climate change. And the natural byproduct of actually showing up and listening to the people that Congress is supposed to serve-- not corporations, not DC elites-- is that we're rooting out corruption and ending the era of pay-for-play politics. Both Mike and I are political outsiders. I'm confident that neither of us can be arm-twisted behind closed doors, and we're not afraid to stand up to corrupt politicians and special interests. For too long, career politicians like Roger Williams and Michael McCaul have taken advantage of hardworking families while they use their office to enrich themselves. And it's time for real, positive change for Texas."





Last week, one of Texas' sharpest reporters, Abby Livingston, wrote that another Texas congressional candidate-- neither a real progressive nor a conservative but more of a moderate-- Wendy Davis, who was slaughtered in her 2014 in her high-profile run for governor, was thinking a lot about why she lost by 20 points but 4 years later Beto O'Rourke lost by just 2.5 points in his statewide race against Ted Cruz. Livingston wrote that Davis figured it out: in "2018 there was a robust lineup of Democratic candidates down ballot running for the U.S. House, the state Legislature and other local campaigns. That wasn’t the case in 2014. Those candidates knocked on doors, raised money, showed up to Rotary Club meetings and de-stigmatized Democrats in once-hostile territory. Some even won. Davis said those down-ballot races were key to O’Rourke’s performance." Beto agrees.

Livingston's point is that Biden's fate in Texas next month "could rest on the backs of dozens of mostly obscure Democratic candidates who are competing for legislative and congressional seats in the suburbs that have been strongly Republican... And with more national and local money pouring into those down-ballot races, political experts say that could have a major effect upstream on the ballot. 'Normally, House and down-ballot candidates are desperate for presidential investment,' said Amy Walter, a political analyst at the Cook Political Report. 'In this case, I think that all the money being poured into suburban [congressional districts] and battleground state [legislative] districts could help boost Biden.'"

Roger Williams-- The Personification Of Congressional Corruption

Who would you trust more, a used car dealer or a congressman?

A few years ago, the Texas Tribune published an investigative piece by the Center for Public Integrity's John Dunbar about one of Texas' most corrupt politicians, Congressman Roger Williams. "Buried within a massive federal transportation bill," wrote Dunbar, "is a little-noticed provision that is of great interest to automobile dealers. The man who offered the amendment is U.S. Rep. Roger Williams, a second-generation car dealer... The provision, an amendment offered just before midnight on Nov. 11, would allow dealers to rent or loan out vehicles even if they are subject to safety recalls. Rental car companies, meanwhile, don’t get the same treatment under the proposed law. In essence, the amendment would allow an auto dealer to loan you a vehicle under active recall while you are getting your own fixed for the same defect. The man who offered the amendment is no stranger to car dealerships. In fact, that’s his business. U.S. Rep. Roger Williams, R-Austin, sponsored the amendment. In introducing it on the floor of the House, he noted, 'I am a second-generation auto dealer. I have been in the industry most of my life. I know it well.'"

Williams knows how to feather his own nest and seems to think doing that is the reason-- the only reason other than parroting Trump-- is why he's in Congress. Williams sits on the House Financial Services Committee, consistently serving the interests of the banksters over the interests of his own constituents-- or at cleats his own constituents who aren't banksters. Since being elected to Congress in 2012, Williams has taken a massive $3,012,716 from the finance sector his committee is supposed to be doing oversight of. Although Congress conveniently doesn't define Williams' outrageous behavior as criminal bribery, that's exactly what it is.

So far this cycle, Williams has raised $1,409,203 (compared to the $461,863 his Democratic opponent has raised). In the current cycle, over 77% of his contributions come from PACs and other political committees (including joint fundraising committees like Take Back the House and Take Back the House 2020 joint fundraising committees). Many of the PAC contributions come from the industry he's supposed to oversee-- the financial services industry (see example in screenshot below-- everything highlighted in yellow is a financials services-related PAC). In fact, by far, Williams' biggest source of "contributions" comes from the Finance Sector-- almost 4 times more than his next closest money source. Securities and Investment companies and executives, the insurance business, the real state business, commercial banks, the finance and credit card industry, payday lenders, etc have flooded his campaign with "contributions," absolute blatant bribery to a crook always eager to sell his votes.

Back to the Center for Public Intergrity investigation, Dunbar noted that "The possibility that his action might be considered a conflict of interest was apparently not on his mind, though it certainly occurred to others. 'It seems to me that if it isn’t illegal, if it isn’t an ethics violation, it ought to be,' said Rosemary Shahan, president of Consumers for Auto Reliability and Safety, a consumer group. 'His amendment benefits nobody but car dealers. And he’s a car dealer.'"

The rental car provision in the legislation, which is also in the Senate bill, was spurred by the deaths of Raechel and Jacqueline Houck, ages 24 and 20. The two sisters were killed in 2004 while driving a rented, recalled vehicle that caught fire and crashed head-on into a semi, according to consumer groups that have backed the rental car proposal.

Williams’ amendment would make the act apply only to companies whose “primary” business is renting cars, which would effectively exclude dealerships. No such provision exists in the Senate bill.

The amendment received little attention in the press, which may have been due to the late hour it was offered.

...“It was the House floor, almost midnight, there was hardly anyone there,” said Shahan. It passed on a voice vote.

Speaking in favor of the amendment on the floor that night was another auto dealer, Rep. Mike Kelly, a Pennsylvania Republican who sells Chevrolets, Cadillacs, Hyundais and KIAs.

  ...Williams is chairman of Chrysler Dodge Jeep RAM SRT in Weatherford. In his remarks on the House floor, Williams said the bill was bad for small businesses.

“Vehicles would be grounded for weeks or months for such minor compliance matters as an airbag warning sticker that might peel off the sun visor or an incorrect phone number printed in the owner’s manual,” he said.

Democratic Rep. Lois Capps of California didn’t agree with that reasoning, however.

“This is ridiculous. NHTSA (National Highway and Traffic Safety Administration) does not issue frivolous recalls,” she said. “All safety recalls pose serious safety risks and should be fixed as soon as possible.”

Members use the House “Code of Conduct” in guiding their actions. One section appears to be relevant. A member can’t receive compensation “the receipt of which would occur by virtue of influence improperly exerted from the position of such individual in Congress.”

The House ethics manual states that “whenever a member is considering taking any such action on a matter that may affect his or her personal financial interests,” he or she should contact the House Ethics Committee for guidance.

It’s not clear whether Williams did that or not. A spokesman for the House Ethics Committee declined comment.

So why dredge this up again now? Well, yesterday there were two related pieces in Politico pointing to Williams' continuing corruption. One, Members of Congress took small-business loans — and the full extent is unknown, featured a photo of him at the top of the page. A Politico team reported that "At least four members of Congress have reaped benefits in some way from the half-trillion-dollar small-business loan program they helped create. And no one knows how many more there could be." The first crook mentioned, of course, was Williams who they described as "a wealthy businessman who owns auto dealerships, body shops and car washes." The other three are all conservatives, Republican Vicky Hartzler of Missouri, whose family owns multiple farms and equipment suppliers across the Midwest and two New Dems, Susie Lee (NV), whose husband is CEO of a regional casino developer, and Debbie Mucarsel Powell (FL), whose husband is a senior executive at a restaurant chain that has since returned the loan.

Democrats have tried to pry free the list of recipients. But their push in the House to require disclosure of at least some companies was blocked on the floor late last month by Republicans-- including Williams and Hartzler, who voted against the bill. Lee and Powell joined all Democrats in supporting it. All four lawmakers have previously voted in favor of the small-business program.

...While it is not illegal for lawmakers to apply for or accept the money, it has raised new questions about lawmakers’ potential conflicts of interest as they craft the next coronavirus rescue package as well as the administration’s fierce secrecy of the $670 billion program. The program already faced intense scrutiny over charges it was helping the well-connected after reports revealed that large corporations were among the first to be awarded loans, while the smallest businesses were stuck in line.

...Much of the scrutiny surrounding lawmakers taking PPP loans has centered on Williams, one of the wealthiest members of Congress with a net worth of over $27 million in 2018. He received a PPP loan for an undisclosed amount for his Roger Williams Chrysler Dodge Jeep dealership in Weatherford, Texas. The same dealership employs his wife, according to his most recent financial disclosure form.

“If you’re a multimillionaire taking taxpayer money in the middle of the biggest unemployment since the Great Depression, get ready to explain that decision to the American people,” said Rep. Katie Porter (D-CA) as she introduced new transparency legislation last month and called out Williams by name in a news release.

No one expected a crook like Williams to work with the 38 House Republicans who joined every single Democrat to pass the Truth Act transparency amendment. Just the concepts of "Truth" and "transparency" are, to Williams, like a cross is to a vampire. 4 Texas Republicans voted against Williams: Chip Roy, Dan Crenshaw, Michael McCaul and Will Hurd.

Kyle Cheney and Zach Warmbrodt wrote the second piece yesterday, Inspectors general ask Congress for help in monitoring coronavirus relief payments, which isn't specifically about Williams, just general GOP corruption in the same matter. "Federal watchdogs," they reported, "are asking lawmakers for help after Trump administration legal rulings appeared to sharply limit their ability to monitor more than $1 trillion in coronavirus relief programs-- including huge payouts to protect businesses threatened by the pandemic. In a two-page letter to several House and Senate committees last week, but disclosed for the first time on Monday, the inspectors general responsible for coronavirus relief oversight said an “ambiguity” in the main coronavirus response law-- the CARES Act-- allowed administration officials to sharply limit how much of the law’s spending requirements they must collect and report. This narrow interpretation of the law, the inspectors general warn, would dramatically impede their ability to gather information about some of the most expansive programs in the law, from the $670 billion Paycheck Protection Program to the $454 billion Treasury fund to protect businesses and industries damaged by the outbreak. The legal opinions are the latest squeeze put on inspectors general by the Trump administration, which has gradually chipped away at the ability of internal watchdogs to monitor aspects of the administration’s conduct independently."

As you may know, Blue America has endorsed Julie Oliver, who won her primary handily and is now taking on Williams in this gerrymandered Texas district that includes all or parts of 13 counties and snakes down from the GOP-leaning suburbs south of Ft. Worth into the heart of progressive Austin and down into Texas Hill Country. It was drawn by Tom DeLay to always send Republicans to Congress. But last year, Julie ran up big victories in Travis and Bell counties and made significant inroads in Hays and Coryell, closing to red/blue gap by 12 points. Her campaign increased Democratic vote share by an astounding 211% and she has just 9 more points to go. I might add that in 2018 her campaign’s data team piloted a targeted voter registration program that was instrumental in flipping 3 Republican-held Texas state House seats, and even as they take on Williams they are still focused on building the coordinated campaign to defend those seats. Please consider giving Julie a hand by clicking on the Blue America 2020 congressional thermometer on the right.

Blue America Endorsement: Julie Oliver (TX-25)

Late last year, Texas progressive Julie Oliver wrote a spectacular guest post for us about universal healthcare. She was in the midst of a primary battle with another worthy challenger eager to take on crooked conservative incumbent Roger Williams in the gerrymandered 25th congressional district. Julie won her primary 55,721 (70%) to 24,340 (30%) and is in the midst of a virtual campaign for the R+11 seat she made great strides towards winning in 2018, holding Williams down to a 53.5% win.

Julie trounced Williams in the district's biggest county, Travis and beat him by an even bigger margin in Bell County. This cycle, she is aiming to make bigger inroads into traditionally Republican Johnson, Hays, Burnet and Hill counties. But not by running on a GOP-lite platform. Yesterday she told us that she and her family "are in day 23 of social and physical distancing. We’re one of the very fortunate families who still have income, but like millions of Americans we’re unsure how long that will continue, or what happens next. As front-line healthcare workers who are making the absolute best they can out of an impossible situation continue to step up and serve those who need help, the lack of a coordinated federal response to the global pandemic of COVID-19 is only making matters worse." She told us that Medicare for All is taking hold among more and more Texas voters in the midst of this pandemic. If you agree Julie would make a great replacement for anti-healthcare fanatic and Trump stooge Roger Williams, please click on the Taking Back Texas thermometer below and consider contributing what you can in these challenging times.



It has driven home how badly we need those who value science, expertise, and competence to serve in positions of public trust.



But it has also underscored how broken and utterly inadequate our healthcare status quo really is-- and how wobbly our economy was for so many in this country in the first place.



I watched as our Congressman, a multi-millionaire Republican career politician from Weatherford, TX, voted to end protections for people like my son-- who we refer to as the walking pre-existing condition-- and I knew that I had to run.



I knew that not only was our healthcare status quo immoral, it was inefficient, expensive, and produced suboptimal outcomes, because I spent a 15-year-long career in healthcare finance. When folks don’t have insurance, they go to the ER for healthcare, and this in turn drives up the cost of healthcare for everyone.



I had no money, no party machine, no fancy insider connections, no list of donors waiting to write checks-- I was a total novice-- and in my naïveté, I thought if only I could explain to folks how broken the U.S. healthcare finance system was and how universal coverage could actually lower our healthcare costs and improve our healthcare outcomes, Republicans (who have historically run as “champions” of fiscal conservatism) would end their assault on healthcare in America.



We all know that’s not how things work. Congress has been utterly corroded and captured by corporate money-- from the pharmaceutical industry to the for-profit insurance industry-- with members of both political parties susceptible to its influence.



But I still believe that we can change how we do politics-- and how we deliver healthcare in this country. It is an urgent priority, made only more severe by a global pandemic that threatens to overwhelm our healthcare system.

Prior to the coronavirus outbreak, nearly five million Texans did not have health insurance, twice the national average.



In this past week another 6.6 million people nationally filed for unemployment; this doesn’t include independent contractors who lost clients during the same week.



Not everyone who loses their job will have insurance tied to that job. But for the folks who had insurance prior to getting laid off, if they cannot afford their COBRA coverage, they will join the ranks of the unemployed and uninsured.

6.6 million people lost their jobs in a single week, and that number is only going to grow over the next six to twelve weeks.



It shouldn’t take millions of people losing their jobs to show us how broken our healthcare status quo is.



We should have decoupled insurance from employment in this country long ago and caught up with the rest of the developed world-- now it is imperative that we do so.  It never made sense for us to permit for-profit insurance companies to create artificially small risk pools that allow them to drive up costs for everyone while making billions in annual profits from human suffering. It’s why I’m fighting for Medicare for All-- one comprehensive, nationwide risk pool.

My hope on the other side of the pandemic is that we do not repeat the mistakes that Democrats and Republicans made following the Great Recession of 2009. We have seen the pattern of allowing Congress to use a crisis to grant gigantic tax cuts to corporations paired with massive upward transfer of wealth, with all of the gains going to those at the top while the rest of the country struggles to get by without basic public goods like healthcare and paid sick leave.



If we want to truly rebuild our economy so that it is sustainable, let’s lift the burden of healthcare off of employers. Let employees decide where they want to work based on job satisfaction, not how much the employer will pay in health insurance. Let’s allow small businesses, who have been hit the hardest by this administration’s incompetence and lack of leadership, to compete for employed talent.



And let’s do the right thing by our fellow human beings and ensure that every single person in this country can see a doctor, afford prescriptions, and be well enough to live to their full potential.



Let’s pass Medicare for All.

Universal Healthcare Is Nothing To Fear— A Guest Post By Julie Oliver

After her first run against corrupt Republican Roger Williams-- in a gerrymandered central Texas district where she did far better than anyone expected-- Julie Oliver was unsure if she would run again. But at that time-- back in February-- she wrote a post about universal healthcare. “Those who use ‘socialism’ as a pejorative term to fear-monger,” she wrote, “want you to think that America can’t afford to provide universal healthcare. But the fact is, we can’t afford not to.”

On her campaign website, Julie is clear: she is “running a bold campaign for Medicare for All, a Green New Deal, a pathway to citizenship, and an economy that works for everyone, not just corporations and the wealthy few… She spent her career in the healthcare industry, crunching numbers and doing the books for a large hospital system. She has 20 years of experience in healthcare finance and taxation, and she was appointed by the Austin City Council to serve on the board of Central Health, whose mission is delivering healthcare to low income Texans. In this role, Julie has been an outspoken champion for accountability and transparency, and for getting high-quality healthcare to Texas communities who have traditionally been underserved.”

In this piece, I’m going to make the case for 4 arguments:

1- Universal healthcare is fiscally responsible.

2- Not only is universal healthcare the moral thing to do, our current system is un-American and anti-entrepreneurial.

3- The status quo props up a hugely wasteful, inefficient system— a.k.a., socialism for corporations and the rich.

4- America has never been afraid of taking on the big, bold, ambitious and aspirational goals. Providing a basic necessity like healthcare to our fellow Americans is nothing to fear. Failing to do so is un-American.

Universal healthcare is fiscally responsible, and American taxpayers already provide socialism for corporations and for the rich. Our blended economy would derive enormous benefit by moving to single-payer healthcare.

In his State of the Union address, Donald Trump declared that “America will never be a socialist country.”

Dr. Martin Luther King would often point out that America is already a socialist country-- our government provides socialism for the rich, powerful, and corporations. And the rest of us pay for it.

Universal healthcare is fiscally responsible. Our current path is not.

During my 2018 campaign for US House of Representatives, Republican candidates in Texas used the word “socialist” in the hope of frightening voters into supporting them and to fear-monger around candidates like me, who chose to listen to the people of Texas instead of corporations and lobbyists. (Despite those claims, our first-time campaign, relying 100% on individual grassroots donations, swung our heavily gerrymandered “red” district 12 points.)

Exploiting fear for political ends is nothing new. It is most pronounced in this country in the way politicians scapegoat immigrants and any imagined “other,” to produce paranoia and anxiety to justify any political end-- even an unpopular, failed, racist campaign promise like Trump’s border wall.

But in addition to anti-immigrant scapegoating, Republicans have been trying to use the word “socialist” as a dirty word since FDR’s New Deal, LBJ’s Great Society, and of course, President Obama’s Affordable Care Act.

And that appears likely to continue.

Socialism for the rich, capitalism for the poor

Never mind that Donald Trump enjoys taxpayer-funded trips to his own for-profit golf club, or that Trump’s inherited real estate empire grew as a result of $885 million in taxpayer funded subsidies. Never mind that Congress, comprised overwhelmingly of millionaires, either enjoys a gold-level ACA product, 72% of which is subsidized by taxpayers, or Medicare-- our country’s wildly successful socialized healthcare program.

We see socialism for the rich in a tax bill, literally written by lobbyists for the banking industry, that added $2 trillion to the national debt, and which handed 80% of the benefits to the top 1% wealthiest people in this country.

None of that has stopped politicians from trying to fear-monger by using the word “socialism.”

And nowhere is the term “socialism” used more pejoratively than in the status quo’s defense of America’s massively failed for-profit healthcare system, a system of legalized corruption that enriches lobbyists and corporations at the expense of every American, of the sick, of the poor, of medically fragile children, and of those with disabilities.

In the discussion surrounding the fact that the wealthiest, most powerful country in the history of the planet does not provide healthcare for those who need it most, “socialism” is the term most often deployed by politicians to terrorize voters.

The fact is that the majority of Americans favor single-payer healthcare-- that support is broad and bipartisan.

Yet while our insurance premiums-- and with them, the amount of people unable to see a doctor or afford their prescriptions-- continue to increase, and while medical GoFundMe’s become the norm, those in power have stymied any efforts at healthcare reform.

How did our Congressional priorities get so out of whack?

Those politicians’ campaigns are massively funded by the for-profit insurance, healthcare, and pharmaceutical lobbies. The Supreme Court ruled in Citizens United that corporations were people and money was speech. That unleashed a dangerous amount of spending by PACs, corporations, and special interests-- meaning that those who are politically connected are protected from accountability and that the American people suffer as a result. Pharmaceutical and insurance corporations are able to buy influence and outcomes through lobbying, PAC contributions and sympathetic political appointees.

We’re left footing the bill.

You already pay for everybody’s healthcare.

One of the complaints we often hear deployed amongst those politicians who oppose universal healthcare is: “You, the taxpayer, shouldn’t have to pay for someone else’s healthcare.”

I’m an expert in how healthcare finance works. I worked in corporate healthcare finance for 15 years for one of the largest healthcare corporations in the world. (I also have a law degree, and I’m an accountant with a tax background). So I can say, definitively and with authority:

You already pay for everyone’s healthcare. You just do it in the most expensive, inefficient and wasteful way, with the worst outcomes.

All of us already currently pay for everyone’s healthcare in America under both federal law and, in Texas, state law.

Federal law requires anyone coming to an emergency department to be stabilized and treated, regardless of their insurance status or ability to pay. Many people think that hospitals eat this cost; some do, but many don’t. Texas state law requires counties to provide healthcare assistance to eligible, indigent residents; this requirement creates a huge burden on rural hospitals, and that leads to hospital closures in communities where hospitals are one of the primary economic drivers.

Tex. Health and Safety Code § 61. The Indigent Health Care and Treatment Act. Acts 1989, 71st Leg., ch. 678, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1989. “Sec. 61.022. COUNTY OBLIGATION. (a) A county shall provide health care assistance as prescribed by this subchapter to each of its eligible county residents.”

The argument against socialized medicine is clearly being made in bad faith, because it’s too late-- we already pay for universal emergency care regardless of whether someone has insurance or can pay for it.

So what’s the difference between what we have-- wasteful, expensive, inefficient, propped up by the status quo, and subsidized by the taxpayer-- and what we should have?

The critical difference is that under our current system, preventive care isn’t covered.

Preventive care is life-saving, and providing it for everyone is fiscally responsible-- it is a fraction of the cost of emergency care. Until we provide preventive care for every single person in this country, everyone’s taxes and insurance premiums will continue to go up.

Let’s take two very treatable chronic illnesses as examples-- Type 2 diabetes and hypertension. Diabetes and hypertension are very common and also very treatable. But if left untreated, these conditions cause devastating complications and become some of the most expensive conditions to treat.

If a patient comes in through an emergency room because they’re in cardiac arrest that could have been prevented by medication management and regular office visits with a physician, the cost of that patient’s care is exponentially more expensive because of the trip to the ER. Assuming a hospital charge of $160,000 for cardiac surgery and a hospital stay, a patient could have scheduled visits with his doctor over 1,000 times (assuming an office visit charge of $150).

Universal healthcare is fiscally responsible.

Because Texas did not expand Medicaid, we have the highest population of uninsured people in the country. But, insurance or no-- and it seems silly to even have to say this-- every single person is going to need healthcare at some point in their lives. Healthcare is a basic human necessity. And when those without insurance need healthcare, they go to an ER.

What happens when uninsured folks visit emergency departments at hospitals? The federal government does provide some reimbursement to hospitals who have a significant Medicaid or uninsured population through disproportionate share (DSH) and 1115 waiver payments-- but these payments only cover a fraction of the associated costs.

If a hospital is in a high-density, urban area with lots of insured patients, it bundles the costs of “uncompensated care” (a term used to describe anyone who can’t or doesn’t pay their medical bills), and pushes them to insurance companies the next time they negotiate insurance reimbursements.

The insurance companies, in turn, push those costs (plus their profit and administrative fees of up to 20%) to employers, who then share the costs with their employees. That leaves insured people and the companies who employ them footing the bill for billions of dollars of healthcare annually.

So even if you’re lucky enough to have insurance through your employer in this country, your premiums will continue to rise as a function of the way we pay-- or don’t pay-- for healthcare in America.

Former Governor Rick Perry opted Texas out of Medicaid expansion. That left Texas taxpayers footing the bill for billions of dollars in uncompensated care. You can thank him (and Governor Abbott) for high insurance premiums and high property taxes.

Texas’ rural hospital crisis

Texas leads the nation in hospital closures, with 15 since 2013-- almost double any other state-- and they have all been rural. If there isn’t enough county tax revenue, hospitals close. Many county hospitals in rural Texas no longer deliver babies-- so if a mom goes into pre-term labor, and the next hospital is an hour or more away, the outcomes can be and often are unfavorable. Time is of the essence in treating strokes, heart attacks, brain injuries, and rattlesnake bites; if a county hospital closes, the danger is very real, and that community suffers.

Remember those “uncompensated care” costs that hospitals in urban areas pass along to insured patients and their employers? Hospitals in rural communities aren’t able to do that; they can’t push those costs onto insurance companies. Many operate at a deficit and must collect property tax revenue to cover the shortfall (urban communities also collect property tax revenue to pay for indigent healthcare). That means that it is the counties-- and those paying local property taxes-- paying for the uninsured who seek emergent care.

The way forward

So how do we lower healthcare costs for everyone? We allow every American to seek preventive care, and to avoid unnecessary and preventable hospital visits. We move to guaranteed universal healthcare-- that reduces the administrative fees that all of us subsidize in the massively wasteful corporate healthcare business in America.

Insurance companies are the middle men we pay for administering insurance claims. Medicare’s administrative costs are 2%, and there is no profit margin with Medicare. On the other hand, insurance companies’ administrative fees and profit are roughly 20% of the costs of care they administer; part of this 20% includes the 2017 compensation for health insurance CEOs of $342.6M; those costs are part of our healthcare costs.

Insurance companies also notoriously deny claims, and hospitals pay millions of dollars annually fighting these denials; again, we, the American taxpayer, end up paying for these costs.

The case is not that America can’t afford to provide healthcare to everyone. It is that it would be disastrous for this country to continue not to provide it.

The reality is that our county’s mixed-market economy would derive huge benefit from healthcare reform, and specifically by introducing singe-payer healthcare. We are already the beneficiary of socialized programs. When you travel by highway or air, a federal agency ensures that your travel is safe. Veterans can seek healthcare and housing services through the Veterans Affairs department. And the FDA ensures we are safe from virulent strains of E. coli, botulism, or salmonella because we have national food safety guidelines and testing. And, of course, public schools are probably the largest social program in our country.

The economic benefits to single-payer healthcare are transformative and impossible to ignore. Imagine the increase in productivity across the American workforce: when people are well, they can live and work to their full potential. Imagine the freedom that would come with separating insurance from employment-- when providing insurance is no longer a barrier to starting a business, or it’s no longer keeping you from chasing your version of the American dream.

Today’s politicians use the term “socialism” in the way that Orwell described political language in Politics and the English Language: “to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind.”

But all of us should have a say in how the country’s vast wealth should be used, and nowhere can that do more good than in providing healthcare for every single man, woman and child, rich or poor, young or old, pre-existing conditions or not. That is only going to be possible when we get corporations and big-money donors out of our democracy, and when lawmakers are truly accountable to the people.

I don’t think that’s too much to ask.

Heidi Sloan's Plan for Political Revolution

Heidi Sloan, a member of the Democratic Socialists of America, is running for Congress in Texas' gerrymandered 25th district, which stretches from Burleson, split between Tarrant and Johnson counties, just south of Ft. Worth, through Gatesville, Ft. Hood/Killeen and Texas Hill Country and into the heart of Austin (including the UT campus). The incumbent is a super-rich, super-corrupt used car salesman named Roger Williams. The district gave Trump a 55.1% to 40.2% win over Hillary and the PVI is R+11. Most of the district's votes come out of Travis County, which is overwhelmingly Democratic. The problem for Democrats lies mostly in Johnson, Burnet and Corvell counties, which are even redder than Travis is blue. This cycle there are 2 progressives, Heidi and 2018 candidate Julie Oliver, battling it out to see which will face Williams next November in what is shaping up to be another anti-red wave election.

Heidi is a farmer and an organizer, fighting for Medicare for All, a Green New Deal, worker’s rights, and safety and liberation for marginalized people. She didn't get into politics to become a candidate. Like a lot of folks, 2016 was a wake up call for her-- she told us she "saw the election of Trump as the consequence of a broken system, and I knew I had to act. For me, that action was not getting involved in elections but getting involved in my community. I became a grassroots organizer, and following that path has led me to see politics very differently than most people asking for votes these days." Below is a guest post she penned for DWT. Please read, enjoy and consider contributing to her campaign by clicking on the Take Back Texas thermometer on the right.



We All Deserve A Good Life-- How Come We Don't Have It?
-by Heidi Sloan

For the last 7 years, I've been a farmer at a housing project for the formerly homeless, and before that I spent years teaching toddlers with disabilities in public schools. I have spent my life on the margins, and in that time I have experienced firsthand how our institutions fail our people. Working in a preschool, I was very close to the problems at the root of our education system-- low wages and shamefully few resources for teachers, who spend too many hours in schools with too many students. I came to see that the leadership of teachers was key to addressing those problems, but teachers were not being listened to. In my work with the homeless, I grew weary watching more and more of my neighbors become homeless, knowing that no matter how well I did my job the structures that caused homeless maintained a never-ending pipeline of people destined for the street. In my personal life, I have cared for my mother, who struggles with finding and accessing the care she needs for her mental health. I have grown intimately aware of the many ways in which our health care system is designed to generate profit for insurance companies at the expense of healing the sick.

I tried to be the change I wanted to see in the world, and I came up against the limitations of being a single person in this world. And so in 2016, when Trump was elected, I decided to take a different path. I started to organize.

I joined the Democratic Socialists of America in Austin, and through that organization I learned what community organizing was by practicing it. I organized alongside the beloved Glenn Scott to win the largest affordable housing bond in Texas history. I organized alongside workers to win Paid Sick Days in Austin, a campaign which has been caught up in the courts but inspired similar successful campaigns in both Dallas and San Antonio after we won. I organized an 18-month campaign to move Congressional Representative Lloyd Doggett to sign onto the House Medicare For All bill. I stood with the Black community to block an egregious police contract.

What I learned through all of these efforts is that there is a way to build power outside of elections. For too many Americans, politics is about the one day every four years where somebody asks you to vote for them. For me, and for my fellow organizers, politics is about so much more than voting, and a person's power reaches so far beyond their vote.

The challenge lies in doing the work it takes to bring people into spaces where they connect with their power and find the courage to use it. That work is slow, and it requires patience and compassion and dedication to something greater than one's self. That is the work of movement building, and that is the work that led me to run for office.

I am committed to winning Medicare For All and a Green New Deal, to reforming our criminal justice system so it heals us rather than locking us in cages, to building power for the working class through unions, to securing safety and liberation for all people, to investing deeply in our families and schools and communities rather than in war and the destruction of our planet. But I understand that we will not win those things through elections alone. Over 70% of Americans already support Medicare For All-- we don't have this program for a reason, and the reason is that the institutions of power in this country are resilient to change that weakens capital and undermines the supremacy of the ruling class.

Our answer to this challenge is to run a class struggle campaign-- not to put one woman in a Congressional seat, but to organize a district so that no matter who is in office working people have enough power to hold their representatives' feet to the fire.

What's a class struggle campaign? A campaign that names and fights enemies-- as we did when we called out Governor Greg Abbott for scapegoating the homeless for political points. A campaign that crafts policy with directly impacted communities at the table-- as we did in drafting our platforms and endorsing the Homes Guarantee. A campaign that stands with our neighbors as they fight their fights-- as we did when we organized alongside Rodney Reed's family to stop his execution. A campaign that leverages its own power to build power alongside our allies-- as we did when we knocked doors to win a decarbonized Austin Energy, or when we mobilized around student protests, picket lines, and school closures. A campaign that follows the leadership of the working class-- as we did when I was arrested in solidarity with striking airport workers over Thanksgiving.

I am demonstrating the kind of leadership constituents can expect from me in office right now. But I wanted to make clear my commitments and my loyalties to the working class, and so our campaign has created an Organizing Platform which makes promises about the manner in which I will lead when in office. In this platform, I pledge to double union membership in the district, to never pay dues to the undemocratic DCCC, to invest in new leadership so that the continued growth of our movement doesn't depend on me being in office. I pledge to listen to communities of color when they take issue with how I am legislating, and to be available and accountable to my constituents with a clear set of promises to achieve that. I pledge not merely to vote on progressive legislation, but to organize and mobilize around winning the proposals we demand.

In our first three months, our campaign has knocked on over 20,000 doors. We have brought hundreds of volunteers into our movement, and we intend to bring hundreds more. Win or lose, we are building power that will outlast this election, and win or lose I am committed to the movement building work we are doing right now, which we did before and which we will continue to do. This is one fight, and we are all in. I invite you to join us in this fight.

Trump's Swamp Is Worse Than Even Harding's And Grant's Administrations Combined!

Last year USA Today columnist Paul Brandus reminded his readers that "We’ve had presidents who were used by members of their own family for personal gain, like Ulysses S. Grant. We’ve had presidents who stocked their Cabinet with greedy, self-serving mediocrities who took advantage of the public trust, like Warren G. Harding. We’ve had presidents who swore to 'preserve, protect and defend' the Constitution, only to then abuse it, like Richard Nixon. And we’ve had presidents who, thanks to a presumptive sense of entitlement, lived slimy private lives, using countless women before tossing them aside-- Harding again, plus John F. Kennedy and Bill Clinton."

But Trump, he continued, "falls into every single sleazy category, squarely and shamelessly... Much worse than Richard Nixon... A grifting family. A sleazy what’s-in-it-for-me Cabinet. Trampling on our beloved Constitution. And all these women. All the boxes, checked."

Last month David Mora, writing for ProPublica, attempted to examine one contour of the ever-expanding fetid Trump Swamp: lobbyists. He wrote that at the halfway mark of Trump’s occupation of the White House, "his administration has hired a lobbyist for every 14 political appointments made, welcoming a total of 281 lobbyists on board, a ProPublica and Columbia Journalism Investigations analysis shows. With a combination of weakened rules and loose enforcement easing the transition to government and back to K Street, Trump’s swamp is anything but drained. The number of lobbyists who have served in government jobs is four times more than the Obama administration had six years into office. And former lobbyists serving Trump are often involved in regulating the industries they worked for."

Even government watchdogs who’ve long monitored the revolving door say that its current scale is a major shift from previous administrations. It’s a “staggering figure,” according to Virginia Canter, ethics chief counsel for the D.C.-based legal nonprofit Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington. “It suggests that lobbyists see themselves as more effective in furthering their clients’ special interests from inside the government rather than from outside.”

We tracked the lobbyists as part of an update to Trump Town, our database of political appointees. We’ve added the names of 639 new staffers with the administration and the financial disclosures of 351 political appointees who have filled different positions over the past year, and we tracked the careers of 338 who departed government during the same period.

The full extent of the lobbying industry’s influence is hard to measure because federal agencies decline to share details of recusals granted to officials who disclose potential conflicts with their new government roles.

Consider Colin Roskey. Days after leaving a two-decade career as what one former employer called the “smartest” health care lobbyist, he joined the Department of Health and Human Services in January. As deputy secretary for legislation for mandatory health, he headed the portfolio that he tried to influence for most of his career.

HHS declined to reveal any recusals he signed while appointed. A spokesman said that “all employees are expected to abide by the ethics rules.”

Just days before joining HHS, Roskey listed among his clients major dialysis providers that receive federal payments through Medicare, including Fresenius Medical Care-- an industry juggernaut, with more than 330,000 patients in thousands of dialysis clinics in the U.S. A third of the company’s billion-dollar revenue comes from Medicare. A recent revamp in the dialysis industry ordered by Trump, expected to shift millions of dollars from dialysis centers to cheaper home-based options, put Roskey’s office at the heart of regulating how much profit or loss some of his former clients will see in coming years. Roskey said in an interview that he recused himself from this matter.

Public records show that Roskey lobbied for at least 27 clients between January 2017 and December 2018 on an array of issues other than dialysis involving public health care programs, from prescription drugs to palliative care.

In early October, Roskey stepped out of government and went straight back to work for his old lobbying firm, Lincoln Policy Group, which specializes in health care policy. “Spending time at HHS will make [Roskey] even more valuable to our team-- and we are so excited to have him back,” the lobbying firm announced in a statement.

Roskey said he had no knowledge of how the new kidney care regulations will be implemented.

After his monthslong stint with the Health Department, Roskey said he plans to lobby the legislative branch, which is not prohibited by the current ethics rules. “While working with the government I gained knowledge and background, intellectually and professionally, and I intend to unapologetically utilize those skills for my employer and clients,” he said.

The senior-level appointment of a key lobbyist raises concerns for ethics experts like Canter. “There’s no way [he would’ve been hired under Obama] because Trump dropped a key provision of the Obama ethics pledge,” she said.

Indeed, an Obama-era ethics pledge clause absent in Trump’s prevented registered lobbyists from seeking or accepting employment with any executive agency that they lobbied the two years prior.

Federal laws forbid government employees who have served as registered lobbyists in the two years prior to their appointment from handling the particular matters or the specific issue areas that they used to lobby. Similarly, after leaving the government, all appointees-turned-lobbyists are barred from seeking to influence their former agencies and engaging in behind-the-scenes work with other senior officials across the administration.

The revolving door, of course, has been spinning since well before the Trump administration. In 2009, after President Barack Obama took office, ProPublica built a smaller version of Trump Town. During his administration, government watchdog groups also decried the conflicts of interest brought by some political appointees, and the Washington Post tallied 65 lobbyists among Obama’s ranks in five years.

One Obama-era alum, for instance, has gone on to lobby for the nation’s largest pharmaceutical industry trade group, according to public records. Bridgett Taylor, who occupied Roskey’s position until Trump took office, left the government to lobby Congress and federal agencies on matters related to those she oversaw at HHS. Taylor declined to comment. A spokesperson for the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, Taylor’s employer, said that “her lobbying contacts have been confined to Congress,” and that she has not lobbied HHS in her new role.

If it’s certainly not new, the enforcement of ethics provisions has lagged under Trump. In governmentwide surveys conducted by the Office of Government Ethics, federal agencies reported only 106 registered lobbyists who joined the administration. In their answers, ethics officers argued that they “don’t know” how many registered lobbyists had been hired or that they didn’t “track the number of individuals who fell into this category.” When asked about referrals for further enforcement of ethics violations, an officer admitted that they “don’t maintain a centralized database of the bases of proposed disciplinary actions.”

Jeff Hauser, who heads the Revolving Door Project at the nonpartisan Center for Economic and Policy Research, contends that “Trump has organized the executive branch as a mechanism to reward allies and their political power. Lobbyists are hired not because they’re great at the specific matter that they lobby for but because their specialty is delivering political results.”

Corporations also see value in hiring former government staffers, as they bring connections within the agencies and exceptional knowledge about regulation. Among the staffers who recently left their administration positions, 29 went to work for K Street firms-- as registered lobbyist or not. At least 59 former employees have done so over the past three years.

One is Laura Kemper, a former HHS senior official who, within days of leaving her post in March, was hired by Fresenius. Now vice president for government affairs, Kemper heads the company’s policy group.

According to lobbying records, she is listed among the in-house lobbyists who have visited Congress, the White House and HHS since March, pushing everything from reimbursement for dialysis services to home dialysis. The records show Fresenius shelled out more than $2.2 million for lobbying activities during the first half of the year.

Kemper had also spent years lobbying Congress and federal agencies on behalf of health care companies before joining HHS in March 2017.

Her pass through the revolving door tests the boundaries of ethics rules. Indeed, Trump’s pledge prohibits staffers-turned-registered lobbyists from advocating for the special interests of their corporate bosses before the agencies where they used to work for at least five years. It also restricts former employees from behind-the-scenes lobbying with any senior federal official for the remainder of Trump’s presidency. Kemper signed that pledge.

Kemper declined to comment. In a statement, Fresenius said Kemper “has strictly followed her legal and ethical obligations and has not been involved in lobbying the administration or anything related to the Executive Order.” Disclosure forms filed by Fresenius “cite the general activity of a team and do not ascribe any particular lobbying activity,” according to its statement.

Recently, during an earnings call to investors, Fresenius CEO Rice Powell said that the company has talked to the “appropriate people in Washington,” without naming any particular Fresenius or government staffer. “We are in the midst of commenting and asking questions” with HHS officials, he added.

As ProPublica has reported, political appointees who return to lobbying have found ways to tiptoe around ethics rules. Some register as lobbyists but limit their interactions to Congress, leaving colleagues to lobby the executive branch. Ethics restrictions don’t apply to congressional lobbying.

One such case is Geoffrey Burr, a lobbyist who joined the Labor Department early in the Trump administration. More recently, he was chief of staff to Transportation Secretary Elaine Chao. He left the Transportation Department in January and soon became policy director at one of the nation’s largest lobbying firms.

According to records, Burr now lobbies for clients with a stake in transportation issues, including The Northeast MAGLEV, the company behind what would be the first high-speed train in the U.S. A January press release announcing his hiring praised Burr’s “high-level involvement with Transportation and Labor [that will] provide clients with the strategic guidance they need to navigate business issues with the administration.”

Burr signed the ethics pledge and, according to records, lobbies only Congress, abiding by the rule of not contacting the executive branch. Other partners at his firm lobby the Transportation Department and the White House’s Office of Management and Budget.

The Transportation Department didn’t respond to requests for comment, and Burr declined to talk.

There are also former Trump administration staffers who go back to K Street but don’t register as lobbyists-- the Lobbying Disclosure Act only requires those who spend 20% or more of their time lobbying to register.

Rebecca Wood and Brooke Appleton held senior Trump administration positions for more than a year at the Food and Drug Administration and the Agriculture Department, respectively. Both left the administration and returned to their former employers-- this time, in more senior positions.

Wood now leads the food and drug practice at Sidley Austin, a powerful law and lobbying firm in Washington, where her colleagues lobby the FDA for various clients. Appleton went from being director to vice president for public policy for the National Corn Growers Association; she leads at least six people lobbying the Agriculture Department and other federal agencies.

And, of course, it isn't just Trump on his own. His congressional allies are behaving just as corruptly. J.D. Scholten, the Iowa progressive running against neo-fascist Steve King pointed out that in terms of his district, the "administration is full of oil lobbyists that have created policy that clearly has benefited the oil industry while hurting farmers and rural America. Their actions in August alone depressed corn prices by 10%, a record drop for that month."

Julie Oliver, a progressive reformer taking on Trumpist used car salesman Roger Williams in a gerrymandered district (TX-25) that stretches from Burleson, split between Tarrant and Johnson counties south of Fort Worth, straight down into the heart of Austin. "Congress," she told his today, "is supposed to represent people-- real human beings. Not corporations, not lobbyists, not PACs, not special interests. There's a reason for the dysfunction and mistrust we feel about Congress-- just look at how bought-and-paid-for our congressman is. Roger Williams doesn't sit on the Rural Broadband caucus. He doesn't sit on the Beef caucus. He sits on Finance, where he looks out for big banks, and big money. Most of his contributions come from PACs. A lot of Democrats claim to not take corporate PAC money-- but we don't take a single dime from any PAC. It's because you have to know that when I'm in Congress, and I'm considering legislation on taxes for corporations, or pharmaceutical pricing, or Medicare for All, I can't have my arm twisted. We have to end the cancer of public corruption in our politics and get corporations and big money out of Congress."

Kara Eastman, the progressive Democrat taking on Trump enabler Donald J Bacon in Omaha has a very similar perspective: "I have rejected all corporate PAC contributions, and will continue to do so once in office. In contrast, my opponent, Rep. Don Bacon, votes entirely with his corrupt donations at the forefront. The most egregious example occurred in early 2019. As the House contemplated voting to reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act, Rep. Bacon was a supporter. But then, when it came down to a final vote, he voted 'no.' We later learned that this was due to the fact that the reauthorized legislation contained improvements to protections afforded to victims where their abusers owned or possessed firearms. The National Rifle Association opposed these protections, and communicated this displeasure to Don Bacon. Then, he voted no. It's well-documented that the NRA has sent him over $25,000 in direct contributions, plus more by way of independent expenditures in his races for Congress. It's this kind of pay to play that I oppose and will fight strongly against in Congress."

Kathy Ellis is running in a deep red southeast Missouri district which both parties take for granted. But no one likes corruption. "Representatives should be accountable to their constituents-- not their corporate donors and lobbyists," said Kathy this morning. "My opponent, Rep. Jason Smith, is open about his corporate ties. Just this cycle, he’s taken thousands of dollars in campaign contributions from organizations like ExxonMobil and the Koch Brothers. His loyalty lies with them-- not with the people of the 8th District-- and his votes against healthcare access, the rights of working-class people, and human rights clearly demonstrate this. My vote can’t be bought, and I’m not taking a single dime of corporate PAC money. My loyalty lies with my neighbors in the 8th District."