Trump's Not Draining Any Swamps-- Any Chance Congress Will? Two Congressman Are Going To Try

Ro Khanna (l), Mike Gallagher (r)

You're not going to find many congressional freshmen working together who are as fundamentally different-- politically-- as dedicated progressive champion Ro Khanna (D-CA) and crackpot right-wing loon Mike Gallagher (R-WI). But the two of them did an OpEd this morning for USA Today that makes the point that the way to increase bipartisanship in Congress is to reduce the role of the wealthy special interests that call the shots for both political parties. It's a simple and very do-able 3-step plan. The bipartisanship around it though, I'm afraid, will be the bipartisanship of GOP leaders Paul Ryan and Kevin McCarthy joining forces with careerist Democrats Nancy Pelosi, Steny Hoyer and Joe Crowley to kill the proposals if they show any sign of taking on a life of their own. This is not part of incumbent career protection and Congress never passes these kinds of reforms-- unless the public forces them to. Can two freshmen reformers get around their corrupted party leaders and appeal to the American public?

Two Congressmen Offer A Bipartisan Plan To "Drain The Swamp"
- by Mike Gallagher and Ro Khanna

You’d be hard-pressed to find two congressmen more dissimilar than us. We come from different parties, and we represent very different districts. One of us taught economics in the technology hub of Silicon Valley; the other is a Marine veteran from the dairy farming capital of the country. One of us campaigned against the Iraq War; the other served in it. Though we may not agree on everything, we do agree wholeheartedly on a key takeaway from our first few months as members of the U.S. House of Representatives: Congress is in critical need of reform to reduce corruption and diminish the power of special interests.

While the phrase “structural reform of Congress” often gets pushed aside to seemingly more urgent debates about domestic and foreign policy, we ignore this issue at our peril. The comedic newspaper The Onion ran an article in 2010 with the satirical headline “American People Hire High-Powered Lobbyist To Push Interests In Congress.” We aren’t sure if people would even recognize that as satire anymore.

Whether in Cupertino or Green Bay, we have heard loud and clear that our constituents want a fairer system of government, less money in politics, more bipartisanship and fewer lobbyists in Washington. Each of us have core values on which we will never compromise, and our voting records reflect that. However, 83% of Americans believe that Congress should find common ground on issues in order to get things done.

If voters want us to work together to solve problems, then why the years of gridlock? Put simply, because the system supports the status quo and resists real change.

We are at a historic opportunity to change that and institute reforms that will reduce corruption in our government and the influence of money in politics. The new administration, whatever your views on it, came to power pledging to drain the swamp. Bernie Sanders, whose populist message inspired millions, agrees with that goal, if not the method. The current freshman class of House of Representatives, which includes 27 Democrats and 28 Republicans, is more receptive to these ideas than any before.

As two of those 55 new voices in the House, we are proposing a series of reforms that will diminish the influence of special interests in politics, as well as encourage new voices to embark on the path we have taken to public service.

• Nonpartisan redistricting is essential to ensure politicians aren’t allowed to gerrymander their districts and choose their own voters. The less competitive a district becomes, the more general elections become formalities. This practice is already at work in Arizona, California, and Iowa and having independent, nonpartisan commissions commonplace across the country will ensure our congressional districts are drawn by the people, not politicians.
• Congress should not be a career. The longer people stay in Congress, the more adept they become at making the system work for them and not their constituents. That is why we and a number of our fellow freshmen support legislation that would set term limits of 12 years for Representatives and Senators.
• People should also run for Congress to serve, not to profit. That is why we call for a five-year ban on lobbying after a member of Congress leaves office. We hope that our colleagues all have successful careers after they turn in their voting cards; however, that success should not come from the “revolving door” between the Capitol Hill and K Street.

This is just a modest start. We hope to talk to many of our constituents and colleagues from both sides of the aisle in the weeks and months ahead to gather more proposals to encourage a culture of reform in Washington. We want to challenge the administration to live up to its campaign promise about “draining the swamp.” We also want to challenge ourselves and our colleagues to put self-interest aside and start putting forth reforms that reduce the power of special interests.

And, most importantly, we want to challenge voters to demand that their elected representatives support these efforts, or else find others who will.

Draining the swamp is not enough. Unless you structurally change how the swamp is fed, it will fill right back up. So let’s start on that structural reform and lay a pathway for tomorrow’s leaders to unite the country and confront the problems of the 21st century in the only manner we have a chance at solving them: together.

We asked Ro how he hopes to implement the reformist ideas he and Gallagher put forward in the OpEd. "Anyone watching the 2016 elections," he told us, "should have two takeaways. Most Americans are frustrated with the job politicians are doing and want a change from incumbency. Most are sick of the role of special interest money in politics. So you would think that term limits and banning corporate PAC and lobbyist money would have tremendous support. But it doesn't because too many people in the system have an incentive to keep it the way it is. The only way we get this change is if citizens across this country, regardless of party, start demanding it. We need to remember that those of us in Congress work for the people, and it's not the other way around! Hold us accountable. Force us to vote for basic reform."

Long after Gallagher buckles under to GOP threats, I expect we'll see Ro Khanna still fighting-- and looking for other allies in a battle the Establishment will viscerally hate him for waging.

The Republican Wing Of The Democratic Party-- Meet Jim Himes Of Connecticut

At a meeting of Democratic thought leaders earlier in the week, Elizabeth Warren posed a rhetorical question "Do you get the feeling that if Bernie Madoff weren’t in prison he’d be in charge of the SEC right now?" I wonder if New Dem chairman and former Goldman-Sachs banker Jim Himes was in the room, though I doubt it, since he spends so much of his spare time shuffling from fundraiser to fundraiser. The Financial Sector is very generous to Himes, who serves Wall Street's interests from his perch on the House Financial Services Committee. Since he was first elected in 2008, they've given him $5,545,212-- pure bribery-- more than any Democrat in the House other than notoriously corrupt House leadership scumbags Steny Hoyer and Joe Crowley.

Wall Street looks for the most easily corruptible congressmembers to lavish with immense bribes. Although they give many times more more to corrupt Republicans, in the 2016 cycle their top 3 bribees were Speaker Paul Ryan (R-WI- $4,415,864), sleazy "ex"-Republican crook Patrick Murphy (New Dem-FL- $2,157,347) and House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-CA- $2,139,229). The 5 Democrats, currently serving in the House, they found most easy to buy off were these buckets of disgusting slime:

• Joe Crowley (New Dem-NY)- $1,070,873
• Kyrsten Sinema (Blue Dog-AZ)- $1,007,440
• Jim Himes (New Dem-CT)- $979,235
• Sean Patrick Maloney (New Dem-NY)- $928,002
• Steny Hoyer (MD)- $811,276

What do they have in common? They all serve Wall Street banksters' interests in return for the massive infusions of cash into their careers. And they're all part of the Republican wing of the Democratic Party. They have all been groomed by Hoyer to take over the House Democratic leadership after he and Pelosi are gone.

When I look at that list I start to understand why Ro Khanna was willing to team up with right-wing lunatic Jodey Arrington (R-TX) to introduce term limits legislation into Congress, a constitutional amendment that would limit members of the House to serving six two-year terms and members of the U.S. Senate to serving two six-year terms. From Khanna's office this week:

Congress has a lower turnover rate than European monarchies, with 97 percent of Representatives and 93 percent of Senators winning reelection. This incumbency advantage for career politicians goes against what the Founding Fathers envisioned for the United States.

“Enacting term limits will give more voices the opportunity to serve in Congress and bring fresh ideas and new energy to Capitol Hill,” said Rep. Ro Khanna. “Being a member of Congress needn’t be a lifetime career, but instead more people should have the chance to work in public service.”

David Sirota's exposé in yesterday's International Business Times, Will Wall Street Money Turn Moderate Democrats Against Dodd-Frank? makes Khanna's point. He focuses in on Himes, the New Dem chieftain who was a former Goldman Sachs vice president and was feted Wednesday at a fundraiser at the Washington home of a Lou Costantino, a former Merrill Lynch lobbyist who is now the top lobbyist for the Managed Funds Association-- a major trade association for the hedge fund and private equity industries.

In their yearslong quest to rescind bank regulations and oppose the Obama administration’s fiduciary rule, financial executives have at times needed the help of a group of Wall Street-friendly Democratic lawmakers to secure votes necessary to advance their agenda. Now, as those executives and Republican lawmakers seek the votes needed to help Donald Trump dismantle Dodd-Frank rules, a caucus of moderate House Democrats has chosen a former Wall Street executive and a prolific fundraiser of finance industry money to lead them.

  ...[T]the timing of the event is significant, because it comes just as Wall Street lobbyists are looking to peel-off Democratic votes to change Dodd-Frank. Himes may be a top target because of his new position leading the New Democrat Coalition-- a group of 61 Democrats in the House who have in the past provided key support to Republicans and Wall Street in their efforts to block or weaken Obama administration financial rules.

...Himes has said he supports the overall Dodd-Frank bill and he did vote against the Financial CHOICE Act that passed the House Financial Services Committee along partisan lines earlier this month. But with Republicans having trouble finding enough votes to support a full Dodd-Frank repeal, they may pursue a more piecemeal strategy to chip away at the law and other financial regulations in the same manner Himes and the New Democrats have sought to in the past.

For example, Himes co-sponsored legislation to weaken Dodd-Frank by reducing its mandated regulatory scrutiny of private equity firms. The bill, called the SBIC Advisers Relief Act of 2014, exempted advisers of small business investment companies (SBICs), a group which includes some private equity advisers, from SEC registration requirements.

Likewise, Himes’ co-sponsored a bill that repealed Dodd-Frank’s “push-out” rule that required banks to “push-out” risky credit default swaps into separate entities that would be required to have higher capital requirements and would not be eligible for federal assistance. The Wall Street Journal called the push-out rule “one of the most hated Dodd-Frank provisions on Wall Street.” The legislation was ultimately included in an omnibus bill passed as part of a deal to fund the federal government.

In 2011, Himes and the New Democrat Coalition opposed an early version of a proposed Fiduciary Rule designed to force financial advisers to prioritize their clients' best interests.

Many of those positions have reflected the Managed Funds Association’s agenda. Lobbying disclosures show the association has lobbied in recent years on the implementation of Dodd-Frank, as well as issues reflected in legislation Himes co-sponsored, including the “regulation and oversight of investment advisers,” and “legislation and regulation impacting alternative investment vehicles.”

...Wednesday's event for Himes at Costantino’s appears to be the second Wall Street-linked fundraiser for the Connecticut Democrat since the 2016 election that produced major victories for Republicans promising to undo financial industry regulation.

According to another invite obtained by Political Party Time, Himes held a fundraiser on March 14 at Heather Podesta + Partners, a lobbying firm that has since rebranded as Invariant LLC, and earlier this year lobbied on Dodd-Frank on behalf of Prudential Financial. Also this year, Invariant lobbied on “issues relating to financial services and banking regulations” on behalf of MacAndrews & Forbes, a diversified holding company led by billionaire Ronald Perelman.

Himes, a favorite guest of Rachel Maddow-- she gravitates, inexplicably, towards conservative Democrats-- is widely considered, along with Joe Crowley, the leader of the congressional chapter of the Republican wing of the Democratic Party. As far as we can tell, he has no primary opponent in 2018. A primary is the only opportunity to hold Himes accountable. His southwest Connecticut district, abutting Westchester County in New York and including Bridgeport and tony suburbs like Greenwich, Stamford, Darien, Norwalk and New Canaan, is blue enough for Himes to not have to worry he won't be endless reelected. Trump only got 36.6% there and Himes, who had no primary in 2016 either, beat Republican John Shaban 60.1% to 39.9%. Himes spent $1,098,673 to Shaban's $158,208. Unless progressives start primarying him, we're stuck with this guy forever.

Americans' Overwhelming Desire For Congressional Term Limits Isn't Because They Trust Or Admire Congress

As we've seen in California, there are real drawbacks to mandatory legislative term limits, not the least of which is how even more power devolves to lobbyists, something that has made Sacramento virtually worthless as a vehicle for progressivism, despite huge Democratic majorities. But Congress is so hated by the American people-- and rightfully so-- that term limits is supported overwhelmingly. A 2013 Gallup Poll show support at 75%-- 82% among Republicans (the dumb angry party), 79% among independents, and 65% among Democrats (the dumb complacent party). Over the weekend, the Democratic Party's convention platform committee voted down a plank opposing the TPP-- which is opposed by the vast majority of Democrats-- voted down strengthening the call for a $15 minimum wage by adding in a phrase about "eventually," and thanks to the delegates appointed by Hillary and Wasserman Schultz, killed an amendment to prevent the lobbyist/government revolving door. Congress, if anything, is even worse.

Last week Brookings released a study by Elaine Kamarck, Alexander Podkul, Grace Wallack and Nicholas W. Zeppos about the congressional elections coming up in November, all House seats and a third of the Senate seats. As we've been explaining (here and here, for example, the primary season for congressional seats is "just over halfway finished. Much has been said so far about the impact of Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump on congressional candidates, either in the primary or in the general, but little has been tested empirically. In the second cycle of the Brookings Primary Project, we have taken exit polls from congressional primaries to see what effect-- if any-- the presidential candidates are having down ballot. The answer so far: Not much."

On the Republican side, two incumbents out of 76 incumbents facing challengers have lost their seats so far, both due to redistricting. First, on June 7, Representative Renee Ellmers lost her seat in North Carolina’s CD-2. Ellmers was elected in 2010 during the Tea Party wave when she unseated a long-time Democratic incumbent. This time around, Ellmers lost to another GOP incumbent, Representative George Holding. Holding formerly represented the 13th district, but ran in the new 2nd district after a court mandated that North Carolina redraw the map. The new 2nd district included much of Holding’s old constituents. Just one week later, in the June 14 Virginia primary, another Republican incumbent fell victim to redistricting. Representative Randy Forbes, previously of Virginia’s 4th District, sought reelection in the 2nd District after the 4th was mandatorily changed to include more Democrats. Although VA-2 was open (vacated by Scott Rigell), Forbes lost to state Delegate Scott Taylor.

...Voters for all the presidential candidates in Republican primaries uniformly chose to vote for their sitting representative. A slightly higher percentage of Trump voters chose the non-incumbent, but this difference was not statistically significant. Trump voters were also the least likely to not vote in the congressional race, dispelling the earlier fears that Trump voters would only show up to vote the top of the ticket.

Trump cut a robo-call for Ellmers and endorsed her but it didn't help.

Brookings reported that the only Democratic incumbent to lose his seat so far was Chaka Fattah, who had had tons press for his criminal enterprises and was indicted on 29 charges of corruption including bribery and racketeering just before the primary. He still managed to come in second in a 4-way primary nd lost to a state Rep, Dwight Evans who had been in the state legislature for 35 years-- even longer than Fattah had been in Congress.

The good news was that the overwhelming majority of both Hillary and Bernie voters chose the non-incumbent, although Bernie voters were slightly more likely to choose Fattah, which is highly ironic considering he had taken a million dollar campaign loan in 2007 and then fraudulently routed federal grant and nonprofit money to cover it up. The real tragedy-- in Pennsylvania and around the country-- was that Bernie supporters were also slightly more likely to not vote for a congressional candidate.

Hillary has given some vague support to the DCCC and DSCC but hasn't tried to help any Democratic candidates. Bernie, whose campaign was more bootstraps-like and less of a machine, didn't do much-- other than help with fund-raising (probably the single biggest thing he could have done) for a few candidates-- Lucy Flores and Eric Kingson, who lost, Zephyr Teachout, who won, and Tim Canova and Pramila Jayapal whose primaries are coming up. Bernie traveled to Syracuse and gave Kingson a boost but it was too late to win the race for him and a worthless DCCC hack won.

It isn't much of a political revolution if Bernie voters turn out for his race and then don't bother informing themselves about the down-ballot candidates and then just skip voting or, worse, vote for the bad guys. We've got to work on that-- at least in time for Maria Chappelle-Nadal in Missouri and Pramila Jayapal and Angie Marx in Washington on August 2, August 23rd for the primary runoff in Oklahoma City between Berniecrat Tom Guild and party hack Al McAffrey and, most important, for a spate of races in Florida August 30, including Grayson's Senate race against Wall Street errand boy Patrick Murphy and Canova's House contest against #DebtTrap Debbie Wasserman Schultz. You can chip in for any of these races here: