Donna Edwards And The CBC

Although the Congressional Black Caucus's 501 (c)(4) has some CBC members on it, the board is primarily a gaggle of sleazy Beltway corporate lobbyists and consultants, not quite as bad as the notorious CBC PAC board, but not on the side of the angels by any stretch of any imagination. Conservative Democrat Angela Rye is on both boards. Wednesday morning the Bernie-hating Rye (of Impact Strategies), blasted "white progressives" on her Twitter account for pointing out that the CBC is a virtual vacuum cleaner for bribes from many of the worst corporate interests in Washington. According to investigative reporter lee Fang, she was responding to Black Lives Matter calling the CBC out for too cozy a relationship with Big Tobacco, although not even Rye could actually think someone is going to equate Black Lives Matter with the "white progressives" she hates with such a passion.

By February, political activists in the black community-- like Black Lives Matter-- were already denouncing the CBC for selling out to the Establishment by tacitly backing Chris Van Hollen's Maryland Senate race against CBC member Donna Edwards. The hate-filled Rye doesn't just hate Bernie and white progressives, she harbors an intense antipathy towards Donna Edwards and has worked with the corrupt Al Wynn to undermine Edwards at every opportunity. Needless to say corporate shills like Rye weren't comfortable reading this from Color of Change:

A Washington, DC Political Action Committee (PAC) that claims to speak for Black people but is really a mouthpiece for corporate power recently made two very big announcements that could impact important upcoming elections. Two weeks ago, the Congressional Black Caucus PAC, with it's lobbyist-dominated Board of Directors, made a high-profile endorsement of Hilary Clinton and quietly decided not to endorse, fellow CBC member, Rep. Donna Edwards' historic bid to become only the second Black woman to be elected to the Senate.


The lobbyists sitting on the CBC PAC’s board represent the worst of the worst-- companies that are notorious in the mistreatment and exploitation of Black people. The depth of corporate influence over the CBC PAC is so troubling because its endorsements carry the name of the Congressional Black Caucus, trading off a name that is wrapped in the moral authority of the civil rights movement. For hours, media incorrectly reported that the Congressional Black Caucus and not the CBC PAC endorsed Secretary Hillary Clinton for President. Meanwhile, the CBC PAC's corporate board members and donors who represent private prisons, big tobacco and the anti-worker National Restaurant Association were nowhere to be seen. This is wrong and the CBC must act to stop it now.


...The day following the endorsement in the Presidential race, Politico reported that the CBC PAC would not be endorsing Rep. Donna Edwards, a progressive hero, CBC member, and one of two Black women candidates in a competitive primary vying to become only the second Black woman ever elected to the U.S. Senate. According to reports, the decision was largely driven by CBC PAC board member, Al Wynn, the Congressman-turned-lobbyist who lost his seat to Edwards in 2008. Black voters ousted Wynn for his corporate ties back in 2008 but thanks to the corporate board of the CBC PAC, he is still speaking for Black people. If corporate lobbyists on the CBC PAC's board can decide to withhold support from someone like Rep. Edwards, why are they being allowed to operate under the banner of the Congressional Black Caucus?


Bought & Bossed


Although the Koch Brothers are absent, the lobbyists sitting on the CBC PAC’s board represent the worst of the worst-- companies that are notorious in the mistreatment and exploitation of Black people. As The Intercept reported:

Members of the CBC PAC board include Daron Watts, a lobbyist for Purdue Pharma, the maker of the highly addictive opioid OxyContin; Mike Mckay and Chaka Burgess, both lobbyists for Navient, the student loan giant that was spun off of Sallie Mae; former Rep. Albert Wynn, D-Md., a lobbyist who represents a range of clients, including work last year on behalf of Lorillard Tobacco, the maker of Newport cigarettes; and William A. Kirk, who lobbies for a cigar industry trade group on a range of tobacco regulations.


And a significant percentage of the $7,000 raised this cycle by the CBC PAC from individuals was donated by white lobbyists, including Vic Fazio, who represents Philip Morris and served for years as a lobbyist to Corrections Corporation of America, and David Adams, a former Clinton aide who now lobbies for Wal-Mart, the largest gun distributor in America.

Ironically, both Democrat Presidential candidates have shunned contributions from private prison lobbyists, while the CBC PAC remains silent about its relationship with them. The CBC PAC has taken thousands of dollars from Akin Gump, the lobbying firm that has made millions of dollars lobbying to protect their private prison client, Corrections Corporation of America over the last several years. Black caucus members should be leading, not following the disastrous trend towards more corporate control over government.


In addition, the CBC PAC has taken in even larger amounts directly from the Political Action Committees of harmful companies and industries. Anti-worker groups like the National Restaurant Association have given thousands to CBC PAC while they have worked to keep worker wages and benefits at a minimum. Other corporate donors include pay day loans company Cash America, Big Tobacco front group PURO PAC, and the telecommunications companies that worked to bring an end to an open and free internet.


As if it wasn’t bad enough to use the brand of the CBC as a front for corporate lobbyists, the CBC PAC board members used the event of their Presidential endorsement to deride young Black voters who may favor a different candidate. On a stage bought and paid for by some of the biggest corporations in America, Rep. G.K. Butterfield painted a picture of naïve and uninformed voters claiming “many of them are inexperienced and have not gone through a presidential election cycle before." Young Black voters were a decisive factor in securing victory for President Obama in both of his elections but the CBC PAC would rather criticize young people than their own corporate benefactors.


We saw this type of targeted corporate influence during the net neutrality debate, with big telecom lobbyists lining up to cut checks to Black leaders willing to destroy the open Internet. In fact many of the Black elected officials who opposed net neutrality also sit on the board of the PAC alongside bad corporations. This form of “civil rights washing”-- of wrapping dangerous policies in a cloak of support from Black gatekeepers-- cannot be trusted or lifted up as the voice of Black people.


... This isn’t about Hillary or Bernie, although they both have improved their stances on racial justice issues under pressure from the Black community and our allies, they still have room to grow. This is about changing the CBC PAC to stop it from representing itself as the voice of Black communities when it is dominated by some of the worst corporations for Black people.

Rachel Bade's Politico piece about Donna meeting with CBC members last week only scratches the surface of the tension between principled and dedicated legislators like Edwards who are in it to serve their constituents, and the careerist hacks who have very different priorities.

Only four of the 46 CBC members-- Reps. Gwen Moore of Wisconsin, Lacy Clay of Missouri, Robin Kelly of Illinois and Hank Johnson of Georgia-- are backing Edwards over Van Hollen, an unusually small number for a group known for standing by fellow African-American lawmakers. Meanwhile, Van Hollen has been making hay over his growing number of endorsements from black political leaders in Maryland, including some in Edwards’ district, though he has yet to be endorsed by a CBC member.

Edwards, who won her House seat by defeating Al Wynn, a popular member of the CBC, in a Democratic primary in 2008, has had a strained relationship with many black lawmakers from the start. But with she and Van Hollen running nearly neck-and-neck in a primary that many expected Van Hollen to win easily, Edwards has been reaching out over the past two weeks to members of the CBC to ask why they’re not backing her bid to be only the second black woman elected to the U.S. Senate. She’s also pressed her case with lawmakers at the Democratic Club restaurant, where members often eat.

Sources close to the CBC and lawmakers familiar with the conversations said some of Edwards’ CBC colleagues responded to her in frank terms. Members of the CBC have long considered her abrasive and said she’s not an easy colleague to work with.

“She has not developed good relationships with the members of the CBC, quite frankly,” said a source familiar with the CBC. “A lot of people find her difficult.”

Yes, people who want to get something done for the downtrodden and disadvantaged and who refuse to be bought by the "generous" corporate lobbyists who are as much the mainstay of the CBC as they are they mainstay of the New Dems and Blue Dogs, are always considered "difficult" by the Beltway elites who just want to see the pay-off rolling in smoothly. There is no greater sin in that world than successfully challenging a corrupt member who brought goodies to the table the way Al Wynn did-- and, now one of Washington's slimiest lobbyists-- still does. The corrupt conservatives who dominate the CBC have never forgiven Donna for ending his congressional career-- and for challenging him on a package of issues that could be used against most of them.

Angela Rye

True that only 4 CBC members endorsed Donna, but we found over a dozen who had contributed to her campaign, including stalwart progressives Barbara Lee (CA), Bonnie Watson Coleman (NJ) and Yvette Clarke (NY). But so did Jim Clyburn (SC), CBC Chair G.K. Butterfield (NC), Marcia Fudge (OH), Joyce Beatty (OH), Sanford Bishop (GA), Corrine Brown (FL), Hank Johnson (GA), Sheila Jackson Lee (TX), Bennie Thompson (MS), Cedric Richmond (LA), Robin Kelly (IL), Eleanor Norton Holmes (DC), Danny Davis (IL), Lacy Clay (MO) and Gwen Moore (WI). Gwen's endorsement flew in the face of the bullshit Rye, Wynn and the other corruptionist are spreading about her on Van Hollen's behalf. "I am proud to endorse my friend and colleague Donna Edwards for the United States Senate in Maryland. Over the years, I’ve worked closely with Donna to reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act, tackle income inequality, and stand up to the special interests that try to dismantle the middle class and hurt our most vulnerable. I know when Donna steps into the halls of the United States Senate, she’ll continue the fight to make sure women receive equal pay for equal work and that we protect the victims of domestic abuse, not the aggressors."

Edwards’ defenders, however, say her fellow CBC members should be rallying around a black woman who stands a decent chance of reaching the Senate, where only one Democrat-- New Jersey’s Cory Booker-- is African-American. They say her fellow House members are punishing her for failing to schmooze with CBC members on a regular basis-- and because Van Hollen is known to be close to House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi.

“Donna is about taking care of the business of governing-- and she is not particularly focused on backslapping and hobnobbing with everyone,” said Johnson. “Some members socialize, are very warm toward each other, play together, drink together and sit together on the floor-- and that’s fine. There are others who, for whatever reason, have a different trajectory, and I respect Donna for just being the person and representative that she is.”

Tuesday's the day. Van Hollen's bullying and avalanche of establishment money have worked to bolster his polling. If you know anyone in Maryland, please urge them to get out and vote for Donna Tuesday. The whole country needs her in the Senate. No one needs another cardboard cutout like Chris Van Hollen in the Senate or anywhere else.

The Case For Donna Edwards (D-MD)

The next congressional primaries we're looking at are in Maryland. Barbara Milkulski's retirement triggered 3 big races: a Senate race between two House members, progressive champion Donna Edwards and establishment shill Chris Van Hollen to replace her, and then a bevy of candidates to replace each of them. Blue America has endorsed Donna in the Senate race, Joseline Peña-Melnyk to replace her in the House and Jamie Raskin to replace Van Hollen. (You can contribute to all 3 on the same special Blue America page). The Maryland primary is on April 26... coming right up. Yesterday, Steve Phillips did a very thorough and comprehensive look at the Senate race, one of the most important anywhere in the whole country. His point is that too many progressives are on the wrong side of history in this race, although, the "progressives" he's referring to are mostly just garden variety pieces of the Democratic establishment. Aside from Blue America the other progressive groups who have endorsed Donna include DFA, People for the American Way and PCCC.

Here’s a quick, two-question quiz. First question: How many Black women have ever served in the United States Senate? Answer: One (Carol Mosely Braun of Illinois, elected in 1992). Second question: Do Democrats and progressives care? Good question. Very good question.

The current Senate race in Maryland presents the best chance in 240 years to elect America’s second Black woman senator, but many Democrats are acting like they just don’t care. In fact, several are actively opposing Congresswoman Donna Edwards’ bid to succeed retiring Senator Barbara Mikulski.

To be clear, I’m not saying that every candidate of color has to be supported over every white candidate (taking that reasoning to its logical extreme would result in backing Ted Cruz over Bernie Sanders or Hillary Clinton). But we have real, ongoing, contemporary racial and gender inequality and injustice in America, and the Senate-- the country’s highest legislative body-- is 94% white and 80% male. If we want more senators who can bring urgency to the issues of racial and gender inequality because they share similar life experiences and feel a deep connection with those affected by those inequalities, then we should push to make our democracy more reflective of the composition of our population. Maryland’s Senate race offers a rare opportunity to make progress on that front.

Missing the Moment

Sadly, and surprisingly, many white progressive leaders have chosen to flock to the candidacy of white male Congressman Chris Van Hollen. Just days after Mikulski announced her retirement in early 2015, Harry Reid, the Senate’s top Democrat, endorsed Van Hollen and threw his considerable clout behind Van Hollen’s campaign. Others have followed Reid’s lead. Several labor unions and Democratic members of Congress have also contributed thousands of dollars to help Van Hollen win. [Harry Reid= garden variety establishment DC Dem, worse, because his corruption is an embarrassment to the entire party.]

Now I don’t know Van Hollen personally and he seems like a perfectly nice man. His supporters cite the fact that he has been reliably pro-choice and generally supportive of progressive issues. But his candidacy doesn’t exactly make a historic statement and does nothing to make the U.S. Senate more reflective of the country’s racial and gender composition. In a true democracy, the composition of the country’s elected leaders would reflect the makeup of the population. Since the founding of this country’s government in 1787, 99% of the Senators who have made the laws of America have been white (and the overwhelming majority of them have been white men). A multiracial democracy, in which close to 40% of the population consists of people of color, demands better.

Why Maryland Matters

The case for Edwards is not just that she’s a staunch progressive who has a long track record of fighting for justice and deep personal knowledge of the realities facing women of color, but it’s that this particular race presents one of the best electoral opportunities to elect a Black woman to the Senate.

Maryland is the fourth Blackest state in America. African Americans make up 30.1% of the state’s population and they account for fully 37% of Democratic primary voters. With numbers like that, a Black candidate has an excellent chance of winning the Democratic nomination (in 2006, former NAACP President Kwesi Mfume came within 3 points of winning the state’s Democratic primary, despite being outspent by his white opponent, Ben Cardin, 4 to 1). The most recent poll puts Edwards in the lead. In presidential election years, Maryland is a deep blue state (Obama won 62% of the vote in 2012), so the Democratic nominee is the odds-on favorite to win the general election.

But a Black candidate only stands an excellent chance of becoming senator from a state as Black as Maryland if she or he has the support of the organizations, institutions, and leaders who make up the progressive infrastructure.

Congressional Black Caucus PAC Failing to Represent

It’s not just white progressives who are missing the moment. While the Congressional Black Caucus is usually one of the most progressive cohorts in Congress, its Political Action Committee is missing in action in the Maryland senate race. The CBC PAC’s stated mission is to “increase the number of African Americans in the U.S. Congress” but it has resisted endorsing Edwards, despite the fact that, should she win, she would increase the percentage of African Americans in the U.S. Senate by 33% (joining New Jersey’s Cory Booker and South Carolina’s Tim Scott (California’s Kamala Harris, who is Black and Asian, also has an excellent opportunity to win election to the Senate this year)). The advocacy organization Color of Change has investigated the surprising conduct of CBC PAC and exposed the fact that the majority of the PAC’s board is not even comprised of members of the Congressional Black Caucus but rather of corporate lobbyists whose clients are not exactly known as champions of racial justice and equality...

Moment of Truth for the Democratic Party

African Americans are the bedrock of the Democratic Party and have been so for fifty years, steadily and dependably providing votes and support for Democrats, usually white Democrats. So far, the Maryland Senate race says a lot about how Democrats reward such loyalty.

2016 presents a pivot point for the Democratic Party. As the end of the Obama era approaches, will the party revert back to the plantation politics of the past where Black voters are expected to back white candidates with little or no reciprocity in return? Or will Party leaders put their money where their mouth is and make substantial financial investments in Black candidates, leaders, and organizations? Given the centrality of the Black vote to Democratic prospects of victory, it is no longer just a question of fairness. It’s also essential to success in an increasingly multiracial electorate. Right now, too many of the progressive forces in Maryland are falling short.

Blue America made Donna her own thermometer. She needs some dough to keep up with Van Hollen's corporate cash gusher for the next three weeks.

Trusted Institutions? Be careful... And Always Read The Small Print And Between The Lines

Color of Change I trust. The Congressional Black Caucus PAC... uh, no. Color of Change sent this out yesterday to its members regarding the Senate race in Maryland which pits an inspiring black woman with a proven super-progressive record in Congress, Donna Edwards, against an unaccomplished white-bread hack and captive of Wall Street, Chris Van Hollen, the former failed DCCC chairman who lost 36 House seats running the inept and corrupt organization.

A Washington, DC Political Action Committee (PAC) that claims to speak for Black people but is really a mouthpiece for corporate power recently made two very big announcements that could impact important upcoming elections. Two weeks ago, the Congressional Black Caucus PAC, with it's lobbyist-dominated Board of Directors, made a high-profile endorsement of Hilary Clinton and quietly decided not to endorse, fellow CBC member, Rep. Donna Edwards' historic bid to become only the second Black woman to be elected to the Senate.

The lobbyists sitting on the CBC PAC’s board represent the worst of the worst-- companies that are notorious in the mistreatment and exploitation of Black people. The depth of corporate influence over the CBC PAC is so troubling because its endorsements carry the name of the Congressional Black Caucus, trading off a name that is wrapped in the moral authority of the civil rights movement. For hours, media incorrectly reported that the Congressional Black Caucus and not the CBC PAC endorsed Secretary Hillary Clinton for President. Meanwhile, the CBC PAC's corporate board members and donors who represent private prisons, big tobacco and the anti-worker National Restaurant Association were nowhere to be seen. This is wrong and the CBC must act to stop it now.

The Conscience of Congress?

Founded in 1971 by Black elected officials like Shirley Chisholm and Ron Dellums, the Congressional Black Caucus has built its reputation as “the Conscience of the Congress,” often voting as a powerful bloc and joining together as a singular voice for Black people. The CBC PAC, on the other hand, was founded in 1994 and is an entirely separate entity that trades on the name of the CBC and is made up of Washington lobbyists and 8 (out of 46) Black Caucus members. In fact, when the CBC PAC rolled out its Presidential endorsement earlier this month, it was so widely reported as coming from the CBC itself that more progressive members of the caucus had to issue public statements clarifying that the PAC does not represent the full caucus and that they had not been consulted on the endorsement decision.

The day following the endorsement in the Presidential race, Politico reported that the CBC PAC would not be endorsing Rep. Donna Edwards, a progressive hero, CBC member, and one of two Black women candidates in a competitive primary vying to become only the second Black woman ever elected to the U.S. Senate. According to reports, the decision was largely driven by CBC PAC board member, Al Wynn, the Congressman-turned-lobbyist who lost his seat to Edwards in 2008. Black voters ousted Wynn for his corporate ties back in 2008 but thanks to the corporate board of the CBC PAC, he is still speaking for Black people. If corporate lobbyists on the CBC PAC's board can decide to withhold support from someone like Rep. Edwards, why are they being allowed to operate under the banner of the Congressional Black Caucus?

Bought & Bossed

Although the Koch Brothers are absent, the lobbyists sitting on the CBC PAC’s board represent the worst of the worst-- companies that are notorious in the mistreatment and exploitation of Black people. As The Intercept reported:

Members of the CBC PAC board include Daron Watts, a lobbyist for Purdue Pharma, the maker of the highly addictive opioid OxyContin; Mike Mckay and Chaka Burgess, both lobbyists for Navient, the student loan giant that was spun off of Sallie Mae; former Rep. Albert Wynn, D-Md., a lobbyist who represents a range of clients, including work last year on behalf of Lorillard Tobacco, the maker of Newport cigarettes; and William A. Kirk, who lobbies for a cigar industry trade group on a range of tobacco regulations.

And a significant percentage of the $7,000 raised this cycle by the CBC PAC from individuals was donated by white lobbyists, including Vic Fazio, who represents Philip Morris and served for years as a lobbyist to Corrections Corporation of America, and David Adams, a former Clinton aide who now lobbies for Wal-Mart, the largest gun distributor in America.

Ironically, both Democrat Presidential candidates have shunned contributions from private prison lobbyists, while the CBC PAC remains silent about its relationship with them. The CBC PAC has taken thousands of dollars from Akin Gump, the lobbying firm that has made millions of dollars lobbying to protect their private prison client, Corrections Corporation of America over the last several years. Black caucus members should be leading, not following the disastrous trend towards more corporate control over government.

In addition, the CBC PAC has taken in even larger amounts directly from the Political Action Committees of harmful companies and industries. Anti-worker groups like the National Restaurant Association have given thousands to CBC PAC while they have worked to keep worker wages and benefits at a minimum. Other corporate donors include pay day loans company Cash America, Big Tobacco front group PURO PAC, and the telecommunications companies that worked to bring an end to an open and free internet.

As if it wasn’t bad enough to use the brand of the CBC as a front for corporate lobbyists, the CBC PAC board members used the event of their Presidential endorsement to deride young Black voters who may favor a different candidate. On a stage bought and paid for by some of the biggest corporations in America, Rep. G.K. Butterfield painted a picture of naïve and uninformed voters claiming “many of them are inexperienced and have not gone through a presidential election cycle before." Young Black voters were a decisive factor in securing victory for President Obama in both of his elections but the CBC PAC would rather criticize young people than their own corporate benefactors.

We saw this type of targeted corporate influence during the net neutrality debate, with big telecom lobbyists lining up to cut checks to Black leaders willing to destroy the open Internet. In fact many of the Black elected officials who opposed net neutrality also sit on the board of the PAC alongside bad corporations. This form of “civil rights washing”-- of wrapping dangerous policies in a cloak of support from Black gatekeepers-- cannot be trusted or lifted up as the voice of Black people.

To continue on, the CBC PAC must be remade.

To be clear, Color of Change has not endorsed any candidate for President. This isn’t about Hillary or Bernie, although they both have improved their stances on racial justice issues under pressure from the Black community and our allies, they still have room to grow. This is about changing the CBC PAC to stop it from representing itself as the voice of Black communities when it is dominated by some of the worst corporations for Black people.

Blue America has endorsed Donna, who we've known since 2005. We know her intellect and character will make a difference in a Senate dominated by corrupt servants of the special interests like Mitch McConnell and Chuck Schumer. Her opponent, Chris Van Hollen, is just another vile Mitch McConnell/Chuck Schumer wanna-be. The best thing that can be said about him is that he's ineffective. Please consider giving what you can to Donna's grassroots campaign by clicking on the thermometer below:

Are African Americans Leading The Political Reform Movement Today? In The Streets, Yes. In Congress-- Don't Make Me Laugh

NBC News host Trymaine Lee looked at "a new generation of black candidates," as people look to sustain the movement for racial justice by turning to the ballot box. "Hundreds of Black candidates are running in local races, state races, and congressional races all across the country in 2020. After weeks of protest, will we see a wave of Black candidates elected as an answer to those calls for change? On the report above, "speaks with two women who are trying to bring racial justice to the electoral system. Political strategist Jessica Byrd felt called into the movement while watching the Ferguson uprisings, and Sybrina Fulton’s journey through activism to politics began when her son Trayvon Martin was shot and killed by police in 2012." Inspiring.

Less inspiring was the CBC pressure on Pelosi to make the most egregious crook amongst them, Greg Meeks-- everyone knows he takes bribes-- the chair of the House Foreign Affairs Committee now that Engels is departing for the retirement home. Personally, I'd rather see them replace him with Jamaal. I wonder if he'll even want to join the poxy group (the CBC, I mean, not the Foreign Affairs Committee, which I know is not among his big priorities. Of the senior members of the committee, Karen Bass, David Cicilline and Ted Lieu would be the best chairs. Meeks would be the worst. (2 Notes: Ilhan Omar is also on the committee, but Pelosi would be more likely to remove her than make her chair. And because of his on-the-ground experience overseas, if it were me picking a chair it would be Andy Levin. I don't get a vote, though.)

The Congressional Black Caucus was once thought of as the moral compass of the House. I don't know if that was ever true but today, following the CBC will lead you right into a sewer. Being a patsy for the status quo patsy establishment-- in return for the establishment allowing corruption-without-consequence-- is the name of the game. As a political force... well, they endorsed Eliot Engel over Jamaal Bowman, which should tell you everything you need to know. Although you might also understand the relevance of their endorsement of New Jersey Blue Dog Josh Gottheimer as well. And remember when they got behind mediocre white congressman Chris Van Hollen for an open Senate seat that Donna Edwards was running for in 2016, which would have made her only the second-ever Black woman elected to the Senate?

The CBC PAC, chaired by Congress' most corrupt Democrat, the aforementioned Gregory Meeks, is a cesspool of corruption, run by lobbyists for industries that target minorities and poor communities. How is that possible? Let me start by listing all 51 House members of the CBC, listed by seniority, along with their ProgressivePunch score:

• John Lewis (D-GA)- A
• Maxine Waters (D-CA)- A
• Sanford Bishop (Blue Dog-GA)- F
• Jim Clyburn (D-SC)- D
• Alcee Hastings (D-FL)- B
• Eddie Bernie Johnson (D-TX)- C
• Bobby Rush (D-IL)- B
• Bobby Scott (D-VA)- C
• Bennie Thompson (D-MS)- D
• Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX)- C
• Danny Davis (D-IL)- A
• Gregory Meeks (New Dem-NY)- D
• Barbara Lee (D-CA)- A
• Lacy Clay (D-MO)- B
• David Scott (Blue Dog-GA)- F
• G.K. Butterfield (D-NC)- F
• Emanuel Cleaver (D-MO)- C
• Al Green (D-TX)- F
• Gwen Moore (D-WI)- A
• Yvette Clarke (D-NY)- A
• Hank Johnson (D-GA)- C
• André Carson (New Dem-IN)- C
• Marcia Fudge (D-OH)- B
• Karen Bass (D-CA)- A
• Cedric Richmond (New Dem-LA)- F
• Terri Sewell (New Dem-AL)- F
• Frederica Wilson (D-FL)- B
• Donald Payne (D-NJ)- A
• Joyce Beatty (D-OH)- C
• Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY)- A
• Marc Veasey (New Dem-TX)- F
• Robin Kelly (D-IL)- B
• Alma Adams (D-NC)- B
• Brenda Lawrence (New Dem-MI)- B
• Bonnie Watson Coleman (D-NJ)- A
• Dwight Evans (D-PA)- B
• Lisa Blunt Rochester (New Dem-DE)- F
• Anthony Brown (New Dem-MD)- D
• Val Demings (New Dem-FL)- F
• Al Lawson (New Dem-FL)- F
• Donald McEachin (New Dem-VA)- F
• Steven Horsford (New Dem-NV)- F
• Colin Allred (New Dem-TX)- F
• Antonio Delgado (D-NY)- F
• Jahana Hayes (D-CT)- B
• Lucy McBath (New Dem-GA)- F
• Joe Neguse (D-CO)- A
• Ilhan Omar (D-MN)- A
• Ayanna Pressley (D-MA)- A
• Lauren Underwood (D-IL)- F
• Kweisi Mfume (D-MD)- B

The Black member of Congress with the most progressive voting record in Congress, Adriano Espaillat-- and who represents Harlem--was judged not black enough and refused membership in the CBC (although they did admit Senator Kamala Harris-- if only for show-- who is a lot less black than Espaillat by any metric you care to use.

A great description of the CBC PAC by Color of Change began by explaining it "is really a mouthpiece for corporate power."

The lobbyists sitting on the CBC PAC’s board represent the worst of the worst-- companies that are notorious in the mistreatment and exploitation of Black people. The depth of corporate influence over the CBC PAC is so troubling because its endorsements carry the name of the Congressional Black Caucus, trading off a name that is wrapped in the moral authority of the civil rights movement... [T]he CBC PAC's corporate board members and donors represent private prisons, big tobacco and the anti-worker National Restaurant Association. Founded in 1971 by Black elected officials like Shirley Chisholm and Ron Dellums, the Congressional Black Caucus has built its reputation as 'the Conscience of the Congress,' often voting as a powerful bloc and joining together as a singular voice for Black people. The CBC PAC, on the other hand, was founded in 1994 and is an entirely separate entity that trades on the name of the CBC and is made up of Washington lobbyists and 8 (out of 46) Black Caucus members.

How bad could the board of the CBC PAC be? In 2016 The Intercept reported that "Members of the CBC PAC board include Daron Watts, a lobbyist for Purdue Pharma, the maker of the highly addictive opioid OxyContin; Mike Mckay and Chaka Burgess, both lobbyists for Navient, the student loan giant that was spun off of Sallie Mae; former Rep. Albert Wynn (D-MD), a lobbyist who represents a range of clients, including work last year on behalf of Lorillard Tobacco, the maker of Newport cigarettes; and William A. Kirk, who lobbies for a cigar industry trade group on a range of tobacco regulations."

The CBC is frequently in opposition to reform. Also back in 2016, Gaius Publius wrote about their campaign to maintain anti-democratic super-delgates as a controlling force at the Democratic presidential conventions.

Back in April, after Morgan Harper was defeated in Columbus, Ohio, with the connivance of the CBC PAC, DWT asked the question Will African-American Voters Help Reform The Democratic Party?. Among those seeking to block Harper, one of the brightest stars among Africa-American congressional candidates this cycle were Cedric Richmond, "a bullshit artist and New Dem, the conservative Democrat tasked early on with roping in anti-progressive Democratic House members for Biden. He's tight with K street and tells lobbyists who's for sale and who's not. Other conservative Democrats backing Beatty included Oralndo's Val Demings (who some are touting, besides the fact that she is a severe sufferer from brainlessness, as a VP contender for Biden), the Queens political machine boss Gregory Meeks, and Brooklyn's Hakeem Jeffries, a contender for the post-Pelosi speakership." Meeks' attitude towards progressives who challenge entrenched incumbents is one of entitlement. To him Harper, a 36 year old former Obama administration official at the CFPB, with no ties to the incompetent and fully corrupt Ohio Democratic Party was, as he stated in an interview, someone who seemed "to come out of nowhere, who ha[s] done nothing, ha[s]e nothing to show for." To a crook like Meeks, Harper was just challenging Joyce Beatty-- the payday loan industry's rep in the House-- challenging an incumbent just for the sake of challenging her. He doesn't get it. He never will. But maybe he'll get the House Foreign Affairs chair-- and be able to buy an even bigger house, financed by Haim Saban.

Yesterday, HuffPo asked if The Black Caucus is ready to ride the progressive wave? That seems liked an absurd question to ask-- and the writers-- Daniel Marans, Philip Lewis, and Matt Fuller-- knew it. "It should be the Congressional Black Caucus’s biggest moment," they began. "Multiple CBC members being vetted as a potential vice presidential pick. A national uprising over systemic racism in policing that could finally address core issues in Black communities. And a host of Black progressives winning Democratic nominations that will almost certainly sweep them into office. But with the CBC either not endorsing some of those liberal Black candidates who won Tuesday night-- or outright opposing them-- many activists are wondering if the CBC is progressive enough to lead this movement. 'If it wasn’t clear before tonight, I hope it is now. The CBC is disconnected from middle and lower black America,' progressive Black activist Danny D. Glover tweeted Tuesday night after the election results. 'Do not listen to them,' he added."

Regardless, in a number of Democratic primaries Tuesday-- the first major elections since Black Lives Matter protests swept the country in late May-- Black insurgents cleaned up.

...In all of those cases, electing a new generation of liberal leaders went hand in hand with a new generation of Black candidates. And with other new, stalwart progressives in the CBC-- like Ayanna Pressley (D-MA) and Ilhan Omar (D-MN)-- combined with more experienced liberal lawmakers like Barbara Lee (D-CA) and CBC Chairwoman Karen Bass (D-CA), the caucus could be a progressive force in the House in years to come.

In fact, the CBC is already flexing its muscle. On Thursday, the House passed a sweeping police reform bill that was largely composed by members of the CBC.

But activists and progressive aides worry that some of the old trappings of the caucus-- taking corporate money, being friendly with Wall Street and lobbyists, and defending institutionalist norms, like seniority and incumbency-- could threaten its ability to be a progressive force. And the decision to endorse Engel over Bowman typifies that concern.

“Endorsing Engel over Bowman is absurd,” the senior progressive House aide told HuffPost. “They should have been aware of the dynamics of that race. More sophisticated actors would have stayed out.”

Part of the issue is that, despite a desire for change from a number of members in the CBC, many are party loyalists. The CBC has had success in supporting a tenure system in Congress, which rewards the members who can stick around the longest with powerful committee chair positions. Many CBC members sit in safe Democratic districts, and don’t like the idea of primary challenges. In fact, the CBC has a policy of supporting incumbents.

In 2018, the CBC endorsed then-Rep. Michael Capuano (D-MA), who went on to be unseated by Pressley, the first Black woman to represent Massachusetts in Congress. And barring a massive upset, Bowman will enter Congress and the CBC next year after the organization opposed his candidacy.

But it’s not just the CBC supporting incumbents over Black candidates. The CBC has endorsed-- or chosen not to endorse anyone-- in a number of curious races.

  For instance, the CBC hasn’t endorsed Will Cunningham, a former aide to CBC lion Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-MD), who died last year.

Cunningham is running to unseat Rep. Jeff Van Drew, a Democrat turned Republican in South New Jersey. And while Cunningham-- who, like Jones and Torres, is also gay-- has not generated nearly the money or enthusiasm of other Black insurgents, a campaign adviser argued that a CBC endorsement could change that.

“This is the kind of race that the CBC should be pushing,” Cunningham adviser Kaushal Thakkar told HuffPost.

The CBC’s non-endorsements are especially glaring alongside the list of candidates they have chosen to back. In addition to standing by Engel, the caucus endorsed the reelection of Josh Gottheimer, a white, centrist super-conservative Wall Street whore Democrat facing a progressive challenge July 7 in a suburban New Jersey swing seat. Gottheimer leads a bloc of moderate Democrats and Republicans that prevented the Democratic-controlled House from placing tougher humanitarian conditions on a border funding bill in July. Gottheimer’s challenger, Arati Kreibich, is a neuroscientist who immigrated to the U.S. from India as a child.

...Glover called Bowman’s win a “reckoning” for the CBC. He predicted that if CBC members didn’t embrace the more ambitious calls for reform issued by the younger Black protesters taking the streets over the police killings of George Floyd and Breonna Taylor, individual CBC members would be run out of office with primary challenges.

“This inflection point we have does not deal with only white people. This inflection point also speaks directly to the establishment of both Blacks and whites,” he said. “Gone are the days of them just giving us lip service.”

Sad how the CBC and Trump are on the same page

The CBC Traded Their Moral Authority For A Cozy Relationship With Wall Street Lobbyists

We touched on the essentially corrupt nature of the Congressional Black Caucus during the primaries when their PAC backed white bankster shill Chris Van Hollen against Donna Edwards, a black congresswoman known far and wide as a dedicated and capable reformer, for the Maryland Senate seat. The PAC's board is run by Gregory Meeks (New Dem-NY), one of Congress' most grotesquely corrupt members and a gaggle of lobbyists and political operatives who define the Democratic half of DC sleaze-- from Al Wynn, Mike Mckay and Chaka Burgess to Angela Rye, William Kirk and Daron Watts, the lobbyist for OxyContin.

At the end of May two of HuffPo's top investigative reporters, Zach Carter and Ryan Grim, were tip-toeing around the CBC minefield, a tricky place for white reporters to navigate without being labels "racist."

Gwen Moore does not seem like anybody’s idea of a corporate stooge. The Milwaukee Democrat, a single mom who once survived on welfare, has sponsored efforts to boost public housing, reproductive freedom, food-stamp benefits, Social Security payments, environmental protection, veterans benefits and the minimum wage. And that’s just in the past year.

So it’s strange to see Moore associated with one of the more noxious campaigns underway on Capitol Hill: the Wall Street effort to unravel key sections of Dodd-Frank. After all, the 2010 financial reform was meant to curb the very same excesses that, not so long ago, devastated the economy and put many of Moore’s constituents out of their jobs and their homes.

The assault on Dodd-Frank relies on support from three different groups. The GOP isn’t shy about its antipathy to government regulations, and a pro-business coalition known as the New Democrats has come to its aid. But there is also a third, lesser-known faction: the Congressional Black Caucus. Moore, along with colleagues such as New York’s Gregory Meeks, Georgia’s David Scott, Missouri’s Lacy Clay and Alabama’s Terri Sewell, has pushed for a host of seemingly arcane measures that would undermine Dodd-Frank’s rules on financial derivatives, the complex contracts at the heart of the 2008 meltdown. She is the co-sponsor of multiple measures that would once again allow Wall Street to shift its riskiest transactions out of the view of regulators.

The CBC is not an organization known for airing its dirty laundry in public. But over the last year, the tawdriness of its pro-Wall Street votes has become so blatant that several members have started to push back, led by Maxine Waters, the veteran Los Angeles legislator who serves as the top Democrat on the financial services panel. To many in the CBC, it feels like a battle for the storied caucus’s soul-- and the result could dictate the direction of economic policy for the Democratic Party at large.

...The CBC had always focused on social justice, but the lobbyists-- who eventually named themselves the Second Wednesday Group-- had more prosaic aims. “It was just a networking group of African-American lobbyists, to maybe be an inspiration for African-American lobbyists entering the lobbying field,” says David Warr of the International Trademark Association, who ran the organization in the 1990s. Over time, it built a vibrant community of black lobbyists and Hill staffers.

Today, the organization-- now known as the Washington Government Relations Group-- is a significant nexus of influence. At its regular policy gatherings, lobbyists can interact with lawmakers and staffers. Last year’s annual gala was held at the French Embassy.

But Capitol Hill is still overwhelmingly white, and even with a former CBC member in the White House, the power class is far from fully integrated. One white former representative told us he was stunned the first time he attended a black colleague’s fundraiser during President Barack Obama’s first term. “It was very much a standard fundraiser in a townhouse on Capitol Hill, probably on South Capitol Street, nicely catered, everything was identical, except I was the only white guy there,” he recalls. “There were lots of African-American lobbyists, most of them had probably worked as a staffer for somebody, and then they were hired by whoever it was they lobbied for specifically to lobby the CBC.”

The corporate world, by contrast, has been paying close attention. The CBC represents roughly 10 percent of the House and about a fifth of the Democratic minority. That alone makes it an attractive target for lobbyists. But two characteristics have helped it amass particular power. Its aura of moral credibility, earned during the civil rights era, can provide valuable progressive cover for controversial measures. And its tradition of voting as a bloc, forged in its early years to avoid marginalization, means that persuading the right CBC member can secure dozens of additional votes.

For the most part, the CBC has used its influence to keep progressive policy priorities on the Democratic agenda. In 2008, it broke with fellow Democrats to kill the first version of the Wall Street bailout. “The poor-- poor blacks, poor whites, Native Americans, Latinos-- get little help, little assistance,” John Lewis of Georgia said at the time. “And then they come in here and ask us to bail out Wall Street. I’m not prepared to do that.” The bill passed only after a number of CBC members, led by Waters, extracted a promise from Obama for a major foreclosure-relief program (a promise that was ultimately broken).

However, as one bank lobbyist put it, “Sophisticated companies have sophisticated lobbying operations.” He explains, “Almost every big bank has a lobbyist who has experience and can work with the Congressional Black Caucus.” The industry’s term for these lobbyists: CBC specialists. (It’s a term that grates on black lobbyists, because nearly all of them do more than merely lobby the CBC.) And by targeting the 10 CBC members who sit on the financial services panel, these lobbyists can potentially win over the entire caucus. “We defer to them for advice,” Marcia Fudge, the CBC’s chairwoman, says of the members on the committee. “We don’t really talk about [financial issues] in the [weekly lunch] meetings at all ... It’s not an issue that’s of grave importance to the caucus. We know that we have people on the committee that we trust.”

The lobbyist knows first hand how effective this tactic can be. “We go right to the CBC because they are open-minded and they often vote as a bloc,” he says, asking for anonymity because he frequently relies on CBC members for support on deregulation bills. “And the professional left is scared of them. Every white liberal-- media, politician, advocacy group-- knows better than fucking with a CBC member.”

Outside Washington, people tend to assume that lobbyists are primarily interested in passing-- or killing-- legislation. But in a divided government where few bills are signed into law, the real action is the tug of war between Congress and the agencies that write rules and implement laws. An interest group can exert pressure on regulators by pushing for a bill that doesn’t even pass-- simply assembling the right mix of co-sponsors can send a strong message. Sometimes this method functions as an informal threat: Unless you craft a weak rule, we have the clout to force your hand.

But there’s also a Washington cultural element at play. When a policy looks and feels bipartisan, it becomes tougher for an agency commissioner to take on the supposed consensus. A mere letter supporting or opposing a regulatory policy can have a formidable effect if the right names are on it. When it comes to bank reform, the ideal mix of backers, say lobbyists, is an even split of Democrats and Republicans, with a healthy contingent of CBC members to blunt the ideological edge. Or, if it’s obvious that an issue has full GOP support-- any bank-reform repeal, for instance-- a letter from Democrats alone will suffice.

After the GOP gained control of the House, the financial sector, according to one senior bank lobbyist, initially relied on a coalition of Republicans and the Democratic Party’s “Three J’s”-- Jim Himes, who represents Greenwich, Connecticut, the epicenter of the hedge-fund world; Maryland’s John Delaney, a former banker; and John Carney Jr. of Delaware, a state dominated by the financial services industry.

But Wall Street needed more liberal support. Once everybody got wise to the fact that the Three Js always voted with the GOP on banking, they no longer lent legislation the same bipartisan sheen. (A couple of years ago, we wrote a story in The Huffington Post that framed a Himes bill as a sop to his fellow former bankers, and he left us a furious voice mail that illustrated this dynamic perfectly: After lambasting us for describing him as a “ ‘former Goldman Sachs executive’ as opposed to, say, ‘former affordable-housing, nonprofit guy,’ “ he added, “I will deal for the next couple of weeks with the left of the Democratic Party now thinking that I’m looking to deregulate derivatives.”)

And so bank lobbyists turned to legislators like Moore, the daughter of a factory worker and herself a former activist for affordable housing. The Three Js now regularly team up with Moore and a handful of other CBC members.

The worst Wall Street CBC whores are not on a par for high paid corruption from the banksters like Himes ($618,150), Patrick Murphy ($1,413,950), Chris Van Hollen ($712,778), Steny Hoyer ($532,626), Kyrsten Sinema ($589,388) and Joe Crowley ($535,159), let along Paul Ryan ($1,998,009), Jeb Hensarling ($921,415), Patrick McHenry ($902,150) and Kevin McCarthy ($1,584,650), but here's a list of the half dozen most corrupt CNC members... with the bribes they've taken from the financial sector this cycle alone:

• Terri Sewell (New Dem-AL)- $379,400
• David Scott (Blue Dog-GA)- $368,640
• Gregory Meeks (New Dem-NY)- $338,550
• Gwen Moore (WI)- $317,300
• Emanuel Cleaver (MO)- $236,100
• Joyce Beatty (OH)- $225,050

Sewell, in it for the cash

When asked why Moore had become such a reliable ally of the banking industry, more than a half-dozen sources pointed to her chief of staff, Minh Ta. There is a certain kind of Hill staffer-- inspired by “House of Cards” and other fictional glorifications of backroom dealers-- who strives to be a “player.” Working for a Democrat who votes the party line is no way to become a player. Another veteran of Moore’s staff, Andrew Stevens, moved in 2012 from the Hill to a job lobbying for Allianz, a German financial services firm, which had been keenly interested in a 2011 Moore bill that would exempt it from having to put up collateral on its swaps. Several sources said Stevens had worked closely on that bill.

One Democrat who worked closely with Moore as a member of Congress explained, “She has an ambitious staff, and they want her to move up in leadership, and they think the way to do that is to raise money.” Since the 2008 cycle, Moore has raised more than $930,000 from the financial sector. That’s roughly 50 percent more than she has brought in from organized labor, which had previously been her biggest backer. After Dodd-Frank passed in 2010, Moore joined the rollback efforts in 2011; for the 2012 cycle, her biggest donor was Bank of America.

...In 2012, with Barney Frank set to retire, two Democrats were eyeing his position as the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee: Carolyn Maloney, who represents the Upper East Side, and Maxine Waters, who represents Watts. Most bank lobbyists assumed that Waters’ reputation for petty corruption in Washington and machine-style politics in Los Angeles would disqualify her. “She is wacko,” one bank lobbyist told the New York Observer at the time, employing language that would be hard to call anything but racist. “She is very flamboyant, very old school. She is not one of these younger, sophisticated members of Congress. She has no grasp of the technical side of finance. She was elected during a different time in history, and she hasn’t read a book since.”

But the bank industry had underestimated Waters, who had been making some fairly obvious political sacrifices in her effort to get the gavel. She had worked within the system, cutting deals, casting a few pro-bank votes, and generally not comporting herself like a bomb-thrower. But while bank lobbyists had been courting CBC votes on legislation, the idea that a black woman might actually get the top slot on a powerful committee apparently hadn’t occurred to them. “They never thought she was going to be ranking member, so they didn’t do the work they needed to do when she was working her way up the dais. Now they’re in a position of, ‘Oh my goodness, I’ve ignored her for 12 terms,’” says one former CBC staffer who is now a well-connected financial industry lobbyist.

...In January of last year, she took over from Frank. “I certainly don’t want Democrats to be seen as deregulating and opposing and undermining Dodd-Frank,” she told us last year, when interviewed for a separate Huffington Post story. “It’s critically important that we understand the significance of that reform, that we send the message that we’re about protecting our taxpayers and investors.” Before long, she and Moore were on a collision course.

The tension between the two spilled into the open during an otherwise snoozy markup session last May. The committee turned its attention to HR 677-- the bill that carved a loophole for companies that want to trade derivatives with themselves. Waters had previously objected to the measure in a private meeting with Moore, and the pair had cut a deal: Waters would vote for it, ensuring broad bipartisan passage. In return, Moore would present an amendment that would significantly narrow the scope of her bill. But Moore’s GOP co-sponsors had balked-- and Moore had caved.

At the hearing, Moore struck a joking tone to defend her position. “There’s been a lot of speculation as to why I’m a co-sponsor of this bill, that perhaps I’m just naive and I don’t understand the law,” Moore said. “Or that I have made so much money from Wall Street sources-- I guess I better go check my bank account a little bit more, because it doesn’t feel like that has happened.” A few seats to Moore’s left, Waters stirred. She was not laughing. “Ms. Moore is very much aware of my concerns about the legislation,” she said tartly. “Now I am even more concerned that you have decided to drop the amendment.” She also reminded her colleague that Treasury Secretary Jack Lew had just sent Congress a letter urging lawmakers to leave Dodd-Frank’s derivatives rules alone.

Under Capitol Hill’s rules of etiquette, publicly admonishing a fellow Democrat for bucking the Obama administration is no small thing. (Unlike Frank, Waters has generally followed those rules.) Months later, other committee members remember the incident with a tug of the collar. Moore backed down and introduced the amendment, blaming a procedural misfire. But the set-to, as brief as it was, dented the facade of bipartisanship and liberal support that the banks had worked so hard to build.

There is a case to be made that condemning the CBC for its pro-Wall Street votes holds them to an unfair standard, one that white lawmakers aren’t required to meet. Members of Congress accrue standing with their colleagues by raising huge sums of money and spreading it around. Even Democrats with progressive priorities need campaign cash to amass power, to move up the committee ranks, to become part of leadership and advance an agenda. And banks, as Willie Sutton once said, are where the money is. “We say we want African-Americans represented in leadership,” says former Democratic Rep. Tom Perriello (Va.). “So is it fair to ask them to always lead the fight against corporate abuses while white members bank big donations to rise through the ranks?”

More than almost any other bloc in Congress, the CBC can bestow, or take away, the impression that something is fair. And it’s why the struggle over the organization’s ties to big banks will remain crucial to the ideological future of the Democratic Party.

That struggle is unresolved, but thanks to Waters and a handful of her allies, at least there is a struggle. In April, after former committee member Mel Watt (N.C.) was confirmed to head Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, CBC member Steven Horsford of Nevada, a labor-backed skeptic of Wall Street, was appointed to replace him. The reformers notched up another win last fall, when the House voted on a Himes bill that would have provided taxpayer backing for derivatives trades. It had breezed through the House in a prior session and, this time, had sailed through committee on a 53-6 vote. Nearly all the panel’s Democrats voted with Republicans, with the notable exception of Waters and two CBC members. Moore, Meeks, Scott and Sewell sent around a letter urging support, but in the end, the CBC remained neutral on the legislation, according to an official caucus “whip line” we obtained. Waters had battled the CBC to a draw. And when the whole House voted, the bill was rejected by a majority of the Democratic Caucus.

The bill still cleared the House thanks to heavy GOP backing, but Himes knew it wasn’t really a victory. Without a more robust endorsement from Democrats, the measure would get no hearing in the Senate and would have less resonance in regulatory halls. “What is different from what passed happily in a bipartisan fashion last Congress?” he asked, genuinely perplexed, from the floor after the vote.

The turmoil within the CBC was part of what had changed. Not so long ago, the moral dimensions of the battle over Dodd-Frank had been obscured, in part, by the perception that the changes were simply technical, amendments so inoffensive that they’d been embraced by legislators representing some of America’s most vulnerable districts. When that illusion is threatened-- when it looks like the votes of Moore or other deregulation fans are just so much transactionalism-- a different storyline emerges. As Himes put it, “In Dodd-Frank today, we have a morality play.”

A subset of the worst of the Finance Sector is the payday lender industry which especially targets minority communities for their predatory practices. Payday lenders have overwhelmingly contributed to Republicans over the years-- since 1990, $5,883,187 to Republicans and $3,769,121 to Democrats. But among Democrats, these 11 are the only ones this cycle who have accepted/solicited over $5,000 in bribes from the payday lenders. 5 of the 11 are CBC members:

• Alcee Hastings (FL)- $41,450
• Patrick Murphy (New Dem-FL)- $40,900
• Kyrsten Sinema (Blue Dog-AZ)- $21,500
• David Scott (Blue Dog-GA)- $17,000
• Tony Cardenas (New Dem-CA)- $15,000
• Gwen Moore (WI)- $13,000
• Corrine Brown (FL)- $10,000
• Gregory Meeks (New Dem-NY)- $10,000
• Gwen Graham (Blue Dog-FL)- $7,700
• Kathy Castor (FL)- $6,000
• Debbie Wasserman Schultz (New Dem)- $5,100

Pelosi Surrenders-- Agrees To Allow Democratic Members A Vote On DCCC Chairmen-- Will Anyone Good Run?

No more of this choreographed failure

After a decade of abject failure-- in strategy, tactics, messaging and, of course, results-- House Democrats will no longer allow Pelosi to select her pets to chair the DCCC but will elect the chair of their campaign arm, just the way the Republicans do. One progressive congressman told me she worries that this will mean whoever bribes the most members will get the gig and she suggested that if Wasserman Schultz wants it, being the sleaziest plausible member of the caucus, she could have it. Another member just sent me this e-mail:

It's not a real election. Pelosi promised it to some dissidents but pushing immediate vote. Inside BS.

Thanks, believe it or not, to Sean Patrick Murphy and Joe Crowley, there won't be an immediate vote, since they agreed that an alternative candidate needed a chance to identify himself or herself and make a case for change. Like Steve Israel, Chris Van Hollen and Rahm Emanuel, the latest incarnation, Ben Ray Luján, who is already running for the job, has been a complete disaster, entirely not up to the job on any level. So far the progressives haven't come up with an alternative. I spoke with a dozen people since the decision was announced and no one wanted to take on the task. I'm sure that behind Crowley's and Murphy's decision is a plan to make sure the job goes to a New Dem. Mark my words.

But so far no one is talking about a contract-with-America type messaging effort. No one is talking about mastering the intricacies of new online advertising opportunities. No one is talking about a 24 month, targeted voter registration drive. No one is talking about how to root out the endemic revolving door corruption that literally defines the last decade of DCCC failure. And no one is talking about the dangers of Rahm Emanuel and Steve Israel's diktat that the default situation for recruiting candidates is easily corruptible, self-funding Republican-lite dullards.

Instead, one congressman told me, "this is going to be another damn personality contest unrelated to vision... [or] ability to get a very serious, difficult job done." There was also a "battle" for Caucus vice chair that was won by Linda Sanchez (D-CA) over Barbara Lee (D-CA). Why the relatively unaccomplished Sanchez over the heroic and iconic Lee? "The CBC doesn't see strong progressives like Barbara Lee or, for that matter, Keith Ellison or Donna Edwards, as part of their crowd. The CBC didn't back Barbara," a congressman told me after the vote, "not the way the Hispanic Caucus got behind Sanchez. She just sits around and plays video games on her cell phone all day. I couldn't believe that vote! I heard Nancy let it be known to her closest supporters that with Becerra leaving the leadership, she wanted a Hispanic. That's the way she plays. More of that identity politics bullshit that's burying the party."