A fascinating report in this morning’s Washington Post about a “contract” that a number of vulnerable Republican members of Congress have agreed to sign in order to obtain assistance in the upcoming elections from the National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC):
Two dozen House Republicans have agreed to privately detail their “legislative strategy” to party operatives, promising to offer “political justifications” for their goals in Congress.
The Daily 202 obtained a copy of the three-page contract that the National Republican Congressional Committee requires members to sign if they want to participate in its Patriot Program. The initiative, designed to protect potentially vulnerable incumbents, brings with it special attention and access to mounds of campaign cash. But strings are attached.
One of the 13 requirements is to submit an off-year “campaign plan” that includes: “Detailed, written legislative strategy that provides short-, intermediate-, and long-term legislative goals, including political justifications for those goals.”
“Be sure to include local issues unique to the district or region,” the contract says. “Complete a Patriot Policy Priorities worksheet to be used by NRCC staff to evaluate legislative priorities for the current Congress and to promote and advocate for those priorities where appropriate.”
Here’s a link to the contract obtained by the Washington Post. It should be noted that many of the provisions in this contract, like committing to fundraising targets and keeping off-year spending at a reasonable level, are common-sense campaign best practices that any smart political strategist would want candidates to abide by. Another provision requiring candidates to use vendors who meet the NRCC’s “standards,” meaning the NRCC’s handpicked vendors, is in fact quite dubious–but more to political insiders than the general public.
Where the NRCC’s contract gets truly dicey for its vulnerable incumbent signers, especially Colorado’s most vulnerable incumbent Congressman Mike Coffman, is the promise to detail “legislative goals” for NRCC staff to “evaluate.” Given that Rep. Coffman has tried as hard as he could to put daylight between himself and the Republican party line on issues like immigration reform, LGBT rights, and even abortion, having his legislative agenda pre-cleared by national Republicans makes Coffman’s “change of heart” since redistricting look as contrived as Democrats have always insisted it was from the beginning.
But at the end of the day, there’s got to be a return on, you know, “the investment.”
You must be logged in to post a comment.
BY: MarsBird
IN: It’s Long Past Time to Ban Body Armor
BY: Ben Folds5
IN: Holy Crap Boebert Bestie Matt Gaetz’s Ethics Report Is Bad
BY: The realist
IN: Monday Open Thread
BY: coloradosane
IN: Holy Crap Boebert Bestie Matt Gaetz’s Ethics Report Is Bad
BY: coloradosane
IN: Monday Open Thread
BY: MartinMark
IN: Monday Open Thread
BY: notaskinnycook
IN: Monday Open Thread
BY: coloradosane
IN: Aurora: Still Not Overrun by Venezuelans (feat. Dave Perry)
BY: Conserv. Head Banger
IN: Monday Open Thread
BY: MartinMark
IN: Monday Open Thread
Subscribe to our monthly newsletter to stay in the loop with regular updates!
This could be dangerous for Coffman, but if he manages to strike the right balance, it could also be a big boon. The NRCC is almost certainly asking for these surveys to figure out if endangered Republicans are worth spending money on – not to find out just how conservative they are, but to find out if they can win in their districts.
The chair of the NRCC is Rep. Greg Walden, who is a relative moderate in the Republican caucus, especially compared to Coffman (113th House DW-NOMINATE rankings, numbered liberal to conservative: Walden #252, Coffman #350). I'm thinking that a measured response by Coffman could do him worlds of good.
I'm thinking that nuance may be lost beneath the words "RNC approved agenda." Actually I'm hoping for it.
Mike Coffman has a soul?
+666
Probably closer to $6.66 …
.. and, even at that, an awful bargain!
A fun little skip down memory lane…
Campaigning wing of the party promises to support vulnerable candidate with politically motivated legislative strategy (i.e. getting a pass on supporting/proposing things that would be beneficial to winning the election, but that don’t necessarily line up with Party Doctrine) during election year, news at 11.
Sorry, this isn't some scandal. You can also guarantee the DSCC will be doing the same with Bennet. This is how politics works, folks. This shouldn't be a surprise to, well, anyone.
Sure, man, but this story is about the NRCC and Coffman. Let me know when the WaPo has an equivalent story about Bennet.
My point is, this isn't anything worth blogging about, or even caring about. This is just standard operating procedure. Only reason there's no DCCC/DSCC story as well is because the Dems are obviously more adept at controlling their paper trail.
Sorry to point out that the Washington Post does not agree with you.
🙂
What WaPo does with their column inches is their businesses, still doesn't make it a story worthy of getting all hot and bothered about.
Is Bill Cadman on the list of NRCC approved vendors? Hope he's getting a piece of the action.
Sorry. This strikes me as very "meh".
It won't decide the election, but I think it's a useful data point.
For once we agree, BlueCat.
Time for a shower.
Let's make a list of all the special interests Morgan Carroll has sold HER soul to, shall we? Trial lawyers, abortionists, and unions. I guarantee they have gotten their commitments from Carroll or she wouldn't be in the race. Didn't Morgan have a big meeting in Washington right before she got into the race?
Economics 101, supply and demand … the major's soul has no value, you pathetic commie!
The trouble with the Johnny does it too argument? Whether true or false, two things: One, it takes as a given that whoever you are supposedly defending in this way is just as bad as Johnny, simply not worse. Hardly an argument for against either party. Two, offering such a weak tea defense demonstrates that you've really got nothing better. Johnny does it too is always an argument for losers and whiners.
Hope this cancels out our "agreement".