Some in Congress cry party extortion
Powerful committee posts given to biggest fundraisers, they say
Rep. Thomas Massie has an unpaid bill for $240,000 sitting on his desk in Washington — a debt GOP leaders say he owes to the House Republicans’ campaign operation.
It’s part of the Kentucky Republican’s “dues,” a little-scrutinized but well-known levy that leaders of both parties impose on their colleagues to help fill the Democratic and Republican congressional campaign committee coffers. Lawmakers are supposed to dip into their own re-election accounts to meet these fundraising quotas. Those who make — or exceed — their dues are considered “team players,” a label that lifts their chances of landing plum committee assignments.
“They told us right off the bat as soon as we get here, ‘These committees all have prices, and don’t pick an expensive one if you can’t make the payments,’ ” Massie said.
Massie has likened the dues system to “extortion.” Other critics said it gives the most prodigious fundraisers, rather than the best legislators, an edge in getting on the most powerful congressional committees.
Rep. Marcy Kaptur, D- Ohio, called party dues part of a “corro-
sive system of public begging and colleague-luring.”
“Often, leadership positions in the institution hinge on proficiency at fundraising,” Kaptur said. “It is clear that political party fundraising has been moved directly into Congress, at levels never imagined by the Founders.”
Other lawmakers sharply reject that criticism. They argue that lawmakers’ dues are not compulsory and have no direct link to committee assignments.
“There are lots of people who don’t pay their dues ( but) who are chairs of committees, vice chairs of committees, subcommittee chairman,” Rep. Steve Stivers, R- Ohio, said. “There really is not much correlation.” Stivers said Massie and others who complain about the system are looking for an excuse to explain their failure to advance in Congress.
Lawmakers’ dues have become a huge and vital source of cash for the House and Senate party committees. Lawmakers are the only people who can give unlimited sums to the party committees — as long as the funds come from their re-election accounts or their leadership PACs, second accounts that lawmakers use to raise money for other candidates.
In the 2014 election cycle, the National Republican Congressional Committee, which helps vulnerable Republicans or GOP challengers in tough races, raised about $153 million overall. More than one-third of that, about $67.7 million, came from Republican candidates and lawmakers’ fundraising accounts, according to a USA TODAY analysis of campaign-finance data.
The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee raised $207 million in the 2014 cycle, about $30.6 million of which came from Democratic lawmakers and candidates’ fundraising committees, the USA TODAY analysis showed.
Katie Martin, the NRCC’s communication director, said, “We do not comment on our dues system.” DCCC spokeswoman Meredith Kelly boasted that 83% of Democrats in the House have contributed dues to the committee this election cycle.
Stivers said most lawmakers pay their dues because they want to protect the GOP majority.
“Who is best invested in us being in the majority? It’s us!” said Rep. Pat Tiberi, R- Ohio.
HOW IT WORKS
At the start of each two-year election cycle, the Democratic and Republican campaign committees set up contribution programs in which House leaders, committee chairmen, veteran lawmakers and relative newcomers are given fundraising goals.
“Somebody from NRCC will usually call you and say, ‘Hey, here’s what your dues number is, and we want to work with you to help you meet some people that might want to give to NRCC,’ ” said Stivers, who served as the committee’s fundraising vice chairman in the 2014 election.
Lawmakers get “credit” for paying their dues when a donor they have contacted gives to the NRCC or when they transfer money from their own accounts. Senators do the same thing.
Congressional committees are divided into three tiers: The panels with the most financial power — such as the Ways and Means Committee, which crafts tax policy, and the Energy and Commerce Committee, which regulates key sectors of the economy — are viewed as plum “A” committees. The “B” panels include the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, the Budget Committee and the Foreign Affairs Committee. The “C” committees oversee small business, science programs and congressional ethics, among other MARK WILSON, GETTY IMAGES issues.
Rep. Steve Chabot, R- Ohio, of the Small Business Committee, said he sees paying dues as part of being a “team player.” He said as the dean of Ohio’s GOP delegation, he lobbies his home-state colleagues to pony up.
Chabot said he’s never been told his dues would be linked to his committee posts. He also said he has never tried to get on an “A” committee because he is more interested in the issues that come before the Judiciary and Foreign Affairs panels he already serves on.
BOTH PARTIES DO IT
A leaked document, obtained in 2014 by Buzzfeed News, detailed the dues that Democrats impose on their House members. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, DCalif., was expected to contribute $800,000 that election cycle to the DCCC. Lawmakers who served as the ranking Democrats on “exclusive” committees had tabs of $500,000, while the top Democrats on less powerful committees were billed $250,000.
The Republicans had their own dues leak in 2011, when Politico reported the names and outstanding bills of some GOP lawmakers in a story that suggested party leaders had admonished them for failing to pony up.
Lawmakers give money to curry favor with each other, so they have an advantage when committee assignments and leadership decisions are made. To critics such as Massie, the system is just one more sign that everything in Washington is for sale.
By linking fundraising to the top committee posts, leaders are “co-mingling official business with fundraising,” Massie said. “Just like you shouldn’t be making phone calls asking for money from an office that’s paid for with taxpayer dollars (something that is prohibited), they shouldn’t be able to withhold or extend committee assignments that are official duties and official titles based on fundraising.”
“It’s a broken incentive,” said Josh Stewart, a spokesman for the Sunlight Foundation, a nonpartisan good-government organization that tracks campaign finance. “Policy expertise and seniority are weighed less now than your fundraising prowess, and that is problematic.”
Tiberi is a member of the House GOP Steering Committee, which doles out committee seats and chairmanships in closeddoor meetings. He said that in his 16 years in the House, he’s never heard of anyone losing a committee assignment because they failed to pay their dues. But he conceded that dues do play at least a small role. “It’s part of a larger picture,” Tiberi said. “It’s not the entire picture.” The far more important factors, he said, are seniority and expertise.
Massie said he has no intention of paying his dues. He said he prefers to help his GOP colleagues by traveling to their districts and headlining fundraisers that put money directly in their campaign coffers.
He said he’s not worried about losing committee assignments because he’s on panels that are not magnets for special-interest campaign cash.
“I’m on important committees that are not lucrative,” he said.
“There are lots of people who don’t pay their dues (but) who are chairs of committees, vice chairs of committees, subcommittee chairman. There really is not much correlation.” Rep. Steve Stivers, R- Ohio