Democrats Force Votes With Eye on Campaigns

[ProSense]

Democrats Force Votes With Eye on Campaigns

By Kathleen Hunter

House Democrats have launched a floor strategy aimed at forcing freshman Republicans to take tough votes on politically sensitive topics, mirroring a tactic that the GOP deployed when it was in the minority.

Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) is consulting with her leadership team, including Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee Chairman Steve Israel (N.Y.), on how to use a procedural tool known as a motion to recommit to force Republicans to take politically challenging votes.

Under House rules, the minority party is allowed to offer one motion to recommit, which functions much like an amendment, for each piece of legislation as the last step before final passage. With their return to the minority, Pelosi and her leadership team are trying to be more savvy about using the motions to put Republicans on the politically unpopular side of issues that Democrats want to champion ahead of the next election.

So far, Democrats have offered four such motions this Congress: a proposal to require Members to publicly disclose whether they will accept government health insurance, a measure barring a health care repeal bill from taking effect unless a majority of lawmakers forfeit their government-sponsored health insurance, a proposal to bar companies that outsource jobs from obtaining government contracts and a proposal to require disclosure of foreign campaign contributors.

more

[Tippy]

1. K&R.....the Senate is doing much the same....They want

to propose all these bills to impress their backers....now lets see if they will cast a vote there by putting their name on it......

[emulatorloo]

2. Excellent. Seems like the Dems are sharpening up their strategy

House Dems were excellent during the "Job Killing HRC" debate.

[FBaggins]

3. I don't know. Three of those first four look like duds.

You can't take foreign contributions... what point is there in requiring disclosure?

The "no offshoring" proposal sounds interesting... if hard to implement.

[ProSense]

4. Actually, the

health care motion was effective.

[FBaggins]

5. Effective how?

You really think those weren't republicans who feel they benefit from claiming that they turned it down?

Frankly... I think that the whole spin was pretty silly. I don't see the connection between accepting insurance from their employer and supporting federal funding of insurance for people who don't work for the government. It's like the republicans hold a vote to not change the minimum wage, and we propose an amendment that the bill can't become law until they agree to work for minimum wage themselves. It's cute... but the only people it will sway would never have voted the other way anyhow.

[ProSense]

6. "You really think those weren't republicans who feel they benefit

from claiming that they turned it down?"

I don't know what they were thinking. Do you think that they would have turned it down if not for the motion?

Do you know with certainty that these members will remain off the Congressional health benefits plan for the duration of their term?

Motions to force votes, whether initiated by a Democrat or Republican, aren't going to produce major shifts, but they do have a purpose.

[FBaggins]

7. I can't speak to all of them, but yes... I suspect that many would.

Some of them have rejected it for year. Frank LoBiondo comes to mind. He was elected in the mid 90s and has never taken it. I don't know for sure, but I'd bet that Ron Paul has done the same thing.

Shilling (what a name!) has rejected not only the insurance, but also the pension and any raises. I doubt he was pushed by some phony vote.