Club for Growth, Please Reconsider
By Boddington Posted in Republicans — Comments (5) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
I’m one of the Club for Growth’s biggest fans. They are hands-down the best advocacy group out there for conservatives. However, they are in the process of cutting their nose to spite their face. The Club is scoring a NO vote on the lobbying reform bill as a pro-economic growth vote because of the anti-free speech 527 bill that the House passed a few weeks ago.
Leaders had wanted to include the actual text of the 527 bill to the lobbying reform package, but they were afraid of losing conservatives. Instead, they are using a rarely used procedural devise to merge the text of the 527 bill (H.R. 513, which already passed the House) to the lobbying bill after the latter clears the House. From the standpoint of defending freedom, this is certainly objectionable but how much so? It does not impact the fact that the House has already passed the bill; it simply changes the way that the 527 bill is handled in a conference committee. Legislating is about making choices—so is advocacy. The Club has been just as concerned about earmark reform as they have been about 527 reform, and the actual lobbying reform will now not include the 527 text.
The Club is not thinking this through very carefully. They just finished scoring the 527 bill a few weeks ago—and got 18 of their hardiest members to walk the plank with them. They lost. Now, they are going to make those 18 members, who are intent on securing earmark reform and in a fairly consequential fight with the Appropriations Committee, look like complete hypocrites on 527 reform. The Club is hurting no one but itself and 18 of its closest members that supported their position when the 527 language was considered as a stand alone. And for those who care far more about defeating 527 reform than earmark reform (a legitimate position), consider this. Is it going to strengthen the conservative forces aligned against 527 reform—small as they currently are— when the 18 members ignore your vote recommendation? How does that enhance the credibility of Club for Growth? It doesn’t.
I want to reiterate my esteem for the Club for Growth, and in particular, the great Pat Toomey. They are truly the best of the freedom fighters. That is why I don’t want them to do something dumb that could marginalize the Club’s good work in the future. Aligning your conservative advocacy group with the Chairman of the Appropriations Committee in the middle of an earmark fight is dumb. Engaging in friendly fire always is.
« Burn the Witch — Comments (18) | $1 Million for a Swimming Pool:
Jerry Lewis At Work — Comments (45) »
Club for Growth, Please Reconsider 5 Comments (0 topical, 5 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
...that it is or is not possible, given this "rarely used procedural device," to vote against 527 reform and for lobbying reform?
Or can they still vote against 527 reform and for lobbying reform?
Given that the lobbying reform is a bunch of hogwash without going far enough in reforming earmarks to make a hill of beans difference in federal spending. You say that legislating and advocacy are about making choices. The way I see it, the choices are:
- voting for a lobbying reform bill that does little to nothing except eliminate the ability of lobbyists to pay for lunch (some Congressmen may have a price, but it certainly isn't that CHEAP) and passing with it highly objectionable limites on free speech rights, or
- vote against highly objectionable free speech erosions on 527s and as a byproduct, lobbyists can still buy an expensive lunch (big whoop).
It seems to me that the choice is clear: vote against the erosion of free speech.
If you're saying that there is a way for a congressman to vote against 527 reform and for this little baby step in lobbying reform, that's fine. But that's not exactly what I'm reading.
isn't the point of the lobbying reform to make it more difficult to pass a bill, and then attached completely unrelated riders after the fact?
Please correct me if I'm wrong, as I'm not up on the lobbying bill.
...but I don't think that's what it actually does. I don't even think that the "sunlight" provision got included in the lobbying "reform."
The lobbying reform bill is a pretty empty gesture from what I understand.
Voting against the lobbying rule (which was procedural, set up the debate and amendment process, and contained the device to merge with 527 bill later) meant not getting to the actual lobbying bill. That is why the Appropriators were fighting so hard on it before caving in.
While I respect the view that killing 527 reform is more important the earmark reform, voting against the rule would not have done that. Keep in mind, members were not voting on the text of 527 reform.
And as to whether the earmark reform is substantial or not, some weight must at least be given to the response from the Appropriations Committee, who viewed the effort as a mortal threat to their work.
http://www.clubforgrowth.org/blog/archives/027671.php
Really simple way to tell which people are the fiscal conseratives. You have to go to previous years though for evidence of tax cuts in the senate though.