NRCC Outraises DCCC

This is a surprise:

The National Republican Congressional Committee narrowly outraised its House Democratic counterpart in January, ending a lengthy trend of losing the monthly money battles against the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.

In FEC reports filed last night, the NRCC reported raising $3.79 million in January, compared to the DCCC’s $3.72 million. The NRCC still badly trails the DCCC in cash on hand, banking just $6.4 million to the DCCC’s $35.4 million.

The same article points out that the Republican Senate campaign committee raised nearly as much as its Democratic counterpart in January. Recall too, (as I wrote yesterday) that the RNC continues to raise significantly more than its Democratic counterpart. When you look at the overall picture, the three Democratic campaign committees (DCCC, DSCC, and DNC) started February with an edge in cash on hand of about $28 million -- a big edge, but not overwhelming.

The Democrats think that 2008 will be a good year for them for several reasons: the better presidential candidate, the edge in money, and the high number of GOP retirements. But it's starting to seem that McCain may be the better candidate in the general election -- no matter who wins the Democratic nod. The latest round of fundraising reports suggests the Democratic money edge may be subsiding (with one notable exception). And while the Republicans will have more retirements no matter what, the vast majority will be seats where the GOP candidate is favored.

Harry's Dingy Polls Get Worse

Read it at the Standard.

Menendez (D-NJ) Under Federal Investigation

TPM Muckraker reports on a Democrat -- good for them:

LiCausi started work for Menendez back when he was in the House in 1998. She was 26. Four years later she left with the title of chief of staff of his New Jersey office, a position that the Times called "midlevel" -- she supervised six people. But immediately she began raking in some hefty contracts, not only as a lobbyist, but also as a fundraiser for Menendez and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. Menendez admitted to the Times that he'd "encouraged" the DCCC to hire her for the $10,000 a month spot. And no doubt he was responsible for the work on his political committees, where she was also making another $10,000 a month fundraising for both his political action committee and his campaign. And then there were the lobbying contracts which also rolled in.

The subpoenas issued in the past few months have been to two of LiCausi's clients. One, to Jersey City Medical Center, was originally reported by The Star-Ledger in late August. The other, to the Stevens Institute of Technology in Hoboken, was reported two weeks ago. The hospital signed up LiCausi in January, 2003, shortly after she left Menendez's office; the contract paid $280,000 through February of this year. An exec from the hospital has also testified before a grand jury.

This is not all that unusual in Washington -- it's only the romantic link between Senator and staffer that makes this stand out. But certainly it's not unusual for a business seeking federal cash to hire a favored staffer of a key official to represent them. Sometimes that hire is made with the recommendation of the official, though usually not. The staffer then gets credit for the grants that follow.

DC lawyer extraordinaire Stan Brand gets this right:

Criminal defense lawyer Stan Brand told me that generally such a case could be very hard to prosecute. "There's no magical statute," he said. "Unless you have some proof or evidence of personal financial gain by a public official, it’s very hard to make a case.... The typical political give and take isn't going to be enough."

There's not really a need to make things explicit -- to have a Duke Cunningham-style price list, for example. If Hospital A wants grants from Senator Menendez, they don't need to he told to hire his former Chief of Staff. And they certainly don't need to have Menendez explicitly make it a condition of his helping them. Perhaps investigators will find something unusual and prosecutable in all this, perhaps not.

And as far as partisan advantage goes, it's probably better for Democrats if Menendez is quickly found guilty. The state has demonstrated over and over again that they're willing to keep electing crooked Democrats, no matter how many are indicted. If Menendez stays in office despite these rumors and allegations, at least the GOP gets to cite him as an embarrassment to New Jersey and the Senate -- a la Bob Torricelli.

Hat Tip: Insty

Barone: It's Not 2006 Anymore

Michael Barone summarizes how the political climate has changed since 2006:

Democrats are coming face to face with the fact that there's a war on -- and that Americans prefer success to failure. If the choice is between stalemate and withdrawal, as it seemed to be in November 2006, they may favor withdrawal; but if the choice is between victory and withdrawal, they don't want to quit -- or to undermine the effort.

Last week, Democrat Niki Tsongas won a special election with only 51 percent of the vote, in a Massachusetts district where John Kerry won 57 percent in 2004 and would have run much better in 2006. History doesn't stand still -- we're not in 2006 anymore.

Barone makes the same point Patrick Ruffini made after Niki Tsongas' victory in Massachusetts last week: 2006 is history and politics has changed. This should not be a surprise. Political commentators said after the 2006 election that the loss of the House and Senate was a blessing for Republicans -- one that would break the rise of anti-Republican sentiment to ensure that 2008 was not a catastrophic anti-GOP tidal wave. That's now happened. By controlling one end of Pennsylvania Avenue, Democrats have reminded voters that it's not just Republicans they don't like.

Jim DeMint Wins an Important Victory on Earmarks

When Republicans in the last Congress, and Democrats in the current Congress, began taking up proposals to shed light on the earmark process, appropriators began to turn to the 'phonemark.' Simply put, that's when a Congressman or Senator calls an agency official to inform him or her that even though the Appropriations Committee hasn't said it, x dollars from a particular account are intended to go to this or that project.

As long as the Appropriations Committee stands behind the claim (or makes the call), it's no more or less binding than an earmark in the committee report. To address this end-run around earmark rules, Jim DeMint has gotten the Senate to agree to prohibit the practice:

The Senate on Tuesday backed a prohibition on federal agencies covered under the Commerce, Justice and science appropriations bill from using letters, phone calls or other communications from lawmakers in determining how to spend federal funds.

The amendment, offered by Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) and approved by voice vote, is the latest in a series of provisions DeMint and other Members have proposed to strengthen the key provisions of the ethics and earmark reform package passed by Congress earlier this year.

With increasing public scrutiny of earmarks, many Members of the House and Senate in recent years have used “phonemarks” to direct federal funding to specific recipients or regions.

Although the White House Office of Management and Budget issued a memorandum earlier this year directing federal agencies to disregard these phonemarks, lawmakers have continued to contact executive branch officials over a variety of projects, according to data collected by the Sunlight Foundation. Additionally, federal officials previously have warned that given the power many of the Members have — particularly those who serve on authorizing or appropriations committees for their agencies — there is enormous pressure on them to comply with these requests.

DeMint argued the changes were needed in large part because of changes to the ethics package eliminating much of the law’s transparency provisions. Congress “pretty much gutted the transparency provisions. We’ve made some progress” in reversing those changes, DeMint said.

While the amendment will only apply to these agencies, and will only apply if it is preserved in conference, this is a valuable step forward. If the Senate votes to apply it to one appropriations bill, there's no reason to think they won't do so across the board. And as long as OMB is willing to assist in enforcing it -- by disclosing attempts by Members of the Senate to get around it -- it should be enforceable.

Another good move by Senator DeMint.

Harry Reid Ponders Retirement in 2010

Congressional leaders can never forecast their retirement too far ahead of time. As soon as they confirm their departure, they lose some of their authority -- and they kick off the succession race, which can lead to dissension and division.

Therefore, you should take it with a grain of salt when Reid's spokesman denies that he's thinking of hanging it up:

Although Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) is sending all the right signals that he will run for re-election in 2010, the possibility that he might choose to retire has fueled speculation that a three-way race to succeed him atop the party could ensue among his top two lieutenants — Sens. Dick Durbin (Ill.) and Charles Schumer (N.Y.) — and Sen. Chris Dodd (Conn.).

Sources both on and off Capitol Hill say while neither Durbin, Schumer nor Dodd openly is discussing a future leadership bid, they are emerging as the most obvious Majority Leader candidates among powerful lobbyists, donors and Democratic lawmakers. Talk of a rivalry among the prominent trio is growing even as Reid appears poised to run for another six-year term, a move that, if successful, would give the Nevada Democrat a chance to hold the party’s top leadership slot for more than a decade.

“Get in line and get used to waiting because Sen. Reid isn’t going anywhere anytime soon,” said the Majority Leader’s spokesman, Jim Manley, dismissing any chatter to the contrary as “inside the Beltway parlor games.”

Roll Call then goes on to say that at least one lobbyist close to the situation says the succession race is 'active.' Are you as surprised as I am that Chris Dodd is hedging his bets in case he doesn't get elected President?

A three-way race among Dodd, Durbin, and Schumer would be interesting. First off, any one of those leaders would give the Senate Democrats a leader who was unlikely to face re-election trouble at home (in contrast to Tom Dasche and Senator Reid). It would also ensure that the next Democratic leader would be from a 'big' state. Traditionally leaders come from smaller states (Nevada, South Dakota, Maine...), partly out of concern of giving undue influence to a populous Democratic state.

Further, the political climate in 2009 will factor in as well. Will Democrats gain a large number of seats in 2008? Will there be an unpopular Democratic president to defend in 2010? Will Reid's re-election prospects remain poor, or improve?

All worth watching down the road.

Ethics Rules Bite -- So Senators Look to Change Them

In criticizing the new raft of new ethics rules proposed and adopted by the Democratic Congressional leadership this year, I've commented that those rules will have little impact on the behavior of our elected officials. One report today makes clear that there have at least been one clear effect -- the travel schedules of Senators have become more complex and difficult:

Because of new ethics rules forbidding gifts to senators, the Air Transport Association ruled that it would be a violation of the Senate's gift ban to allow senators to continue their usual practice of double- and, sometimes, triple-booking flights.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), chairman of the Senate Rules Committee, which has oversight of the issue, explained the practice this way: This week, it was unclear whether the Senate would finish Tuesday night or yesterday morning, so senators would have booked multiple flights, hedging their bets on when they could get away and paying only for the flight they took.

"The airlines have allowed us to hold these flights," Feinstein told On the Hill, explaining that it is a service that is also offered to the most frequent travelers on particular airlines -- and is, therefore, not a specific gift.

Now that Senators are required to book one flight, they may find themselves guessing wrong as to when the Senate will complete its business. When the rubber meets the road, they must miss either a vote or a flight. So how do they response? With an attempt to reverse the rule change:

Feinstein said she will soon ask the Select Committee on Ethics to issue a ruling on the matter, noting that senators weren't looking for a handout from the airlines but, rather, the best way to get home to their constituents. "It's really hard because if you can only book one flight, and you can't make that flight, then you're stuck," she said.

It's like Superman being unwilling to go around as Clark Kent anymore. Although come to think of it, he doesn't have problems with airline seating.

Update: Linked to Joyner.

Chafee's Revisionist History

Lincoln Chafee tells Roll Call ($) that the Republican party is pursuing a far right agenda that hurts its electoral prospects. I won't bore you with the details; you could probably write the story. Suffice it to say that he believes people don't care about flag burning, gay marriage, and illegal immigration enforcement. In his defense, that's probably largely true in Rhode Island. The amusing part to me is, his claim that he was always a loyal Republican:

Chafee, whom pundits were constantly monitoring to see if he would bolt the GOP, said he went out of his way to prove his party loyalty.

“I worked really hard at attending every Republican event,” Chafee said, noting he did not miss one of the traditional “Tuesday lunches” both parties hold in the Senate.

He frequented the less formal Thursday lunches as well. And he attended numerous social events, which were often organized by Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Texas).

“I was an active member of the caucus,” Chafee said.

He acknowledged how tough being a “team player” could be for him at times, but he said he was devoted to his affiliation.

“It was difficult believing in the things I consider traditional Republican values, such as environmental stewardship, fiscal discipline, helping the less fortunate; and it changed so drastically.

That's an interesting argument for someone who, as a sitting Republican Senator, endorsed John Kerry, and said that he might switch parties if George Bush was re-elected.

Lieberman, the Republican

The AP has a story about Chris Dodd's attempt to get traction in the Democratic presidential race. Their basic message is that he doesn't bring anything to the table that sets him apart from the other candidates. Tucked away is this goody:

If some of Dodd's material is dated, aides say his views, particularly on the unpopular war, are attuned with liberal Democrats young and old in early nominating states. Dodd has enlisted anti-war darling Ned Lamont, whom bloggers helped defeat Sen. Joe Lieberman in last year's Democratic primary in Connecticut.

Lamont lost the general election to the newly independent Lieberman, but remains popular among activists and drew as many people as Dodd during his early trips to New Hampshire. The bloggers haven't yet adopted Dodd as their man, however.

I ask again: does Joe Lieberman intend to run for re-election in 2012 in this Democratic party? If so, he'll be in trouble -- since the Democrats will probably run a real candidate against him -- someone who'll win the Democratic vote and fight for Republicans and Independents.

Byrd: You'll Have to Carry Me Out in a Pine Box

That appears to be the message in this piece about West Virginia's senior Senator:

The state of Byrd's health has become a topic of intense but whispered speculation among senators and staff this year, not merely because of his advanced age and noticeably frail condition, but because of the enormous power he continues to wield. Byrd, who first came to the Senate during the Eisenhower Administration, is chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee, which oversees nearly $1 trillion in federal expenditures. And as the longest-serving senator of the majority party, Byrd is president pro tempore of the Senate -- which puts him in the line of presidential succession behind Vice President Cheney and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.).

But Byrd, who won re-election easily last November to his ninth term, declined to publicly address his failing health until an Associated Press report about his slowing condition landed on the front page of the Charleston Daily Mail, the most influential paper in his home state. That story was filed June 14 - almost a year to the day that Byrd surpassed the late Sen. Strom Thurmond (R-S.C.) to become the longest serving senator in the history of the republic...

"The news stories in recent weeks [have] pointed out the shocking discovery, yes, shocking discovery that I am growing older. Did you get that? Shocking discovery that I am growing older," Byrd said in a mocking tone to a largely empty Senate floor, prompting laughter from the galleries.

As he spoke, his hand holding a microphone trembled wildly, and he needed help from an aide in getting through the pages of his floor speech. He appeared to cut short his speech after a coughing spasm.

It's interesting that Senator Byrd has reached this age and this condition with none of the mockery from the mainstream media that the late Strom Thurmond had to endure.

Apart from that, it's clear that his mind is still there. He's the same old coot that he's been for years. And once he is no longer physically able to execute the duties of the office -- a point that seems to be approaching -- he ought to step aside.