Power Grab - Jason Chaffetz Page 0,45
federal mandates Democrats wish to impose on state governments, all of which nullify existing state and local laws.
An “Independent” Redistricting Commission
Democrats paid a heavy price for the Republican wave election of 2010, not only losing the House in those midterms, but losing 19 Democrat-controlled state legislatures and 650 legislative seats nationwide. Those losses came just as state lawmakers were poised to redraw the maps for House districts that would dictate boundaries for a decade.
With redistricting again on the horizon in 2018, Democrats tried to use H.R. 1 to stack the deck in their favor. H.R. 1 transfers state legislatures’ authority to draw voting districts to a so-called independent redistricting commission. The bill’s provision compelling states to create redistricting commissions is blatantly unconstitutional. Although some states have created such commissions, frequently the legislature still holds the ultimate authority. Instead of being drawn by those who are accountable to voters, districts would now be drawn by people who have no fear of being voted out. If voters don’t like the results, they have no recourse.
The Supreme Court has upheld the rights of states to choose to use independent commissions, but that 5–4 decision included a dissent by Chief Justice John Roberts and depended on a swing vote from Justice Kennedy. There is a strong likelihood the current Court would strike down the redistricting provision.
The bill bars these federally imposed redistricting commissions from considering “the political party affiliation or voting history of the population of a district.” This is intended to prevent gerrymandering, but it also prevents any pursuit of partisan fairness, which is supposedly the whole goal of an independent commission.
But the most egregious provision in the bill is the one governing conflicts between state legislatures and independent commissions. If they can’t agree, state maps will be drawn by judges in Washington, D.C. This is an unmitigated violation of the separation of powers. Elections expert Hans von Spakovsky, in his testimony before the House Judiciary Committee, explained, “The bill transfers to the judiciary a power that the Elections Clause of the Constitution exclusively gives to the legislative branch. That violates basic separation of powers principles as well as the delegation doctrine. It is antidemocratic and unconstitutional.”
Protecting the Green Wave
One of the bill’s strongest selling points was the promise to end corruption. While chomping at the bit to impose campaign finance reforms, Democrats are careful not to endanger what many dubbed the Green Wave of small-dollar contributions that helped flip the House for Democrats. Speaker Pelosi referred to campaign finance reform as “the people’s interests not the special interests.” That’s cute. But if you understand how Democrats have gamed the campaign finance system in the last election cycle—and they’re hoping you don’t—you’ll see that this legislation not only protects the Democrats’ Green Wave of ostensibly grassroots contributions, but drastically expands it at your expense.
Remember the settlement slush funds we discussed in chapter 2? Democrats have new plans for that money they were collecting from civil and criminal financial penalties. Instead of diverting it to their nonprofit allies, which is now illegal, they want to create a fund, ironically called the “Freedom from Influence Fund,” that will now be used to fund political campaigns—providing a 6-to-1 match for all donations under $200. To qualify, candidates have to forgo contributions larger than $1,000.
Why the focus on small donors? Democrats would have you believe they are motivated by a commitment to reducing the influence of money in politics. But a closer look at where Democrat candidates are getting their campaign funds tells a different story.
In the 2018 midterms, Democrats in vulnerable House districts outraised Republican candidates more than 2 to 1. The difference? Small donors. The New York Times reported that in the 69 most competitive House races, Democrats raised a total of $46 million from small donors compared to just $15 million for Republicans. “[T]he influx of Democratic donations touched every corner of the House map,” reported the New York Times story, “from high-profile races in the suburbs of New York and California, to more rural, conservative-leaning stretches of Indiana, Kansas and Alaska.”
While Republicans were using the two old-school methods of disclosing donors, disavowing corporate donations and sticking to campaign finance limits—or funding with traditional Super PACs—Democrats pioneered a clever new method of small-donor fund-raising that diminishes their reliance on Super PAC money. It’s a good idea and one that Republicans should have replicated long ago. But it may not be everything it appears to be. The mechanism for this new Green Wave of Democrat