Speakerwatch: A Challenger

With opposition to John Boehner growing daily, the burning question of his replacement has filled the air. The strategy of the opposition in 2013 was not to unite behind any one particular candidate, but simply get enough votes against Boehner to force another ballot.

Ideally, a challenger would eventually arise, Boehner would concede, and there would be a new Speaker. The lack of a figure to unite behind in 2013 may have contributed to the failure of the rebellion.

A challenger has arrived: Louie Gohmert (R-TX) has officially announced his challenge to John Boehner. 

Gohmert is one of the growing contingent of liberty Republicans in the House of Representatives, and a member of the House Liberty Caucus. 

The Speaker election should resemble another attempt by Liberty Republicans: Raul Labrador for Majority Leader. While the past two power struggles were in favor of establishment Republicans, the climate favors the conservatives.

Corporate Welfare in the Mitten State

According to a recent study by the Mercatus Center, the state of Michigan is the fourth heaviest subsidizing state in the United State (only behind Louisiana, Washington, and New York). While some object to the term corporate welfare, it effectively encompasses the broad array of activities the state engages in.

For Michigan, these activities vary from tax-free "enterprise-zones" to tax-free bonds, issued at the behest of the Michigan Economic Development Corporation (MEDC). The incentives that drive corporate welfare (concentrated benefits to producers, disperse costs to taxpayers) are not unique to Michigan. What exactly has led to its intensity in Michigan?

The reasons are varied, but Michigan's long history of corruption in the state government certainly contributed. In addition, Mercatus notes that General Motors, Ford, and Dow Chemical all rank in the top twenty companies for subsidies from state governments. Prominent state corporations and a corrupt government? It all adds up.

Speakerwatch

Over the past several days, there have been more and more representatives that have publicly voiced their intention not to vote for John Boehner to retain the Speakership. Several more have hinted at their true feelings. There was, of course, the ultimately fruitless attempt to oust Speaker Boehner in early 2013 (spearheaded by Raul Labrador and Justin Amash), but this attempt seems to be gaining more steam and popular support.

A list of those opposing (or likely to oppose) Boehner follows.

1. Justin Amash (R-MI): One of the most prominent liberty Republicans in the House of Representatives, and one of the few to oppose Boehner in 2013, is almost certain to oppose Boehner. In a recent interview, he had this to say.

"I'm deeply troubled by what I think were some misleading statements by the leadership team about the "cromnibus" and the process that brought it to the floor. I'm not going to put that on Speaker Boehner, but the leadership as a whole. And I want to have these conversations with the speaker before we have the vote for speaker and I haven't made a decision yet about what I'll do, but I need to see that things are moving in the right direction."

While hardly an outright declaration, Amash is likely to oppose.

2. Thomas Massie (R-KY): Massie, a sophomore Republcian, opposed Boehner in 2013, and has again publicly declared his opposition.

3. Jim Bridenstine (R-OK): Bridenstine, who also voted against Boehner previously, has declared his intention to do so again.

There were a total of 9 other Republicans (12 total) who revolted in 2013. 10, including the three above, were re-elected. I've been unable to track down an exhaustive list, but they include 4) Raul Labrador (R-ID), 5) Tim Huelskamp (R-KS), and 6) Walter Jones (R-NC).

More Republicans are likely to officially announce opposition prior to the vote, and many who don't are presumed to oppose Boehner regardless.

Potential Shakeup in House Leadership

The 2014 election cycle was an interesting one, especially for Republicans. The party's victory in the Senate, and a further majority in the House, puts them in a unique situation to effectively move forward their own legislative agenda.

For many conservative members of the party, there is one major detriment to advancing their agenda: The Speaker of the House, John Boehner.

Many have criticized Boehner, allegedly citing his acquiescence to Democrats in Congress, including  many of the more conservative members of the Republican Caucus. Some, including Justin Amash (R-MI) and Thomas Massie (R-KY), have publicly voiced potential support for another Speaker.

The idea isn't as farfetched as it was two years ago. Former House Majority Leader Eric Cantor lost his primary - to Dave Brat, an ideological ally to Boehner's detractors.

If this revolt comes to fruition, the burning question remains: Who would take up the Speaker's gavel?

Cronyism in the Race for the Senate 2014

For many candidates running for office, at least at the national level, a significant portion of their campaign contributions come from political action committees, or PACs. These are typically set up by some interest group, organization, or business with the intent of sending monetary aid to candidates that align with their ideological interests.

At least, that's what allegedly happens.
In reality, most PACs operate on the basic premise of reciprocity. If they help a young Senator get elected, they expect some cutback in return. It's common to link this phenomenon purely with businesses and the corporate sector, but that only encompasses part of the story. In reality, all PACs (even those of such high-minded organizations as state chapters of Right to Life) excpect something in return for their contribution.
Whenever the quarterly FEC reports are released, a veritable army of analysts begins to pore over it, looking for trends, specifics, anything that might help show where an election is going, and why. A couple of weeks ago, the Q3 report came out. One of these trends, which shouldn't come as much of a surprise, is the dramatic shift of contributions from Democratic Senate candidates to Republicans.


It's common to associate corporate interests with the Republican party, but in reality, all they want is influence. Whether that comes with the Democrats or the Republicans is largely irrelevant. A quote from the article illustrates this well:

“Wall Street expects return on investment,” said Nicholas Colas, chief market strategist at ConvergEx Group, a brokerage firm. “It makes no sense to contribute to a losing campaign.”

In other words, what reciprocity are you going to get if the man you're funelling money to didn't win? This shift illustrates the continually rising tide of the Republican party in their bid to retake the Senate in 2014, and dramatically so.

The real question isn't if the Republicans will suceed. That's all but certain at this point. The real question is what they'll do with it.