The stories you want. The opinions that matter.
No, thanks
Tag: amendment
House Republicans Block Their Own Spending Bill Because of LGBT Protection Amendment

House Republicans Block Their Own Spending Bill Because of LGBT Protection Amendment

A domestic energy and water spending bill was defeated last Thursday over an amendment that would prevent the U.S. government from hiring contractors that discriminate based on gender identity and sexual orientation. The amendment, which would enforce a 2014 executive order from President Obama, was sponsored by Rep. Sean Maloney and added by the full House on Wednesday night with a vote of 223-195. 43 Republicans sided with Democrats and voted to add the amendment and bar LGBT discrimination by federal contractors.

But when the House voted on the spending measure the next day, it ended up failing with a vote of 305-112, with House Democrats screaming “Shame! Shame!” as some Republicans changed their votes and blocked their own bill. According to the Democrats, House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy stepped in and pressured seven GOP members to switch sides.

Minority Leader Nansy Pelosi said the bill’s blockage was a product of “House Republicans’ discrimination against the LGBT community,” adding that “they are willing to vote down their own appropriations bill in order to prevent progress over bigotry.”

Republicans argued, as they usually do when fighting anti discrimination legislation, that the amendment was an attack on religious liberties. “I could not, in good conscience, vote for the appropriations bill with this damaging amendment included,” said Rep. Diane Black of Tennessee. CNN reported that a Georgia Republican opened a morning meeting with a prayer warning colleagues that any Republican who voted for the LGBT provision “was going to hell.”

This isn’t the first time that Republicans hold the U.S. budget hostage. Last year, the appropriations process was delayed over a fight about flying the Confederate flag on federal ground. Last week, GOP leaders blocked another Maloney-sponsored LGBT amendment by keeping the vote open and convincing members to switch their vote. The amendment was meant to protect federal LGBT workers under a spending bill for military construction and veterans program.

The $37 billion spending measure is one of twelve annual appropriations bills that Congress must pass — and that are often used as vehicles for other proposals. Speaker of the House Paul Ryan blamed Democrats of this, accusing them of “looking to sabotage the appropriations process” by attaching anti-discrimination language to it.

Maloney, who is new York’s first openly gay congressman, plans to revive the amendment by adding it to other bills, and said that “the only way discrimination is going to win is if Kevin McCarthy keeps rigging the votes.”
Photo: Speaker of the House Paul Ryan (R-WI) speaks to reporters on Capitol Hill in Washington, U.S., May 25, 2016.      REUTERS/Joshua Roberts

Ted Cruz: Democrats Plan To ‘Repeal The First Amendment’

Ted Cruz: Democrats Plan To ‘Repeal The First Amendment’

Last week, Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) made a religious-right audience gasp in horror when he announced that Senate Democrats were on a warpath “to repeal the First Amendment.” Addressing a terrified audience of conservative pastors in Washington, D.C., Cruz assured his listeners that he “was not making this up,” and that Democrats were really and truly attempting to do away with such honored rights as freedom of speech, the press, and religion.

In the words of Seth Meyers and Amy Poehler: Really, Senator Cruz? Really?

Cruz’s bold claim was inspired by Senator Tom Udall’s (D-NM) proposed Constitutional amendment that would grant the federal government the “power to regulate the raising and spending of money and in kind equivalents for federal political campaigns.” Nowhere in the amendment does Udall suggest repealing the First Amendment.

According to Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY), however, “In our society, spending is speech.” As such, it seems that Cruz has conflated the Democrats’ attempts to curb Big Money’s influence on policy and politics with an attack on the wealthy’s First Amendment rights.

In reality, Udall’s amendment is a response to the Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens United ruling and the more recent McCutcheon, which have eroded limitations on campaign donations. Recent studies by professors at Yale and the University of California, Berkeley have suggested that individuals with the means to make significant financial contributions have better access to politicians, lending statistical evidence to support the widely held assumption that “financial resources translate into political power.” Consequently, eliminating contribution ceilings gives even greater influence to the wealthy donor class whose money serves as a megaphone in the political arena. Udall’s amendment — which is strongly supported by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, who has said he will force “multiple votes” on the issue — attempts to restore some equality in political representation.

Of course, this is not how Cruz views the amendment. Rather, the ultra-conservative senator told onlookers at the Family Research Council event that the amendment would give Congress the ability “to muzzle each and every one of you.” Ostensibly, when Cruz says that the government will “muzzle” pastors, he is speaking of the amendment’s aim of capping campaign contributions. But religious institutions — specifically churches, synagogues, mosques, and/or temples — are considered tax-exempt non-profits by the IRS, which means that they are prohibited from participating in, contributing to, or interfering with any political campaigns. In fact, the IRS expressly states:

Contributions to political campaign funds or public statements of position (verbal or written) made on behalf of the organization in favor of or in opposition to any candidate for public office clearly violate the prohibition against political campaign activity.

Therefore, if Udall’s amendment were to pass, Cruz’s audience would be unaffected, because they are and would remain unable to financially influence public official elections.

Moreover, Cruz’s claims that the amendment grants Congress “unlimited authority” to “regulate political speech” is equally untrue. The senator seems to believe that Congress would receive unprecedented power to check campaign donations. But what he has conveniently forgotten is that before Citizens United, there were ceilings in place to ensure that no individual (or individuals) could give unlimited cash to campaigns or candidates. So really, the amendment would simply return the campaign contribution landscape to its pre-2010 state, not create a new era of total government control.

For Cruz, however, Congress’ audacity to suggest that more money should not mean more influence places the United States in “perilous, perilous times.” The senator continued his histrionic rant by saying, “elected officials have decided they don’t like it when the citizenry has the temerity to criticize what they’ve done.” Because for Cruz, criticism comes in the form of a check.

And while the amendment explicitly says nothing “shall abridge the freedom of the press,” Cruz takes issue with the fact that the amendment does not proceed to list every other aspect that will be unaffected, including freedom of speech and religious liberty. By this logic, because the amendment does not mention the guarantee of kittens’ safety, we may also assume that upon its passage, all kittens will be in immediate danger.

Luckily for Cruz, the likelihood of passage is slim — only 27 amendments have been ratified in the course of American history, as the process is long and difficult. However, regardless of the amendment’s chances, the probability that Ted Cruz has officially lost his mind — judging by these kinds of absurd claims — seems higher every day.

Photo: jbouie via Flickr

Want more campaign finance analysis? Sign up for our daily email newsletter!