Why are members of the Sedition Caucus rewarded with millions in earmarks for their districts?
Ours is a government of laws, not of men, John Adams once said. Well, is it? That is the question presented by January 6th, 2021, which federal judge David Carter ruled on Monday was “a coup in search of a legal theory” to justify itself. Judge Carter was deciding whether Chapman University could be compelled to hand over to Congress emails sent by its law school dean John Eastman, who was advising President Trump on how to stop Congress from certifying Joe Biden’s election, not whether Trump himself had broken the law. But that question required that he explore the possible criminality of Trump’s actions and in doing so, the judge produced a legal analysis of the case being built by the January 6th Select Committee, and he didn’t mince words: “[t]he Court finds that it is more likely than not that President Trump and Dr. Eastman dishonestly conspired to obstruct the Joint Session of Congress on January 6, 2021.”
This news came on top of revelations about text messages sent by Ginni Thomas, the wife of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, to White House chief of staff Mark Meadows, pressing him throughout the fall of 2020 to reject the election results. Recently, Justice Thomas was the only member of the high court to vote in favor of Trump’s petition seeking to block the National Archives from releasing White House records to the January 6th committee.
You might think that in reaction to these developments, Members of Congress would be calling on Attorney General Merrick Garland to charge Donald J. Trump with violating the law, specifically 18 U.S.C. § 1512(c)(2), which criminalizes obstruction or attempted obstruction of an official proceeding, and urging the House Judiciary Committee to begin impeachment proceedings against Justice Thomas.
Nope. The furthest that Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-MS), the chairman of the January 6th committee, would go was to say that he hoped Justice Department leaders would read Judge Carter’s ruling. “We’re not a criminal body — we are just looking for the facts and circumstances around January 6 but in the course of that review, there are some very troubling things that we’ve come upon that we think if [the DOJ] would take a look at it, there would be something there,” Thompson told reporters.
As for Justice Thomas’ insurrectionist spouse, Democratic leaders seem to be taking this news the way they do everything else: it’s business as usual. Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-NY), who chairs the Judiciary Committee, said, “It’s much too early to talk about either [censure or impeachment]. I think we have to wait and see what the Jan. 6 committee finds.” Just four House Democrats have called for Thomas to resign: Rep. Nydia Velasquez (D-NY, Rep. Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), Rep. Veronica Escobar (D-TX) and Rep. Hank Johnson (D-GA). Just one House member, Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN), has called for Thomas’ impeachment. Instead, a group led Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) and Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-WA) have written the Justice asking that he recuse himself from any future cases relating to the insurrection.
Of course, when Senate Republicans have already demonstrated that they won’t even act to defend the Constitution in the wake of an actual insurrection, expecting them to vote to impeach one of their favorite Supreme Court justices is a fantasy. Likewise, the criminal indictment of ex-President Trump would inflame the country even more than it is now. Still, the internalized passivity of Democratic leaders does not bode well for the confrontation ahead, when the January 6th committee lays out its findings in full detail.
Here’s what business as usual looks like, unfortunately. Three weeks ago, the Democrats in control of Congress pushed through a massive $1.5 trillion 2022 spending bill appropriating funds for the entire government, along with some emergency humanitarian and military aid for Ukraine. This annual appropriations bill included earmarks for projects in specific districts, an old practice that has been brought back and rebranded as “community project funding” or “member-directed funding.” By letting individual members request funding for pet local projects, earmarks help grease the wheels of Congress, though they have also been abused in the past. In restoring the practice, Democratic appropriators have made it more transparent, which is for the good.
But here’s what I don’t understand. A year ago, a whopping 139 House Republicans (plus 8 Senate Republicans) voted against certifying the 2020 election results, upholding Trump’s Big Lie and refusing to tell their own constituents that the election wasn’t stolen. This group, which some call the Sedition Caucus, has set itself apart from the most basic foundation of our democracy, the idea that the current government is in fact legitimate. Every time the Democrats who control Congress put forward legislation, they could present these 147 representatives and senators with a simple opportunity to recant by including language affirming the 2020 result. You want to shape the country’s laws or bring home bacon for your district? First, demonstrate that you are doing your duty to defend and uphold the Constitution. Otherwise, too bad.
Instead, business for usual for the feckless Democratic leadership means that Republican House members who uphold Trump’s Big Lie get punished by receiving hundreds of millions in taxpayer dollars for projects in their districts. Take Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-NY), who was elevated to the House Republican leadership team after the ouster of Rep. Liz Cheney (R-WY) for daring to tell the truth about the election. She’s laughing all the way to the bank, touting the nearly $100 million in earmarks she won for her district.. Rep. Chuck Fleischmann (R-TN), another member who voted against certifying the results, actually spoke on the House floor during the vote on the omnibus, applauding all the “key wins” Republicans like him got, including $1.9 billion to “build the wall” and $600 million for a nuclear weapons processing facility in his district. Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA), another top Republican who signed onto the state of Texas’ ridiculous lawsuit to prevent states like Pennsylvania from certifying their electoral votes for Biden, pulled $22.8 million for her district and then had the temerity to vote against the very bill containing those earmarks. Rep. Beth Van Duyne (R-TX), another member of the sedition caucus, got $55 million. Rep. Tom Cole (R-OK), another Big Lie backer, raked home $26 million. Rep. Tom Emmer (R-MN), another signer to the Texas suit, took home at least $10 million. (And these are just examples from members of the sedition caucus who were the biggest requesters of earmarks.)
It truly makes one wonder, as Casey Stengel once said of the 1962 New York Mets. Does anyone here know how to play the game?
P.S. To do your own research into the sedition caucus, see the Republican Accountability Project’s useful database grading Members on how they show up on a set of key questions and actions related to the Big Lie. Surely House Appropriations chair Rosa DeLauro (D-CT) could have looked up a few names.