Tag

Slider

Browsing

The House’s nonpartisan ethics watchdog found “substantial reason to believe” that Texas Republican Reps. Ronny Jackson and Wesley Hunt used campaign money for personal or non-political purposes — on social club dues — according to reports released Monday.

Campaign finance laws prohibit lawmakers from spending campaign funds on dues that provide unlimited access at social or country clubs but allow campaign spending on political events at such clubs.

The outside Office of Congressional Ethics had previously probed $11,928.27 in payments from Jackson’s campaign to the Amarillo Club in his home state between October 2020 and January 2024. It’s not the first time the ethics watchdog investigated his campaign’s monthly payments there.

Following the investigation last Congress, Jackson’s campaign continued making monthly payments to the club but changed the category of spending from “Registration Fees” to other designations like “Membership Fees,” “Food/Beverage,” or “Membership for Exclusive Campaign Purposes,” the office said.

Neither Jackson nor the club cooperated with the investigation, according to the office. A Jackson spokesperson denounced the continued investigation as “baseless” and said it “raises no new information.”

Hunt had been investigated for a similar violation at the Oak Room, a social club in Houston. The office’s report noted that Hunt’s campaign had listed “Membership” at the club in its FEC filings, paying $5,412.50 to the club in dues and fees since April 2022. The OCE also highlighted a $43,626.52 payment to the club in November 2022 for “Facility Rental/Catering” and another $4,132.44 payment shortly after for “Catering.”

Hunt also didn’t cooperate with the probe, according to the report. His attorneys Chris K. Gober, Eric Wang and Anna Mackin denied any wrongdoing in a letter to the House Ethics Committee that was released along with the reports.

“All of the Hunt for Congress payments to the Post Oak Hotel, including for membership in the Post Oak Club, were exclusively for campaign-related purposes and not for any personal purposes,” they wrote. The large payments highlighted by the outside ethics office had covered Hunt’s election night party in 2022, they said.

The office has referred the cases to the House Ethics Committee for the evenly divided panel to review the matter. The Ethics Committee said in statements it would review the referrals and refrain from further comment until those reviews were complete.

This House GOP is about to add another item to their long list of abnormal events: voting to hold Attorney General Merrick Garland in “inherent contempt.”

Rep. Anna Paulina Luna (R-Fla.) said she will force a vote this week on the rarely used tool, which would direct the House sergeant at arms to take Garland into custody.

House Republicans have already voted to hold Garland in contempt of Congress — a still-uncommon but more frequently used weapon in the chamber’s arsenal — over his refusal to hand over audio of President Joe Biden’s interview with former special counsel Robert Hur. But the Justice Department quickly disclosed that, in line with long-standing policy, it won’t prosecute Garland for refusing to turn over records that fall under executive privilege.

Luna’s resolution is expected to come up under House rules that allow her to force a vote without GOP leadership’s approval. But it faces roadblocks to actually passing: Democrats, or even Luna’s own GOP colleagues, will likely move to table it or send it to committee. Either step would effectively block it.

Leadership has its own plans for what’s next on Garland; Speaker Mike Johnson said the House will instead take the fight over the Hur-Biden audio recordings to court. But that legal battle, Luna has lamented, would likely drag on for months and is unlikely to wrap before the November election.

“It is imperative that Congress uses its inherent contempt powers and instructs the Sergeant at Arms to bring Attorney General Garland to the House for questioning and compel him to produce the requested evidence,” Luna wrote to her colleagues in a letter on Monday.

“This power is not a mere formality, but a vital tool for us to carry out our legislative responsibilities. It is not enough to issue a subpoena; we must also have the power to enforce it,” she added in the letter, a copy of which was obtained by POLITICO.

Here’s a few things to know about inherent contempt ahead of that vote:

UNUSED FOR ALMOST 90 YEARS

It would be the first time since 1935 that Congress has used the now archaic tool, though House Democrats mulled reviving it during the Trump administration to levy fines against individuals who didn’t comply with subpoenas. Then-Rep. Steve Stockman (R-Texas) also introduced a resolution in 2014 that would have allowed the House sergeant at arms to take former IRS official Lois Lerner into custody but the proposal was never taken up.

Underscoring how atypical the move is in modern history, none of the roughly 20 House Republicans surveyed by POLITICO, including members of the two committees who spearheaded the Garland contempt effort and vulnerable front-liners, knew how inherent contempt worked or what it is.

While Garland made calls to members ahead of the previous contempt vote, he has not called lawmakers on inherent contempt, one person familiar with the outreach told POLITICO.

VOTE LIKELY TO FAIL

Luna would need near unanimity within her conference to actually adopt the resolution, given what is expected to be unanimous Democratic opposition. That’s an uphill battle.

One Republican, Rep. David Joyce (R-Ohio), already opposed holding Garland in contempt, and with leadership leaning into the lawsuit route, Luna is likely to face broader skepticism within the conference.

But that tough whip operation doesn’t seem to be deterring her. In the Florida Republican’s Monday pitch to her colleagues, she said that the “urgency of this situation cannot be overstated” and that she looks forward to “each of you voting in favor of it.”

WHERE GARLAND COULD BE HELD

Luna’s resolution requires that Garland be brought “before the bar of the House of Representatives” to answer questions and that he be kept “in custody to await the further order of the House of Representatives.” One GOP lawmaker questioned, under the scenario, where the House would hold Garland and if there was actually a much-rumored Capitol jail.

There isn’t, to be clear. But the Capitol Police have holding facilities at their headquarters — and Luna noted in her letter they could also hold him in the Capitol building itself.

ANOTHER DRAGGED-OUT PROCESS

While Luna has argued that this would be a more efficient process than a court case, experts stress that the inherent contempt process could take months.

Experts on House process and procedure warn that an inherent contempt vote could trigger months and months of deliberations, from hashing out separation of powers authorities governing the initial arrest to a makeshift trial on the House floor. Adding in another curveball, Garland has a security detail due to his attorney general title, and it’s unclear how bringing a sitting Cabinet official into custody would play out, particularly given Biden’s assertion of executive privilege.

“Inherent contempt has been described as ‘unseemly,’ cumbersome, time-consuming, and relatively ineffective, especially for a modern Congress with a heavy legislative workload that would be interrupted by a trial at the bar,” according to a report on the process and history by the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service.

Senate Democrats’ campaign arm will launch a series of ads in women-focused media outlets marking the two-year anniversary of the Supreme Court striking down Roe v. Wade.

The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee ads will run on websites including Cosmopolitan, Harper’s Bazaar, Well Plated and more, and will be directed toward readers in Arizona, Florida, Maryland, Michigan, Montana, Nevada, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Texas and Wisconsin. Viewers who click through the ads will be directed to a new DSCC-backed website that targets individual GOP Senate candidates’ positions on abortion and other reproductive-health issues.

“The Republican overturn of Roe v. Wade and the escalating attacks it has triggered on women’s right to make their own medical decisions has ensured reproductive freedom will be a defining issue of the 2024 Senate elections,” DSCC Chair Gary Peters (D-Mich.) told POLITICO in a statement. “Voters will reject GOP candidates and protect Democrats’ Senate majority in November.”

The ad blitz comes as Senate Democratic leadership has been forcing votes on reproductive rights on the floor, including votes on access to contraception and in vitro fertilization. Republicans have consistently blocked the legislation from advancing, at times offering their own competing versions.

Reproductive rights have proven a fruitful issue for Democrats in elections since the Supreme Court overruled Roe on June 24, 2022. Outcomes of ballot referendums on abortion at the state level have consistently trended toward protecting access — and outrage over the downfall of Roe is still seen as a leading cause for Republicans failing to mount a red wave in the last midterms.

“The anniversary of the Republican Supreme Court decision that overturned Roe v. Wade underscores the stakes of this year’s Senate elections and the importance of protecting Democrats’ Senate majority with the power to confirm or deny Supreme Court justices,” DSCC spokesperson Annie Lentz said in a statement.

Sen. Chris Coons (D-Del.) said that President Joe Biden always respects the rule of law, so he is confident the president will accept whatever the Supreme Court rules in coming days as to whether former President Donald Trump is immune from prosecution.

“I think there’s a sharp contrast between former President Trump and President Biden in terms of their respect for the rule of law and how they approach both law enforcement and our legal system,” Coon said in an interview Sunday morning with Shannon Bream on “Fox News Sunday.”

When asked whether Biden would accept the decision of the Supreme Court expected this week — after criticizing the Supreme Court in the past for decisions related to his student loan forgiveness plans, among other things — Coons said Biden’s recent actions prove he respects the law and will do so if the court says Trump is immune from prosecution for actions taken during his presidency. The Democratic senator compared Biden’s handling of his son’s federal gun case to Trump’s recent guilty verdict from a New York jury as a “sharp and clear contrast in how they respect the rule of law.”

“Former President Trump was in a courtroom in New York where he attacked the prosecutor, the prosecution, the judge, the jury, the whole process so many times that before he was ultimately convicted by a jury of his peers of 34 felonies he was subject to a gag order,” Coons said. “President Biden, we just saw evidence of this this past week, his own son was convicted here in a court in Wilmington, Delaware, and he did not ever attack or criticize or question the judge, the prosecutor, the jury, the process.”

When pressed on the topic, Coons also said he has brought up his own issues about the Supreme Court — specifically on the lack of a code of ethics. He specifically called out Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas for accepting unreported gifts and travel over this time in the court and blamed Republican senators for blocking the proposed Supreme Court Ethics Recusal and Transparency Act.

“Every other federal judge in our country has a binding code of ethics. So does the Senate, so does the House,” Coons said. “I think the supreme court should as well.”

Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.) sent a letter to his GOP colleagues Sunday targeting proposed rule changes from the right flank of Senate Republicans — and offering some alternative ideas of his own.

The North Carolina senator has been vocally railing against Senate conservatives’ proposals — namely one that would impose a six-year term limit on the next Senate GOP leader, which he argues would weaken the position. Outgoing Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell has echoed those concerns. In the letter, Tillis notes that the Senate Democrats’ leader has no term limits, nor does either party in the House.

“Mitch [McConnell] has been elected 9 times and 8 of those were unopposed,” Tillis wrote in the letter. “Nothing has prevented any member from mounting a challenge in the past. Having terms limits on the leader could make the political side of the job more difficult.”

But Tillis goes on to point out areas he suggests the conference could improve. He specifically compared Senate Republican conference rules to Senate Democrats’ caucus rules — and outlined differences that he thinks give Senate Democratic leaders a leg up. He said he is not outright “advocating” for any rules changes, but instead “providing food for thought on how we could address some of the frustrations of our members.”

It’s the latest evidence of Senate Republicans’ rift over the future of their party conference, where the race to succeed McConnell is ramping up. Sens. John Cornyn (R-Texas), Rick Scott (R-Fla.) and John Thune (R-S.D.) have all entered the race, and questions over new rules they’d support are becoming centerpoints of their bids.

Among those differences in party rules, Tillis noted the Senate Democratic leader gets to appoint the chair of the caucus’ campaign arm, a selection that is “ratified by the conference.” He said allowing the Republican leader, who currently does not appoint the Republican campaign-arm chair, to do the same could prevent intraparty friction.

“Having the leader nominate the [National Republican Senatorial Committee] chair subject to conference ratification could make it more likely the NRSC chair will be in alignment with the priorities of the Republican leader and reduce the risk of conflicts in messaging and priorities,” Tillis wrote.

The senator also pointed out differences in the committee-assignments process between Republicans and Democrats. Currently, the Democratic leader is in charge of filling all open committee spots, while the Republican leader has more limited power over such assignments.

Tillis wrote that expanding the GOP leader’s authority over committee assignments to match Democrats’ “could empower the leader to position members on committees most likely to carry the agenda of the majority of the conference forward.”

The senator identified a number of other proposals, including tweaks to the amendments process and rules for blocking action on the floor. He also proposed new conditions that would compel the leader to close a vote that’s gone past its allotted time if just one member has not voted and that member’s vote would not change the outcome, among other parameters. That would speed up votes on the Senate floor, which regularly go on for an hour or more as members trot in and out.

“These could be adopted by a vote of the conference and would be non-binding to members but would serve more as public guiding principles,” Tillis wrote.

There’s a long time between now and the leadership elections, when the bulk of these ideas within the conference will be put on the hot spot. And other ideas for rules changes are likely to come out as GOP senators decide which leadership candidates they’ll throw their weight behind.

But Tillis said he was just getting started.

“This is by no means an exhaustive list. I share it as a starting point for a discussion of the pros and cons of any changes as we make our first transition in conference leadership in 18 years,” Tillis added. “Looking forward, I believe a thorough discussion of these, and other ideas would be a good use of our time.”

Senate conservatives have a list of early demands for anyone who wants to replace Mitch McConnell: Commit to term limits on the top spot, revamp internal committee assignments and do not bend to Democrats, even on must-pass legislation.

That pressure has turned willingness to work across the aisle into the preeminent wedge issue in the race for GOP leader as Sens. John Thune (R-S.D.), John Cornyn (R-Texas) and Rick Scott (R-Fla.) fight for supporters behind the scenes.

It reflects the right flank’s growing frustration with the longest-serving Republican leader’s occasional interest in working with the other side on issues like spending, infrastructure and foreign aid — a criticism considered laughable less than a decade ago. Few younger Republicans recall McConnell’s longtime reputation as the “Grim Reaper” who killed Democratic bills, or his zeal in blocking Merrick Garland from a spot on the Supreme Court.

But the GOP leader has steered his conference away from government shutdowns, preferring to compromise and move on rather than see voters blame his party for the resulting mess. Senate conservatives, buoyed by former President Donald Trump’s bombastic style of politicking, argue that’s an antiquated way of thinking.

“Compromise is not the problem,” said Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah). “The problem is where you choose to make the deals and where you draw the line, in particular in spending bills. Yeah, I got a problem with how they’ve been drawn.”

Hardline Republicans like Lee, though they’re in the minority of the GOP, are pushing back against a more conciliatory wing of their conference that sees the Senate as a bastion of bipartisan collaboration in a broken capital. So, Lee is pushing leadership hopefuls and colleagues to join a pledge to block all “political and judicial” nominees for the rest of the term and muck up Democratic legislative priorities — tactics the right launched after Donald Trump was convicted.

Still, in a Senate where neither party is close to the 60 votes needed to break a filibuster, many Republicans say there are limits to how many wins they can stack up — especially in the minority.

It’s a dynamic that McConnell is very familiar with.

“I read that one of my colleagues said my job was to be with whatever position was the majority position of my conference,” McConnell said in an interview earlier this spring, addressing internal criticism of his leadership.

Had that been the case, McConnell added, “we would have never raised the debt ceiling and never funded the government.”

The GOP leader has also publicly and privately advocated against weakening the leader’s power, including at a private conference lunch this month. He and allies argue conservative proposals like term limits would hamstring the leader, affecting the ability to fundraise and avert legislative disaster.

“[McConnell] has strong feelings about the role of the leader and what’s necessary for a successful conference,” said Cornyn, referring to McConnell’s comments at the closed-door meeting. “That’s what I concluded from it.”

Thune said McConnell has relayed his concerns to the conference and that he believes “everybody will take his advice to heart.” Cornyn had endorsed putting a three-term limit on the leader, as has Scott, while Thune has said it’s worth discussing but made no firm commitments.

Asked about the general conservative complaints, Cornyn said he’s not running his leadership race through the press and declined to weigh in on how he’d tackle bipartisanship as leader. Thune, the current GOP whip, said he understands his fellow senators’ perspective but that “if there are things that we have to get done, then I’ve got to be able to do that.” Scott, who’s previously challenged McConnell, said he is advocating for strengthened committees and “a robust amendment process” for input on legislation.

Forcing the Senate GOP leader to get a majority of Republicans on board for every action is almost surely impossible in practice. On a day-to-day-basis, though, some of the conference’s most rabble-rousing are questioning GOP leaders’ day-to-day strategies.

Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.), a McConnell critic, said he feels rank-and-file members don’t get enough input and alleged that current leadership likes “to stay as far away from members as possible.”

“Don’t listen, don’t talk to members. Don’t listen to any priorities,” he said, describing the status quo in the Senate GOP. “And try to manipulate them into getting them to do what you want them to do.”

McConnell and his leadership team attend weekly party lunches to discuss conference matters, including member pushback to legislation or other issues. And McConnell has at times backed away from legislation when it’s lost the support of his conference, like the recent border deal negotiated between Senate Democrats and Republicans earlier this year.

Still, McConnell critics like Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) said “we have a leadership vacuum right now. We’re pretty well rudderless.”

Johnson is among those who has signed Lee’s letter vowing to block nominees on the Senate floor in response to Trump’s conviction, which has become something of a litmus test among ambitious conservatives. Scott has signed on, as has Sen. Joni Ernst (R-Iowa), who is competing for the conference’s No. 3 spot.

Yet multiple signers of the letter have since supported some Biden nominees, underscoring just how difficult it is for leaders to stonewall action in a chamber that relies on frequent agreements among all 100 members.

There is a second Senate GOP pledge circulating to block all judicial and U.S. attorney nominees, specifically targeting those who “have suggested the Trump prosecutions were reasonable.” Fewer senators have co-signed that effort, and no leadership candidates have endorsed it.

The long list of demands coming from the right is reminding some Senate Republicans of last year’s speaker’s race, where conservatives tried to hold former Speaker Kevin McCarthy to a lofty list of promises in exchange for electing him to lead the chamber. Once elected, they’d hoped McCarthy would avoid working with Democrats as much as possible.

When the impending breach of the debt limit forced McCarthy to work across the aisle, his ouster became all but assured. The monthlong chaos that followed his exit left many House Republicans openly embarrassed about their disarray.

Some Senate GOP dealmakers are worried they’re about to perform a cover of McCarthy’s sad ballad, warning that it’s misguided to slap handcuffs on the incoming leader before he or she even tries to guide the conference.

“We will be making an enormous mistake if we let a minority of our members further weaken an already weak leader,” said Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.). He charged that some Senate Republicans “are just not paying attention to the reality of what has occurred as a result of that in the House.”

Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine), among the most bipartisan-friendly senators in the chamber, said McConnell has done “what he thinks is right.” And as for the next leader, she added, “I don’t think it’s going to change.”

She may be proven right. The November leadership elections are still months away, and votes are cast in private. That means even the conference’s most vocal rabble-rousers are protected from public scrutiny, should they choose to vote for a pragmatic candidate.

In addition, other leadership hopefuls could still hop into the race. Sen. Steve Daines (R-Mont.), who chairs the conference’s campaign arm, remains the most prominent possible contender. If Election Day proves fruitful for the Senate GOP, Daines could jump in and make it interesting: He’s a staunch conservative who is already backing a tough legislative response to Trump’s conviction.

Sen. Eric Schmitt (R-Mo.), a pugnacious first-term lawmaker, said he’s still open-minded about the leadership race. But as he talks to candidates, he’s looking for a change agent.

“I just want to make sure that our conference is in touch with our voters, right? And the people who send us here want us to fight for certain things. I want our agenda to reflect that,” Schmitt said. “That will be important for whoever the next leader is.”

The White House has grown anxious about Benjamin Netanyahu’s upcoming address to a joint session of Congress, believing the Israeli prime minister could use the forum to criticize President Joe Biden for not supporting the retaliation against Hamas in Gaza enough.

The speech next month could create a diplomatically complicated and politically dicey spectacle for a president running for reelection. Fears among West Wing aides have grown in recent days as Netanyahu has made a series of public statements — including one in a video address delivered in English — accusing the administration of withholding more military aid than has been publicly disclosed.

“[Netanyahu’s] video this week was not helpful at all,” said one senior official, who was granted anonymity to speak candidly about internal deliberations. “And he could make it far worse up there in front of Congress.”

Another senior official put it more bluntly: “No one knows what he’s going to say.”

Frictions have deepened between Biden and Netanyahu since the start of the Israel-Hamas war, with Biden aides increasingly believing that the Israeli leader is prolonging the conflict to stay in power — and that he would prefer Donald Trump return to the White House. And the war has created a thorny political dilemma for Biden, who has been slammed by Republicans for insufficiently supporting Israel yet at the same time also taken heat from some members of his own party for not protecting Palestinian civilians.

But the accusations lobbed by Netanyahu over the past few days have put the relationship at a new nadir, taking the West Wing by surprise and leaving Biden aides deeply frustrated, according to the officials. The Biden administration postponed a high-level U.S.-Israel meeting on Iran after the release of Netanyahu’s video.

“We genuinely do not know what he’s talking about,” White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre said this week. She, and other aides, insisted that only one shipment was paused, with no other changes to weapons transfers.

As of this week, the White House had yet to send an invitation for Netanyahu to meet with Biden when he comes to Washington for his scheduled speech on July 24, according to the first senior official and two others. Those officials stressed that such an invitation will likely be offered — noting that it would be a major slap in the face if the two leaders did not meet and that Biden was not inclined to make such a public rebuke of his Israeli counterpart.

The White House did not respond to a request for comment on the invitation.

But meetings have been taking place at slightly lower levels. Israeli national security adviser Tzachi Hanegbi and Minister of Strategic Affairs Ron Dermer met Thursday at the White House with national security adviser Jake Sullivan and Secretary of State Antony Blinken. The group discussed the war against Hamas, the state of Gaza and Netanyahu’s forthcoming visit. The video — and the rancor it caused in Washington — was briefly mentioned, two U.S. officials said.

Matthew Miller, the State Department spokesperson, hinted at the message Blinken delivered in the meeting.

“I don’t think it’s productive to engage in an intense public back and forth about this,” he told reporters Thursday, adding that Blinken in a meeting with Netanyahu last week assured the prime minister “our commitment to Israel’s security is sacrosanct.”

Inside the West Wing, aides believe that Netanyahu will use the congressional speech to address his audience at home as much as in the U.S., according to one of the senior officials. The prime minister will likely express gratitude for the United States’ help and stress the longstanding alliance between the two nations. But aides also anticipate that Netanyahu will ask for more assistance without any conditions — something they suspect will be icily received by Democrats.

The big unknown, the senior official admitted, is if Netanyahu will use the moment to offer any specific criticisms of Biden or his response to Israel’s operations in Gaza. The West Wing is keenly aware of Netanyahu’s precarious domestic political situation, in which he is trying to placate the far-right members of his coalition who want further escalation of the war against Hamas. For the prime minister, being perceived at home as fighting Biden could be helpful.

Airing his grievances about arms transfers with the Biden administration openly, Netanyahu told Punchbowl News in an interview published Friday, “was absolutely necessary after months of quiet conversation that did not solve the problem.”

“I’m not a partisan, I’m not a Republican or a Democrat. I’m an Israeli patriot, and I speak on behalf of the Israeli people,” he continued.

Netanyahu has used speeches to Congress for his political purposes before, infuriating the Obama-Biden White House when he addressed a joint session in 2015 to attack that administration’s proposed Iran nuclear deal.

That 2015 speech was not received well by progressive Democrats, who have only grown more critical of Netanyahu since the beginning of the Israel-Hamas war. Democrats have chastised the Israeli PM for disregarding humanitarian concerns in Gaza and empowering a far-right government in Israel.

“I didn’t attend last time, for obvious reasons,” said Rep. Andre Carson (D-Ind.). “I think that Americans are becoming more deeply concerned about what is being done to taxpayer dollars as it relates to what’s happening in that region.”

Some progressives, including Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), have indicated they will skip the late July speech.

Shadowing the address is the long-term status of U.S. aid to Israel. The White House helped shepherd a massive weapons package through Congress and has consistently signed off on additional arms shipments. But it withheld a shipment of 3,500 bombs believing they would cause unnecessary devastation if used on the densely populated city of Rafah.

Around that time, House Republicans invited Netanyahu to speak before Congress. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, a strong Israel supporter but a vocal Netanyahu critic, dropped initial reservations about the address and assented to the invitation. “The White House was not surprised by the invitation,” said a Schumer spokesperson.

A year ago, Netanyahu sought a White House meeting with Biden in the midst of a backlash at home to his proposal to overhaul Israel’s judicial system. The president, who had spoken out against the changes, declined, and instead met with the Israeli prime minister on the sidelines of the United Nations General Assembly.

Not even three weeks later, Hamas terrorists stormed over the Israeli border, propelling the region into war and irrevocably changing the dynamic between the two leaders.

SYRACUSE, New York — A purple district in upstate New York that’s crucial for Democrats to retake the House has a major problem — the party has repeatedly botched contests that they should have won.

This time incumbent Brandon Williams is arguably the most vulnerable Republican in the chamber, representing a district then-candidate Joe Biden won by 12 points. Yet the Democratic Party has long struggled to win the House seat here, including two in which their candidates entered as heavy favorites.

But with only a handful of truly competitive, flippable seats this cycle, this is a race they can’t afford to lose.

State Sen. John Mannion and Dewitt Town Councilor Sarah Klee Hood are facing off next week to determine who will challenge Williams. And top of voters’ minds is not crime or the Middle East or any other issue dominating the political discourse this presidential cycle. Instead, they are zeroing in on who is least likely to fumble the ball in November.

“Democrats across the board have realized that this race has gotten screwed up a lot over the years,” Syracuse City Auditor Alex Marion said. “People really want to make sure we get this right, because the road to this perilously close House majority could run right through Central New York.”

Democrats are no strangers to losing must-win contests in this district: Their nominees have lost each of the past five competitive races held here. The party needs to pick up four seats in November to retake the House, and New York — where Republicans gained ground on their road to power two years ago — is home to an estimated six swing seats this cycle.

Electability is always an issue in primaries. But it’s been placed on the backburner in most recent major Democratic primaries in New York, overshadowed instead by ideological battles between the center and far left.

Here, it’s at the center of every message.

“I am a short, feisty, energetic, overqualified woman,” Klee Hood said during the candidates’ first debate. “I excite voters — every single race that I’ve been in, I have overperformed. We need that type of voter turnout in November.”

“I’ve got a proven electoral record,” Mannion said after casting a ballot on the first day of early voting. “I’ve won tough elections, I know what it’s like. I’m the only Democratic senator who currently has a district with more registered Republicans.”

Unlike other New York primaries next week, there’s minimal daylight between the candidates on policy issues. The closest they’ve come to a major disagreement is on abortion — Mannion supports New York’s Reproductive Health Act, which was enthusiastically backed by groups like Planned Parenthood, while Klee Hood argues this doesn’t go far enough since it still requires a doctor’s approval for third trimester procedures. So both candidates have spent far more time highlighting their resumes and arguing that they’ll best appeal to voters in November.

Klee Hood, an Air Force veteran, says her familiarity with national issues sets her apart from an opponent with state-level experience.

“Republicans know Brandon Williams is weakest when Democrats nominate a veteran and a woman in the post-Roe era,” she said in an interview.

Mannion is a former teacher, a fact he highlights in practically every other sentence on the campaign trail.

“We are on a path right now that we have to change,” he said. “It takes true leadership and courage. It takes a teacher to be able to do that.”

Mannion’s experience teaching has been key to his political success in recent years. In 2018, he launched the most serious campaign in generations by a Democrat in a long-time Republican stronghold, managed to flip the seat in 2020, and held on by 10 votes out of 123,000 cast in 2022.

The New York State United Teachers has spent as much as $1.2 million boosting his campaigns in the past. Two of its national counterparts have combined to spend $300,000 on purchases like TV ads boosting Mannion — practically the only super PAC spending in the primary. That has helped him close a fundraising gap, with Klee Hood’s campaign outraising him $1.4 million to $900,000.

“He is one of our own, and we would love to send him to Washington, as much as we love him in the state Senate,” New York State United Teachers president Melinda Person said.

NYSUT usually focuses on state races while leaving congressional contests to its national counterparts, but worked to boost the national unions’ efforts in the primary and would very likely go all-out for Mannion if he winds up on the November ballot: “We’re running an ambitious member-to-member campaign,” Person said. “We have tens of thousands of members in the district.”

The district has been in Republican hands since John Katko won in 2014. Katko quickly developed enough of a record of bipartisanship to let him be the rare New York Republican who could hold onto a swing district during the “blue wave.”

He announced his retirement in early 2022, around the time it was becoming clear Democrats planned to gerrymander his district into a solidly-blue seat. The courts wound up rejecting that gerrymander, and Williams was able to eke out a 1 point victory.

Democrats have since redrawn the district again, making it 2 points friendlier than it was in 2022. And they’re confident that Williams’ tenure — which includes moments such as a brief refusal to forego a paycheck in a potential government shutdown — will provide plenty of fodder for ads.

Forecasters have unanimously agreed with this assessment. Roll Call has labeled Williams the country’s most vulnerable House Republican, The Cook Political Report has identified the district as the only Republican-held seat in the country that “leans Democrat,” and Sabato’s Crystal Ball makes that one of only two GOP seats with the “lean Democratic” label.

The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee has already opened a field office in the district with the hope of quickly pivoting to general election mode once the primary is over.

“No matter what the outcome is Tuesday night, we need to get our act together Wednesday morning,” said Marion, who has endorsed Mannion but has “nothing ill to say about” Klee Hood. “Because the general election starts immediately.”

House GOP leaders are vowing that they won’t hold a floor vote on a controversial online privacy bill, clashing with a powerful committee head who views the legislation as a legacy moment.

During a retreat for top Republican staffers last week, multiple chiefs of staff confronted Majority Leader Steve Scalise’s top aide Brett Horton about the bill, according to three people familiar with the matter who were granted anonymity to speak about private conversations. Horton responded that the legislation would not come to the floor in its current form, according to three of those people, even if it passed out of the powerful Energy and Commerce Committee led by Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-Wash.).

And that’s not guaranteed to happen, either. Some members of the panel have expressed confusion about why McMorris Rodgers is moving forward on the bill given fierce pushback, according to six Republicans familiar with the matter.

Generally, the legislation seeks to create federal guardrails on companies collecting the data of consumers online — an issue that many lawmakers in both parties agree they need to address. But how to do so has become a thorny political issue.

GOP members are particularly concerned about the breadth of the bill, including how it would cut across almost all industries rather than approaching it on a sector-by-sector basis, according to one senior Republican aide. Others worry that small- and mid-sized businesses would be more impacted by the text than the big tech companies, which can afford to pay hordes of lawyers.

There are also potential issues for law enforcement officers, such as restrictions on their ability to access information they need to conduct their jobs. Additionally, some worry about how it will impact data collection, particularly as it pertains to artificial intelligence. And one clause that calls for a “private right of action” has raised red flags, since it gives individuals the power to sue for damages.

As that senior Republican aide put it: “There’s no real conservative wins. And the private right of action is absolutely horrible for mainstream businesses.”

There is a new version of the bill that is expected to be released later Thursday, utilizing some of the feedback the panel has received, according to two of the people familiar with the matter. And it is expected to receive a markup next week, which one of these people predicted would happen on Thursday.

But critics of the bill are skeptical that the new version will assuage all of their concerns. Some predicted that Republican support might decrease, given that McMorris Rodgers worked closely with the panel’s top Democrat, Rep. Frank Pallone (D-N.J.) on the new version.

A spokesperson for the panel defended the bill in a statement to POLITICO, arguing that it will provide the people with more privacy protections.

“E&C members have long worked to make online privacy a right for Americans and put them in control over their personal information. It’s a choice between individual liberty or continuing the massive commercial data surveillance happening on Americans every day. We look forward to continuing to move this bill through our regular order process,” the statement reads.

McMorris Rodgers announced in January that she would be retiring from Congress, shocking many who expected her to serve another term as the panel’s top Republican. And some believe she is aggressively pushing this bill as her own personal legacy.

Some critics of the legislation say they have faced threats for pushing back, including that McMorris Rodgers would bench the legislative priorities of those on the panel who have raised concerns, according to two senior Republican aides.

A committee spokesperson denied those allegations.

Sarah Ferris contributed to this report.

George Norcross’ corruption charges have top Democrats in New Jersey rushing to distance themselves from the scandal-ridden power broker. His money trail through the federal campaigns machine is more murky, however.

Norcross has not directly donated to any candidates in Congress in recent years besides his brother, Rep. Donald Norcross (D-N.J.), according to FEC records.

So while indictments of prominent officials usually prompt one party to prod the opposition’s lawmakers to return donations, Republicans will have a harder time yoking any Democratic members of Congress to Norcross.

Instead, his more direct efforts have largely focused on New Jersey politics, with some attention to neighboring Pennsylvania. There is a network of groups, including super PACs, that are aligned with Norcross and his allies and support his favored candidates at state and local levels, though largely they are not formally associated with him.

He’s given millions of dollars over the years to Democratic campaigns, state and local parties, and other committees. And allied groups such as General Majority PAC and the super PAC American Representative Majority have taken in tens of millions of dollars that they spend boosting allied candidates at the state and local levels. General Majority PAC sent $200,000 to House Democrats’ super PAC, House Majority PAC, in the 2018 cycle.

Norcross was an active figure in the Democratic Party for decades. But after losing a grip on state politics in recent years, told POLITICO he’d step back from the spotlight. Norcross’ spokesperson did not respond to a request for comment.

Although he’d reportedly attended a fundraiser for his brother Donald Norcross with then-Speaker Nancy Pelosi as recently as 2020, a Pelosi spokesperson said he never gave directly to her.

But he’s already becoming a flashpoint among the Democrats jockeying for power. Jersey City Mayor Steven Fulop, who’s running for governor next year, posted Monday afternoon on X: “Bueller…. Bueller…. I know Monday can be a slow day in Congress but weird only two comments in the entire state??” He tagged New Jersey Democratic Reps. Mikie Sherrill and Josh Gottheimer.

Gottheimer responded: “Jersey Values is straight talking, not flip-flopping.” Both Sherrill and Gottheimer are expected to mount gubernatorial bids next year.

Meanwhile, Rep. Andy Kim (D-N.J.), who’s running to replace indicted Sen. Bob Menendez (D-N.J.), took an optimistic line on X: “As you read about scandals/corruption, don’t disengage. Let’s step up.”

And Kim’s ally, Sue Altman, who’s running to flip a GOP-held seat (and has called for a criminal investigation into Norcross), also hailed the news: “It is a new day for New Jersey politics. We are replacing our culture of corruption, misuse of public funds, and self-dealing government with a new one — one that prioritizes public service, the greater good, and functional government where BOTH parties are held accountable.”