The American Prospect has a story about how Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez was bumped from getting onto the Energy and Commerce Committee:
Committee assignments are one of the least eye-catching parts of politics, but they’re also one of the most important ways in which actual political power is wielded. Certain committees in the House, like Energy and Commerce, Ways and Means, and Appropriations, have outsized influence and money power. (They are often called the “money” committees, not just because they’re where the action is but because members can earn lots of money in campaign contributions from industries with business before them.)
Deliberations over the next several days will be extremely important for progressives in the House, as they angle to lock down seats on these powerful committees for their members. To that end, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) was expected to secure a prized position on the Energy and Commerce Committee, a seat vacated by outgoing New Yorker Eliot Engel. Among other issues, the committee has jurisdiction over health care and climate change issues, a natural for a Congresswoman who has championed Medicare for All and the Green New Deal.
Ocasio-Cortez was expected to cruise comfortably to the position. She was the first to raise her hand for the seat, and she won the backing of dean of the New York delegation, Rep. Jerry Nadler. But last week, as Politico reported, Long Islander Kathleen Rice made an out-of-nowhere, last-second bid for the seat, interrupting the process. Rep. Rice is a backbencher from the party’s right flank who, in 2018, refused to support Nancy Pelosi for Speaker. Without the support of Nadler, and with the famous opposition of steering committee leader Pelosi, Rice’s attempt didn’t seem to be serious.
But in a surprise, last-second Steering Committee meeting on exclusive committee assignments Thursday, which was scheduled at 10 p.m. the night before, centrist Democrats put on a show of support for Rice and against AOC, in what looks to have been a process-defying attempt to keep AOC out of the seat. Fellow New York Rep. Hakeem Jeffries came out in support of Rice, contra Nadler, as did Reps. Anna Eshoo (D-CA) and Diana DeGette (D-CO), author of a book called Chemicals Used in Hydraulic Fracturing.
Alex Sammon has an interesting twitter thread about it that starts here:
Last night, in a surprise, last second meeting, the Democratic Party ambushed progressives in a major way, locking them out of crucial seats on the powerful Energy and Commerce committee, and keeping AOC out of a position she was thought be a lock for. https://t.co/p5uj2PRhEl
— Alex 🤕 Sammon (@alex_sammon) December 18, 2020
(Featured image is “Blocked Shot” by bejezus and is licensed under CC BY-NC 2.0)
Anna Eshoo happens to be the Rep from my own district. She is pretty darn “establishment” as far as the Democratic caucus is concerned. (So is Nadler, for that matter)
So I’m not sure that I’d endorse the framing that makes Rice part of the “establishment” and AOC the “insurgent”. This is a little intra-caucus squabble, which is normal and inevitable, between ideological elements that are different, but not as different as the press likes to make them out.Report
Sounds like to me that AOC needs to remember that she has to work with these people, and that means when you take a shot at them (as one is wont to do), don’t miss.
This is what happens when you miss.Report
This is my point above. I don’t think AOC “took a shot” at Rice. I think it’s the other way around. I think Rice has taken other shots, such as the one at Pelosi’s leadership, which missed. And this one will miss, too.Report
Would someone please explain the process by which committee assignments are made? The cited story implies that they are determined by a vote of something called the Steering Committee. If that is so, how are the member of this committee determined, and who is on it now?Report
The Wikipedia has a loosey-goosey version of the official process.
Roll Call had an article back in 2014 that got a little more into the nitty-gritty… but, if I had to guess, the real process has a lot to do with what would probably look like corruption to someone who wasn’t terribly cynical.
Here’s a clip from a 90’s Eddie Murphy movie that I thought was kinda funny.
Report
I didn’t see mentioned that House Republicans have term limits for their members serving as committee chairs. This has contributed to the larger number of Republican members not running for reelection in recent years. It seems giving up the perks that go with a chairmanship — office size and location, bigger staff — is unpleasant.Report
Huh. I didn’t know that.
(And, in addition to perks, I imagine you’re also giving up institutional knowledge. I have sat through a handful of “we don’t need to give a raise to Bob, let him leave! We’ll just hire some fresh-faced graduate!” transitions at a handful of Global Conglomerate companies and, lemme tell ya, Bob was worth the raise.)Report