THE ALTERNATIVES Even House Republicans who are skeptical about keeping Mike Johnson on as speaker acknowledge they have a persistent problem: Who could replace him? As Johnson faces potentially a dozen holdouts or more going into the speakership vote on Friday, three familiar alternative candidates have come up in internal GOP conversations: Majority Leader Steve Scalise of Louisiana, GOP Whip Tom Emmer of Minnesota and Judiciary Chair Jim Jordan of Ohio. All three ran for the speakership in October 2023 before Johnson was elected to take the gavel, and all three were forced to drop their bids as it became obvious they couldn’t get the near-unanimous support needed from House Republicans. Their prospects haven’t changed a ton since then — each still has a faction of the conference that would likely oppose them. Depending on attendance and a possible Matt Gaetz appearance (it’s still unclear if he could participate in the vote, if he shows up), any Republican who wants to be speaker can only stand to lose two votes. It demonstrates a perennial problem in politics. Voters might want a non-specified “someone else” (as Johnson detractor Rep. Thomas Massie put it), but once that becomes a real name, that candidate has issues of their own. Scalise Where he stands: The No. 2 House Republican has worked to build relationships across the conference for years during his tenure in leadership, and he has some die-hard allies. But there are bitter grudges between Scalise and Jordan after the speakership race in October 2023, which extends to their respective allies. And some loyalists to former Speaker Kevin McCarthy weren’t big fans of the Louisianan, either, though he has made some progress winning over some of them, including Reps. Jason Smith (R-Mo.) and Max Miller (R-Ohio). The roadblocks: Conservatives who closely aligned with Jordan blocked Scalise from taking the gavel after he won the internal party nomination, only for Scalise allies to then respond accordingly and block Jordan from the speakership afterward. There’s little evidence the group’s general feelings toward Scalise have changed. Jordan Where he stands: The conservative darling still holds major sway with the grassroots and some remaining McCarthy allies. Hardliners who don’t want Johnson to be speaker have floated his name again, trying to get a feel for whether he could get the votes now. The roadblocks: But Jordan still has some strong resistance from those who blocked him previously, including appropriators who fear a diehard conservative would throw the spending process into chaos, as well as old bulls and Scalise allies. And we hear there are more than two members who would oppose him as speaker, if he made another bid. Emmer Where he stands: When the Republican whip ran previously, after Scalise and Jordan had withdrawn, Trump personally torpedoed his bid in a social media post, saying Emmer was “totally out-of-touch with Republican Voters.” He’s worked diligently to smooth over that relationship with Trump, according to allies of the incoming president. The roadblocks: But Emmer has some lingering distrust from the evangelical faction of the party, which took issue with Emmer voting to legalize same-sex marriage. There is another option, of course. When Johnson won the speakership, he was a low-level GOP leader, hardly a top name under consideration. But critically, he came in when the GOP was tired of fighting and he had no enemies to stand in his way. Johnson’s allies insist he’s making headway on winning over his holdouts. Right now, Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) is the only official no, but others like Reps. Chip Roy (R-Texas) and Victoria Spartz (R-Ind.) are stating that they are undecided. — Olivia Beavers GOOD EVENING! Welcome to Inside Congress, the play-by-play guide to all things Capitol Hill, on this Thursday, Jan. 2, where some folks’ New Year's goals for a less dramatic 2025 could be squashed as early as tomorrow. WHAT TO EXPECT ON THE SPEAKER’S RACE We have a hauntingly recent example for what happens if Johnson doesn’t clinch the speakership on the first vote. Shortly after the floor opens at noon, the clerk will call the roll for each member, alphabetically, to state who they want to be speaker. If any Republicans vote for someone besides Johnson in the first half of the alphabet (before Massie), Johnson doesn’t have the votes. Run the roll call: The clerk can repeat the roll call voice vote until someone gets a majority. We’ll know pretty quick. In 2023 there were three ballots on Jan. 3 and McCarthy failed to get the majority on all of them. (It eventually went to 15 ballots over multiple days.) No recess: If Republicans need to regroup before starting a new ballot, maybe hash out a compromise with Johnson or do some horse-trading behind closed doors, there is just one option on the table: adjourn the House. Without House rules in place, the chamber cannot recess subject to the call of the chair. They’d need to adjourn, with a certain day and time for reconvening specified. It’s hard to try and win over votes during a roll call with the C-SPAN cameras trained on lawmakers. So Republicans may opt — as they did last time — to adjourn rather than drag out more hours of disarray on live TV. Cue up a Saturday session: With snow in the forecast, reconciliation meetings planned and the pressure to get the House functional to certify the 2024 election on Monday, many members may already be planning to stay in D.C. for the weekend. Expect Johnson’s critics and allies to stream in and out of closed-door meetings as they try to get enough votes. Clerk calls the shots: The Clerk of the House has the authority to make rulings during the speaker election, since there’s no speaker, though the House can appeal and overturn clerk rulings. What hangs in the balance: Until a speaker is selected, the members of the 119th Congress won’t be sworn in and the House will be essentially frozen. And what if it drags on past Jan. 6 — or even Jan. 20? We’ve got a guide. — Katherine Tully-McManus LAST-MINUTE ETHICS DROP The House Ethics Committee released a pair of reports Thursday compiled by the chamber’s nonpartisan ethics watchdog, alleging “substantial reason to believe” violations by Reps. Andy Ogles (R-Tenn.) and Sheila Cherfilus-McCormick (D-Fla.). The report on Ogles found reason to believe his campaign had accepted campaign contributions beyond the legal limit and reported them as a personal loan and contributions from Ogles, and also found reason to believe he “omitted or misrepresented required information in his financial disclosure statements or FEC candidate committee reports.” Ogles had originally reported loaning his campaign $320,000 during his 2022 bid for Congress, drawing scrutiny from local media because he appeared not to have sufficient assets to loan his campaign the total amount. He later said he had only loaned his campaign $20,000. Ogles did not cooperate with the Office of Congressional Ethics’ investigation, so the watchdog was unable to determine whether the loan came from his personal funds or constituted excessive contributions. Ogles’ office did not respond to a request for comment. The allegations against Cherfilus-McCormick had been previously detailed last fall, when the ethics panel released the summary of the watchdog report. But the report released Thursday provided further details about her several alleged ethics violations, including her office receiving services from an individual not compensated with official funds, accepting and failing to report excessive contributions, and failing to report transactions between her campaign’s bank account and her business’ bank accounts. “The fact that the allegations were referred for further review does not indicate any violation has occurred. I plan on continuing to collaborate with the Committee and its Investigative Subcommittee,” Cherfilus-McCormick said in a statement. The ethics release comes days after the ethics panel separately closed four investigations into lawmakers without disclosing many details. — Nicholas Wu and Hailey Fuchs
| 
No comments:
Post a Comment