by Dick Morris
Amount: $ 900,000
Campaign Contribution: $ 68,000
Recipient: Thermo Fisher Scientific
Amount: $ 800,000
Campaign Contribution: $675,000
Recipient: Passaic Valley Sewerage Commission
Amount: $ 750,000
Campaign Contribution: $120,000
Recipient: Woodbridge Township, NJ
Amount: $ 500,000
Campaign Contribution: $ 80,000
Recipient: City of Jersey City
Amount: $ 400,000
Campaign Contribution: $ 10,000
Recipient: City of Newark
Amount: $ 400,000
Campaign Contribution: $120,000
Recipient: City of Trenton
Amount: $ 610,000
Campaign Contribution: $ 80,000
Recipient: Rape, Abuse & Incest Ntnl. Network
Amount: $ 300,000
Campaign Contribution: $ 60,000
Recipient: KidsPeace
Amount: $ 250,000
Campaign Contribution: $100,000
Recipient: Georgian Court University
Amount: $ 200,000
Campaign Contribution: $ 30,000
Recipient: Ohel Children’s Home & Family Services
Amount: $ 200,000
Campaign Contribution: $ 70,000
Recipient: 180 Turning Lives Around
Amount: $ 200,000
Campaign Contribution: $ 80,000
Recipient: Generations Inc.
Amount: $ 200,000
Campaign Contribution: $120,000
Amount: Total:
Campaign Contribution: $8,126,448136
* * *
You read some of these earmark recipients and the senator’s humanitarian impulse warms your heart until you consider that he even requested campaign contributions from charitable organizations for whom he got earmarks.
Consider the $250,000 in federal earmarks he got for the KidsPeace Cumberland County Therapeutic Foster Care Program in Hoboken. They gave him $100,000 in donations.137
Or the $200,000 he got for “at risk youth and child abuse prevention” for Ohel Children’s Home and Family Services in Teaneck. They donated $70,000 to his campaign.138
Or the $200,000 he had the Feds pay to the 180 Turning Lives Around program in Hazlet, New Jersey. They gave him $80,000.139
When we hear some grateful testimonial ad from one of these groups, praising Menendez for coming through for our kids, let’s remember the price they paid to get his attention…and our money!
The money Menendez got in campaign contributions from the lobbyists for those who received earmarks amounted to more than half of the total he has raised for his reelection campaign so far.140 As a taxpayer, we’ll bet you didn’t realize that you are one of Menendez’s best fund-raisers!
THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
In the House, the same incumbents whom we failed to beat in 2010 will again be up for reelection. But there will be one crucial difference: they will have to run in new districts.
The census of 2010 will have kicked in, and the 2012 House elections must be waged in the newly drawn districts. In many key states, it is the Republicans who will do the drawing.
After the capture of 11 new governorships and 21 new legislative chambers in 15 states, Republicans control the reapportionment for 17 states with 196 seats in the new Congress. Democrats control only 7 states with 49 seats.141 The results could be significant.
* * *
REPUBLICAN STATE GAINS, 2010
State: Alabama
Gains: House, Senate
State: Colorado
Gains: House
State: Indiana
Gains: House
State: Iowa
Gains: Governor, House
State: Kansas
Gains: Governor
State: Louisiana
Gains: House
State: Maine
Gains: Governor, House, Senate
State: Michigan
Gains: Governor, House
State: Minnesota
Gains: House, Senate
State: Montana
Gains: House
State: New Hampshire
Gains: House, Senate
State: New Mexico
Gains: Governor
State: New York
Gains: Senate
State: North Carolina
Gains: House, Senate
State: Ohio
Gains: Governor, House
State: Oklahoma
Gains: Governor
State: Pennsylvania
Gains: Governor, House
State: Tennessee
Gains: Governor
State: Wisconsin
Gains: Governor, Assembly, Senate
State: Wyoming
Gains: Governor
* * *
These are huge gains. Even though Republicans lost governorships in Connecticut, Hawaii, California, and Minnesota, their domination of state legislative processes will be formidable.
The Census Bureau has announced that twelve House seats will switch states with eight states gaining and ten states losing them. The following table indicates the shifts:
* * *
GAINS AND LOSSES IN HOUSE SEATS, 2012
Gains: Arizona
Losses: Illinois
Gains: Florida (2)
Losses: Iowa
Gains: Georgia
Losses: Louisiana
Gains: Nevada
Losses: Massachusetts
Gains: South Carolina
Losses: Missouri
Gains: Texas (4)
Losses: Michigan
Gains: Utah
Losses: New Jersey
Gains: Washington
Losses: New York (2)
Losses: Ohio (2)
Losses: Pennsylvania142
* * *
Among the states gaining members of Congress, the Republicans control the redistricting in Texas, Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, and Utah. Control of the reapportionment in Nevada is divided between the parties. In Arizona and Washington State, the lines will be drawn by an independent commission.143
Among those that will lose Congressional seats, Republicans control the reapportionment in Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Michigan. Democrats control it in Massachusetts and Illinois. Control is divided in Louisiana and New York. New Jersey and Iowa use an independent commission to draw their lines.144
In our 2003 book, Off with Their Heads!, we urged all states to adopt independent commissions to draw their district lines. At the time, only two states had them. Now seven do.
Even in states that neither gain nor lose seats, population shifts will require that new lines be drawn. In many cases, the lines were controlled by Democrats after the 2000 election and the Census that followed it (remember that Gore won the popular vote that year). Now the gerrymandering that helped secure these districts for the Democrats will be overridden by Republican legislatures.
After all, it is Democratic, inner-city districts that are losing the most population, and this makes it more likely that blue seats are eliminated. On the other hand, the constraints of the Voting Rights Act push in the other direction to maintain, as far as possible, minority representation in Congress.
Drawing on the work of Sean Trende, realclearpolitics.com’s brilliant analyst, here is the scoop on what is likely to happen:
Arizona Gains a seat, but an impartial commission will draw the lines. Since Republicans currently predominate on the delegation 5–3, Trende bets that the new seat will lean Democratic.145
California Democrats and Republicans conspired in 2001 to draw Congressional lines that favored both party’s incumbents. Republican voters were put into Republican districts and Democrats into Democratic ones. This incumbent protection program worked perfectly. In 2008, only one Congressional seat changed parties and in 2010 none did. In the rest of the nation, almost one seat in six changed p
arties, but in California, there were no changes at all. That’s how good the gerrymandering was!
The incumbents will have a rougher time in 2012 because now the lines will be drawn by an independent (very independent!) commission. Since Republicans get about 45% of the vote in the state, but have only 35% of the Congressional delegation, Trende predicts Republican gains.146 And a 10% swing on a delegation of 53 seats can be pretty big!
After the 2001 gerrymandering, California voters had finally had enough of this bilateral incumbent protection deal and took matters into their own hands. In 2008, the voters decided to set up an independent non-partisan commission to draw state legislative districts and, in 2010, they expanded their mandate to drawing Congressional boundaries.
But the commission is not like any you have ever seen! The ballot initiative voters approved requires that it be manned by private citizens who are chosen through a lottery—just like a jury. So, as the Los Angeles Times reports: “A bookstore owner from Yolo County, a retired engineer from Claremont, an insurance agent from San Gabriel and an attorney from Norco are among those who will determine how legislative districts are drawn as part of an experiment that promises to drastically change the state’s political landscape.”147
The new California system also eliminates primaries for each party. Instead, all candidates will run in one primary and the top two will face each other in the general election, whether they are from opposite parties, the same party, or no party at all. As the Los Angeles Times pointed out, “These two changes together will rattle a system that for decades has protected incumbent officeholders.”148
Now there is a good chance of a fair reapportionment, which will put lots of California seats up for grabs for the first time in a decade. Since 2012 looks like a Republican year, this can only help our cause.
Florida gains two seats in the reapportionment. Republicans control the governorship and both houses, but a recently passed ballot initiative limits how they can draw the districts (and a liberal State Supreme Court will decide any lawsuits). Hard to tell what will happen.
Georgia gains a seat and Trende thinks it will be in the “heavily Republican Atlanta suburbs.”149
Illinois loses a seat, but the Democrats will decide which one.
Iowa also loses a seat and Trende thinks it will be a Democratic one.150
Louisiana loses a seat, but Trende thinks the Republicans will suffer because of the mandates of the Voting Rights Act to preserve minority districts.151
Massachusetts loses a seat and it has to be a Democrat because that’s all they’ve got.
Michigan also drops a seat and most of the population loss has been in Democratic districts. Trende thinks a Democratic seat will be eliminated.152
Missouri The Republicans have a veto-proof majority in both houses and Trende thinks that they will use it to eliminate a Democratic district.153
Nevada gains a seat and Trende thinks it will be a Democrat.154
New Jersey loses a seat and an independent commission makes the decision. Trende thinks the deleted seat will be a Democratic one.155
New York If New York loses two seats, Trende thinks one will be a Democratic seat and one a Republican.156
North Carolina Did you notice on election night of 2010, how the Democrats got clobbered in Virginia, but not in North Carolina? Republicans got 55% of the vote that night, but won only 45% of the seats. While North Carolina is slated to neither gain nor lose seats, Trende thinks that the legislature will redistrict to switch three and possibly four seats from blue to red.157
Ohio will lose two seats. After knocking off five Democrats, the Republican governor and legislature will probably give a priority to making their new members more secure. But Trende thinks one Democrat and one Republican district are likely to go.158
Pennsylvania loses one seat and it will probably be a Democratic one.
South Carolina gains a seat. It will probably be a Republican one unless, as Trende points out, the courts demand that it create an additional minority-controlled seat.159
Texas is the big winner in the reapportionment derby. In 2001, Republicans were vicious in their gerrymandering and produced a top-heavy GOP delegation. Since, as Trende points out, Texas will pick up four seats, two in Houston, one in Dallas and one in Austin, look for them to do it again. Most of the population growth is in heavily Republican districts.160
Utah gets a new seat and it will probably be Republican.161
Washington State’s new seat will probably be Democrat.162
Putting all these estimates together, it seems likely that Republicans can gain between 10 and 15 seats as a result of reapportionment. After the 2010 elections, Republicans control 242 seats and Democrats 193 seats in the current House. The shift stemming from reapportionment would expand the GOP margin to between 252–182 and 257–177. An additional gain of 33 additional seats would give the Republicans a veto-proof majority—not an inconceivable outcome.
Everywhere, Republican legislators, strategists, and governors are going to face a critical choice: do they reapportion so as to strengthen the party’s hold on the seats we have just won in the 2010 election, or do they focus on making marginal Democratic districts more ripe for the picking? Do they bend the district lines so that they put more Republicans and Independents into districts GOP candidates have just won or do they go out of their way to put them into districts still represented by Democrats—whom we might beat in 2012?
They should go for the extra seats. While newly elected Republican congressmen will howl and moan and plead to get more GOP-friendly districts, legislative leaders should shunt aside those pleas and put the friendly precincts into swing Democratic districts in an effort to win them in 2012.
If things go right, we will win the 2012 election nationally and our presidential victory will carry over to reelecting the freshman Republican congressmen who won in 2010. If 2012 is a Republican year, these new members will be safe regardless of whether or not their districts are improved. Meanwhile, we have a chance to pick up two dozen or more new seats in the House by giving the Democrats who escaped defeat in 2010 more competitive districts.
And, after the elections of 2012, the class of 2010 will have two election victories under their belts and will have enough strength in their districts to keep on winning, barring a pro-Democratic tsunami. But if we mess up and lose that badly, good district lines won’t be enough to save them anyway.
But let’s choose the key races carefully.
MEMBERS OF CONGRESS WE MUST DEFEAT
In fifty House districts, the Democratic incumbent won with 55% of the vote or less. In fourteen of them, the Democrat won by three points or less. These districts deserve our special focus in the 2012 election. Here they are.
* * *
DEMOCRATS WHO WON WITH LESS THAN 55% OF THE VOTE
State: MA
Democratic Winner: Bill Keating (47%)
Republican Loser: Jeff Perry (42%)
State: CA
Democratic Winner: Jerry McNerney (48%)
Republican Loser: David Harmer (47%)
State: IN
Democratic Winner: Joe Donnelly (48%)
Republican Loser: Jackie Walorski (47%)
State: NY
Democratic Winner: Bill Owens (48%)
Republican Loser: Matthew Doheny (46%)
State: MN
Democratic Winner: Tim Walz (49%)
Republican Loser: Randy Demmer (44%)
State: AZ
Democratic Winner: Raul Grijalva (49%)
Republican Loser: Ruth McClung (45%)
State: WA
Democratic Winner: Adam Smith (24%)
Republican Loser: Dick Muri (20%)
State: IA
Democratic Winner: Bruce Braley (49%)
Republican Loser: Benjamin Lange (48%)
State: MO
Democratic Winner: Russ Carnahan (49%)
Republican Loser: Ed Martin (47%)
State: VA<
br />
Democratic Winner: Gerry Connolly (49%)
Republican Loser: Keith Fimian (49%)
State: KY
Democratic Winner: Ben Chandler (50%)
Republican Loser: Andy Barr (50%)
State: MI
Democratic Winner: Gary Peters (50%)
Republican Loser: Rocky Raczkowski (47%)
State: WI
Democratic Winner: Ron Kind (50%)
Republican Loser: Dan Kapanke (47%)
State: IA
Democratic Winner: Dave Loebsack (51%)
Republican Loser: Mariannette Miller-Meeks (46%)
State: IA
Democratic Winner: Leonard Boswell (51%)
Republican Loser: Brad Zaun (47%)
State: GA
Democratic Winner: Sanford Bishop (51%)
Republican Loser: Mike Keown (49%)
State: OR
Democratic Winner: Kurt Schrader (51%)
Republican Loser: Scott Bruun (46%)
State: PA
Democratic Winner: Jason Altmire (51%)
Republican Loser: Keith Rothus (49%)
State: PA
Democratic Winner: Mark Critz (51%)
Republican Loser: Tim Burns (49%)
State: RI
Democratic Winner: David Cicilline (51%)
Republican Loser: John Loughlin (45%)
State: UT
Democratic Winner: Jim Matheson (51%)
Republican Loser: Morgan Philpot (46%)
State: WA
Democratic Winner: Rick Larson (51%)
Republican Loser: John Koster (49%)
State: CA
Democratic Winner: Loretta Sanchez (52%)
Republican Loser: Van Tran (41%)
State: NM
Democratic Winner: Martin Heinrich (52%)
Republican Loser: Jonathan Barela (48%)
State: NY
Democratic Winner: Maurice Hinchey (52%)
Republican Loser: George Phillips (48%)
State: TX
Democratic Winner: Lloyd Doggett (53%)
Republican Loser: Donna Campbell (45%)
State: OH
Democratic Winner: Dennis Kucinich (53%)
Republican Loser: Peter Corrigan (44%)
State: MO
Democratic Winner: Emanuel Cleaver (53%)