House Democrats are required to pay between $100,000 and $600,000 in quarterly dues to the DCCC, depending on leadership positions and committee assignments.Reps. Charles Rangel (N.Y.) and Patrick Kennedy (R.I.) have each exceeded their dues obligation — $300,000 and $150,000, respectively — by $100,000. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) surpassed her $600,000 requirement by $15,000. DCCC Chairman Rahm Emanuel (Ill.) contributed $70,000 over his $400,000 obligation. Reps. Barney Frank (Mass.) and Earl Blumenauer (Ore.) also donated more than required.
Among the 16 Democrats who had yet to make a contribution, despite leaders’ repeated urging and occasional threats, are several members who have been at odds with leaders.
Rep. Cynthia McKinney (Ga.), who drew national headlines earlier this year for scuffling with a Capitol Police officer, has yet to fork over funds to the DCCC. She drew public rebukes from both Pelosi and Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (Md.) for the incident.
Rep. Ed Towns (N.Y.) nearly lost his seat on the Energy and Commerce Committee last fall after missing several important budget votes. He has not contributed.
Some members in arrears were likely pooling funds for bids for higher office. Reps. Ben Cardin (Md.), Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Ted Strickland (Ohio) and Harold Ford (Tenn.) all have not contributed to the DCCC but have launched gubernatorial or Senate campaigns.
The other lawmakers not making dues payments are Reps. Jim McDermott (Wash.), Jim Davis (Fla.), Julia Carson (Ind.), Darlene Hooley (Ore.), Brad Miller (N.C.), Eddie Bernice Johnson (Texas), Dennis Kucinich (Ohio) and Gene Taylor (Miss.) and Del. Eni Faleomavaega (American Samoa).
Comments (7)
Rahmses the First recently cracked down on late dues payers in the House. There was a minor foufaraw about it some months ago.
Posted by AlanSmithee | July 13, 2006 8:23 AM
Posted on July 13, 2006 08:23
Those numbers just seem impossible -- $600K in quarterly dues? that's $2.4 million annualy for someone. The concept -- of paying to support your colleagues -- I'd compare to professional athletes' players unions. it makes sense, in a way. But, it's also a way of enforcing uniformity of message, which, in the democrats case, is a bad idea.
Posted by bobw | July 13, 2006 12:49 PM
Posted on July 13, 2006 12:49
the reps
that deserve time
in the stocks here
are very mixed bag from left to right
guys like townes oughta be tossed out of the party's right window along with some dixie lite blue dogs
and on the left i think its a case of go ahead throw me in the briar patch
since the party has tried to purge the real mavericks for many cycles
Posted by js paine | July 13, 2006 9:20 PM
Posted on July 13, 2006 21:20
Hmmmm...
You mean that there are some SENSIBLE Dems in there as well as the pack-runners?
How refreshing!
AG
Posted by Arthur Gilroy | July 14, 2006 1:18 AM
Posted on July 14, 2006 01:18
Isn't this significantly more than the lawmakers make in their salaries?
Posted by Rowan | July 14, 2006 3:06 AM
Posted on July 14, 2006 03:06
With all they receive in campaign contributions from various PAC's, they can afford it. Now former Democrats who are still being harrassed for campaign contributions by local Democratic parties have can throw this one back in their face, the next time a phone call is received for a donation!
Thanks! :)
Thanks!! :)
Posted by shy | July 14, 2006 6:12 PM
Posted on July 14, 2006 18:12
Oh, I'm not saying that they can't afford - I just find it rather ironic and indicative of our political system that union dues cost more than the union job's salary. God bless America.
Posted by Rowan | July 16, 2006 4:27 AM
Posted on July 16, 2006 04:27