Morgan Carroll Rips Coffman’s NRCC Soul-Selling

Rep. Mike Coffman (R), Sen. Morgan Carroll (D).

Rep. Mike Coffman (R), Sen. Morgan Carroll (D).

The Colorado Statesman’s Vic Vela follows up on last week’s Washington Post exclusive, detailing an agreement signed by embattled incumbent Rep. Mike Coffman and other vulnerable members of Congress with the National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC) to provide, among other things, his “legislative strategy” in writing in order to receive support for his race from national GOP donors.

As you might have expected, Democratic CD-6 challenger Morgan Carroll finds that more than a little unseemly:

Democratic state Sen. Morgan Carroll, D-Aurora, who is seeking to replace Coffman as the 6th Congressional District representative next year, blasted Coffman for signing the contract.

Carroll sees the contract as a way for party insiders to dictate campaign and policy decisions of candidates who are lured by campaign cash and who are beholden to the NRCC because of it.

“What is disturbing to me about this is basically it’s getting people to give up their legislative responsibility and their autonomy over their own vote in exchange for cash,” she said…

"Hey! That's not a story."

“Meh! That’s not a story.”

Whenever a bit of embarrassing political insider-y detail like this NRCC’s “Patriot Program” contract leaks its way out of the Beltway press and into armchair quarterback discussions back home, there’s an immediate tendency by political observers–especially Democrats–to pooh-pooh said revelations as “business as usual.” After all, surely everybody must do this, so it can’t be a that big of a deal. Right? Even experienced political operatives can complacently talk themselves right out of a perfectly salient line of attack this way.

It’s important, however keen a political observer you may fancy yourself to be, to not do that.

[NRCC spokesman Zach] Hunter said the party’s request that participants share their legislative agenda “is for informational purposes only.” It’s an effort for the party to understand what the candidates “feel their priorities are for their district.”

Hunter was unable to answer what the required “political justification” of a member’s legislative goals means.

“I don’t have a comment specifically on explaining that term,” he said…

DCCC national press secretary Meredith Kelly said financial support programs for Democratic candidates do not require what is spelled out in the Patriot Program contract. [Pols emphasis]

“The DCCC works with incumbents to make sure they are running smart campaigns as effectively as possible, but would never require submission and approval of a legislative agenda — especially not in exchange for financial and political support,” Kelly said in an emailed statement.

You see, folks, for all the jaded presumptions we saw last week that having one’s legislative agenda pre-approved in exchange for support is business as usual for both parties, it’s actually not. There is a difference between the way Democrats and Republicans support lawmakers, and in turn expect lawmakers to support the national party’s agenda. There is something unseemly about expecting a lawmaker to get his legislative agenda pre-approved to receive support, especially for Mike Coffman who is banking on an “independent” image for survival in a politically swing district. That’s why this story made the Washington Post to begin with.

And if local Democrats would like to actually unseat Coffman in 2016, they might consider letting him defend himself from these kinds of questions instead of helping him dodge them.

13 Community Comments, Facebook Comments

  1. JeffcoBlue says:

    Methinks the Guvs got a bit annoyed? 🙂

    BTW, I agree completely and I've said so about many other situations. We Dems are sometimes too analytical for our own good. There is no equivalent to the groupthink imposed by the GOP on their own in the Democratic Party. There never has been in my lifetime.

    "I'm not a member of an organized political party. I'm a Democrat." –Will Rogers

  2. Progressicat says:

    What does the D-triple-C require?  Can we see that agreement (formal or informal is fine)?  If Coffman isn't happy with the requirements, he can turn down the money.  God knows there's enough out there.  If he is happy, I'm finding it hard to care that much.

  3. BlueCat says:

    Not pooh poohing the substance and, by all means, Carroll and allies should use this as another point of attack, one of many… Just pooh poohing the idea that this kind of thing will ever have a significant influence on how people vote. So sure, go ahead and include it. Just don't anybody be dumb enough to make this particular thing the centerpiece of the campaign against Coffman. OK? That is all.

  4. Davie says:

    The GOP loves them some litmus tests.  That's what this is about.  I'd love to see what Coffman provided to questions like this:

    1. Do you plan to introduce a bill to repeal Obamacare?

    2. Do you plan to introduce a bill to again investigate Benghazi?

    3. Do you plan to introduce a bill to support Personhood?

    4. Will you vote to shutdown the government if Planned Parenthood continues to sell baby parts for an outrageous profit?

  5. Moderatus says:

    What do you expect the DCCC to say? Yes we do the same thing and Morgan Carroll is mistaken? We all know they do, that's why even Colorado Pols readers didn't buy the story when you "reported" it last week. The Colorado Statesman covering it doesn't make the story any less bogus and stupid.

  6. Andrew Carnegie says:


    Here is the Dem litmus test.

    It is OK to kill a child until after the terrible 2s are over.  Why stop at birth after all.

    TAX, TAX and TAX some more.

    Make everyone's income equal until it is zero for everyone.

    Supply weapons directly to Hamas and Hezbollah.  No need to make Iran pay for them.  After all they are our new BFFs.



    • MichaelBowman says:

      Is this the librarian we get when you're on or off your meds? Speaking of death…(and yes, at some point were going to have to raise taxes to pay for the war your boy put on the credit card).

      You could benefit by honing your math skills. 

    • Duke Cox says:

      Make everyone's income equal until it is zero for everyone.

      What the fuck are you talking about…? Ease up on the edibles, man….

    • Davie says:

      Too bad for you AC.  My questions are based on actual GOP public positions.  As usual, you have to resort to making shit up.  Something you and the GOP are full of.  It must suck to be you.

      • BlueCat says:

        Oh hi Davie. I should have scrolled down before I replied to AC.

        • Davie says:

          No problem, this is just what's called "hitting him with both barrels" 😉 

          Honestly, I will never understand why AC and his ilk come around here to offer their easily debunked nonsense.  Do they really enjoy being the toy ducks in a shooting gallery?  Other than being easy prey, they are pretty useless as a propaganda tool to sway anyone reading this site.

    • BlueCat says:

      The difference being that Davie's selections are accurate examples of Republican litmus tests as stated by the overwhelming majority of actual Republican politicians whereas none of your "liberal" examples, by which you mean Democrats, can be traced to a single actual Democratic politician. Still embarrassed over those test results? Trying to get your rightie credentials back? Pathetic, AC, you little secret RINO.

Leave a Reply

Comment from your Facebook account

You may comment with your Colorado Pols account above (click here to register), or via Facebook below.