In Kansas an Independent candidate is running for the U.S. Senate. One criticism of him in attack ads is that he hasn’t revealed which party he will caucus with. I don’t get this. I would think that an Independent would either not be welcome to caucus with either party, or would be able to caucus with the Democrats for some issues and with the Republicans for others. It doesn’t make sense to me that an Independent would have to, or be able to, caucus with just one party – that would make him a de facto member of that party in my mind, negating the whole point of being independent. What am I missing here?
Caucusing with a party allows him to vote on internal party matters like speaker of the house, minority leader, & cet… It also allows him to be appointed by party leadership to seats on committees which are set aside for members of that party.
If he doesn’t announce a clear siding with one side or the other he can get left out of committee positions and other privileges.
The big issue is that that the majority party runs the place. Right down to every subcommittee of every subcommittee. If you are part of the minority you have no power that the majority doesn’t hand to you. The majority can run roughshod over the minority in everything, and we’ve seen recent incidents in which they will turn off the microphones and walk out the door while a minority member is speaking. That’s real, raw power. The majority would not for one second allow somebody to be half there.
Your principles are one thing; making yourself so completely ineffective that you may as well never have gotten elected is another. If you’re enough of a politician to get elected, you’re enough of a politician to make the compromises needed to caucus.
Everybody gets to vote independently at some times, BTW, no matter how staunch a party member they might be. It’s when every vote is needed that the caucus uses its weight to tell you what to do. Independents know that and decide its a worthwhile tradeoff.
Okay, thanks for the responses.
So it seems that it’s wise for the Independent to caucus with the majority. Which party that will be is undetermined until after today’s election, so of course only a fool would commit before the results are in. And only an idiot would lambaste him for waiting to do so.
Not only that, he could decide which side becomes the majority.
He could decide which side fills the positions, with or without the majority.
Yes it means that … does he favour one side as the government, or does he claim to be independent and will not attend /follow any caucus ?
(the actual attendance isn’t required, he may just vote with one side… )
What if he says he does not vote with the caucuse ? But then he will find it hard to research all the issues behind every vote… he will be voting blind on some… unless he takes advice… They are asking what default caucus he will use for issues he has not personally researched ?
This may be deciduous per issue - eg he might follow one sides labour reform but not their health policy. For example. But the question was asking him to explain how he will decide how to vote… tempting him to say “I just follow them!”
I think I speak for everyone when I say, “huh?”
I’m sure folks realize this after the other accurate answers, but this response has virtually nothing to do with how the party systems work in the U.S. Congress.
Members of Congress are not dependent on their party to “research all the issues.” Each member of Congress has their own staff responsible for research and advising them on votes. Of course the party leadership may help, cajole, or threaten members in an effort to get them to vote a certain way, but that does not mean that members depend on their party to understand what is happening around them.
The main effect of not choosing a party with which to caucus would be to have a severe disadvantage with respect to committee assignments, and also not to have a party leadership that can be helpful with urging other members to vote for their bills or assist in fundraising.
How might a party control an (I) that wants to be with them?
Do you think the current I’s will switch now?
…and what about all of the other caucuses? Congressional Black Caucus as an example. What is it’s role?
Good committee assignments. Certain committees (especially those that control large amounts of government spending – Appropriations, Agriculture, Defense stuff) are considered very desirable for Senators and Congresscritters. Others that deal with more wonky subjects (Judiciary, Foreign Policy, etc) may be prestigious but they don’t make donors hearts flutter. An independent Senator/Congressman could well be persuaded by an offer of placement on a powerful committee or two.
Angus King of Maine could switch, but he was elected in 2012 as, essentially, the de facto Democratic candidate (the Dems had a candidate but most Maine Dems ended up backing King when it looked like he had a better chance of beating the Republican.) Unless he changes his policy positions significantly, he would almost certainly be the most liberal member of the Republican caucus – probably by a significant margin – and there’s little hope that he would not face a general election fight with a more right-wing Republican opponent in 2018 because of this, and the Democrats would almost certainly put up a more vigorous campaign that year as well. If he stays with the Democrats, he’s likely to be the de facto Dem candidate again in 2018, and control of the Senate could very easily flip back in two years anyway.
Bernie Sanders of Vermont is arguably the left-most member of the Senate. There is zero chance he caucuses with the Republicans.
There are dozens of other caucuses. They are basically affinity and discussion groups that sometimes work together as a bargaining unit to advance causes they have in common. How much they do this really depends on how much they actually perceive those common causes to be, you know, common. There’s a black Republican senator from South Carolina and a newly elected black Republican congresswoman from Utah who are obviously eligible to be members of the Black Caucus but who have political views that are starkly at odds with the majority of the BC members.
To say it another way, the word “caucus” is used in two different senses.
There is the party organization in a legislature with leaders that perform functions in how the legislature organizes itself. For example, the “Democratic caucus” refers to the members of that party, and includes the leadership that makes official decisions like how to make committee assignments, make whip counts on close votes, and tries to coordinate party positions on issues. These caucuses tend to have a rather official role in how the legislature works.
Then there are more informal groups of legislators who are active on specific issues. They don’t have an formal role within the body (e.g., they don’t organize committees, arrange votes, and so on) but serve as advocates for their issues. One can think of them as internal lobbyists for whatever cause they have. The Congressional Black Caucus, the National Guard Caucus, the Bicycle Built for Two Caucus, and such things are examples. Their utility is more influential (rather than official) on how the legislature does its work.
IIRC, a few years ago a black R wanted to join and they didn’t want him/wouldn’t let him.
Other way around. Tim Scott refused to join. The only person who has been refused admission was Steven Cohen (D-TN), a white guy who was elected from a majority black district and pledged to join to better represent his constituency.
Hmmmm…not sure which is worse. Thanks for the correction. We’ll see what happens next year.