Last Thursday, the House and Senate almost unanimously passed the National AMBER Alert Network Act of 2003, a popular bill that will soon create a nationwide kidnapping alert system. Coming in the wake of a year of high-profile child abductions — from Elizabeth Smart (whose parents supported the bill) to Samantha Runnion — the bill was a no-brainer, destined to pass quickly and smoothly through Congress.
Surely Sen. Joe Biden (D-Del.) knew this, which explains why he cannily sneaked his own, completely unrelated legislation into the AMBER Act just two days before the vote. Piggybacked onto the act was the Illicit Drug Anti-Proliferation Act, a thinly veiled rewrite of legislation that was controversial in 2002 and failed to make it to a vote on the Senate floor. Now, club owners and partyers alike are being subjected to a loosely worded and heavy-handed law that authorities will be able to indiscriminately use to shut down music events at any time they please, assuming they find evidence of drug use. Thanks to Biden’s surreptitious efforts, a few glow sticks and a customer or two on Ecstasy could be all it takes to throw a party promoter in jail for 20 years.
The passing of the Illicit Drug Anti-Proliferation Act was sudden but not entirely out of the blue. Last year, the Illicit Drug Anti-Proliferation Act was known as the RAVE Act (the leadenly acronymed “Reducing Americans’ Vulnerability to Ecstasy Act”), a piece of legislation designed by Biden in early 2002 to put rave promoters out of business. An expansion of the crack-house statute of 1986 — which made crack-den proprietors liable for what took place in their homes, even if they didn’t deal drugs themselves — the RAVE Act threatened those who “knowingly and intentionally rent, lease, profit from, or make available for use, with or without compensation, [a] place for the purpose of unlawfully manufacturing, storing, distributing, or using a controlled substance” with 20 years in jail and $250,000 in fines.
In English, this meant that anyone who intentionally let people do drugs at their events could be held liable. It also expanded the crack-house statute in two significant ways: Now the law could be applied to one-night events — concerts, raves, parties, festivals — as well as permanent locales like nightclubs, and it added civil penalties for violations, lowering the burden of proof from “beyond reasonable doubt” to a “preponderance of evidence.”
So what “preponderance of evidence” would authorities use to determine that the people who threw these parties “knowingly” let their customers and guests use drugs? The RAVE Act offered a handy list of “findings” that authorities could use as proof — including the presence of “overpriced bottles of water” and chill rooms, and the sale of glow sticks, massage oils and pacifiers (all of which are sometimes used to enhance the effects of Ecstasy). Never mind that all of the above can also be found at everything from ‘N Sync concerts to an Earth Day festival; in the eyes of Biden and other like-minded officials and law enforcement officers (of which there are many), these are sinister drug paraphernalia that can only point to one thing.
Civil liberties groups and grass-roots activists from the electronic music community went on the defense. Infuriated ravers flooded Congress with letters, complaining that they were being singled out because of their lifestyle choices. The ACLU and the reform-minded Drug Policy Alliance convinced co-sponsoring Sens. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., and Dick Durbin, D-Ill., that the vaguely written law could be used to limit freedom of expression and that businesses would unconstitutionally be held liable for their customers’ actions. The two senators withdrew their support, and the RAVE Act finally died in committee last fall.
But Biden was not deterred, and he reintroduced the bill in early 2003. This time, in order to nominally appease detractors, he changed the name of his bill to the less inflammatory “Illicit Drug Anti-Proliferation Act” and struck the “findings” section of the legislation. Then he swiftly tacked it on to the AMBER Act, where, without any kind of hearing and before the ACLU and grass-roots organizations could raise a stink, it finally passed.
The bill’s opponents worry that the new law (which will probably be signed by President Bush in the next few weeks) will effectively quash the electronic music community. Most ravers don’t object to the targeting of unprincipled rave promoters who do sell drugs to kids, but the law is so loosely worded that it could be used against anyone who throws parties that are unpopular with local authorities. After all, according to the new law, you don’t actually need to be directly involved in providing drugs to customers to be found guilty; all you have to do is knowingly allow drug use to take place.
The police are no doubt delighted to have a new weapon to use in their skirmishes with clubs and late-night revelers (a feud that goes all the way back to the days of Prohibition). Do the local authorities have issues with your nightclub or party? All they would need to do is find a few drug users at your event and “prove” that you endorsed this activity by pointing at, say, your overpriced bottled water or the ambulances that you keep on standby in case of emergencies (a common practice at concerts and nightclubs alike), and they could shut you down, throw you in jail, and empty your bank account.
Biden argues that this will never happen. “The purpose of my legislation is not to prosecute legitimate law-abiding managers of stadiums, arenas, performing arts centers, licensed beverage facilities and other venues because of incidental drug use at their events,” he wrote when he introduced the Illicit Drug Anti-Proliferation Act. “My bill would help in the prosecution of rogue promoters who not only know that there is drug use at their event but also hold the event for the purpose of illegal drug use or distribution.”
Unfortunately, precedents show otherwise. Biden’s bill — even with the findings removed — formalizes what has been taking place in drug-enforcement circles for several years: Since 2000, authorities around the country have moved to shut down some of the nation’s most popular dance parties, using the crack-house statue as a bludgeon and those glow sticks and chill rooms as their evidence. In many cities, such as San Diego and Fort Lauderdale, the police have even formed “Rave Task Forces” — and study DEA-provided fact sheets that detail drug paraphernalia (sports drinks! lollipops! eye drops!) — to shut down electronic music events and jail their promoters.
In New Orleans, for example, the promoters of one of the city’s most popular dance clubs, Freebass, were charged with allowing drug use to take place at their events, despite an utter lack of evidence that they were in any way involved with or aware of drug sales. The promoters plea-bargained to avoid a costly lawsuit and ended up signing an injunction that forbade the presence of glow sticks, pacifiers, massage tables and chill rooms at any future parties (as if these were somehow to blame for the drug problem). And the Department of Alcohol and Beverage Control last week moved to shut down Ten 15 Folsom, one of the largest and most popular nightclubs in San Francisco, and accused the owners of permitting drug use to take place there. Once again, investigators pointed at the presence of glow sticks, as well as emergency medical technicians (which, ironically, Ten 15 had begun providing, by court order, after several overdoses by customers) as evidence that the club owners endorsed drug use.
The backward logic of this thinking punishes club owners and rave promoters for trying to keep their customers safe. It is inevitable that some revelers at just about any kind of musical event — whether an Avril Lavigne concert or a techno dance club — are going to bring and consume drugs, no matter how diligently you search their pockets or how often you eject offenders. Club owners and party promoters are aware of this (who isn’t?) and often do everything they can to both limit this activity and prevent tragedies among those who pop pills anyway. It’s quite possible that the Illicit Drug Anti-Proliferation Act will force panicky promoters to reconsider providing ambulances or EMTs, lest those be used as “evidence” against them. Already, many parties have stopped harm-reduction groups like DanceSafe from coming to their events to pass out safety literature or anonymously test Ecstasy pills to ensure that they aren’t more lethal concoctions.
Once the president signs the bill, promoters may consider the risks and never throw parties at all. Others will simply move their parties underground to illegal locations (abandoned warehouses, empty buildings, remote fields) where they are less likely to be found by authorities but more likely to be providing an unsafe setting for their customers.
The law isn’t limited to electronic music events, either. Civil liberties experts worry that it could be used as a tool of bigotry to shut down hip-hop or gay-circuit parties. In a worst-case scenario, the DEA could even bust you for a private barbecue in your home where friends light up a bong: After all, the new law covers private residences, too. That may be unlikely, but the DEA is no stranger to badly conceived drug raids.
No one is arguing that drug use doesn’t take place at raves and nightclubs and concerts, that kids don’t sometimes use glow sticks or pacifiers to enhance their high, or that drugs aren’t harmful — occasionally lethal — for kids. But in its rush to stamp out America’s current drug demon, Ecstasy, this sweeping and illogical legislation instead violates basic civil liberties and labels entire communities as the enemy.
All these concerns may very well have come out during public debate on the law — but, of course, that never happened. Immediately after the AMBER Alert was passed, Sen. Leahy issued a press release complaining about the unrelated legislation that was piggybacked on the bill, singling out the Illicit Drug Anti-Proliferation Act as one of the worst offenders. “Business owners have come to Congress and told us there are only so many steps they can take to prevent any of the thousands of people who may attend a concert or a rave from using drugs, and they are worried about being held personally accountable for the illegal acts of others,” he wrote. “Those concerns may well be overstated, but they deserve a fuller hearing … I think we would have been well-served by making a greater effort to find out.”
Too late. Instead, yet another badly conceived piece of drug legislation, capriciously taking aim at the enemy du jour, was rammed through the system before more rational voices could discuss it. The vote took a matter of minutes and no thought whatsoever; the repercussions of the law will be felt for years.
This story has been corrected since it was first published.
A leading Democrat predicted Sunday that the Senate would reject House Republicans’ deep budget cuts, setting up tense negotiations and the need for another short-term spending measure to keep the government operating.
Illinois Sen. Dick Durbin, the No. 2 Democrat, contended that Republicans were unfairly and unwisely placing the burden of spending cuts on domestic programs.
“I’m willing to see more deficit reduction, but not out of domestic discretionary spending,” Durbin said.
In response to a House-passed bill that would cut $61 billion from the federal budget, Senate Democrats put forward a measure that would trim just $6.5 billion from domestic agencies, as President Barack Obama proposed.
That would erase billions in cuts for education, housing and other programs sought by Republicans, but leave a massive gap between the two sides. Nonetheless, Obama’s chief of staff, William Daley, said the White House and Republicans were not as far apart as the numbers would suggest.
“However you slice it, there is a challenge to our government,” Daley said. The House and the Senate must agree on a budget, he added, “or this government doesn’t fund itself and we look ridiculous.”
Lawmakers appearing on Sunday’s news programs traded charges of who was being more serious when it came to dealing with the nation’s fiscal ills. There was little or no talk about how the two sides would reconcile the House bill with a starkly different measure expected to come from the Senate.
Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky asserted that Obama was not serious about the spending and deficit issues even though he had had several discussions with the president.
“What I don’t see now is any willingness to do anything that’s difficult,” said McConnell. “I’ve a number of conversations with people who count at the White House. And I think that, so far, I don’t see the level of seriousness that we need.”
Durbin said he hoped that, following a Senate vote on the budget, lawmakers could reach a bipartisan agreement.
“We need to get very serious, act like adults, sit down and not lurch from one week or two weeks to two weeks in funding our government,” he said.
The chairman of the House Republican Conference, Rep. Jeb Hensarling of Texas, criticized Senate Democrats for offering a plan that “puts nothing on the table.” Asked if he would accept less than $61 billion in cuts, he demurred.
“All I can say is here’s what we’re going to fight for,” Hensarling said. “We’re going to fight for … putting America on a fiscally sustainable path to help create jobs today, save our children from bankruptcy tomorrow.”
Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., dismissed the budget cuts supported by House Republicans as an “ideological, extremist, reckless statement” rather than a serious economic plan.
“If that were to be, in fact, put in place, it would contribute to the reversal of our recovery. It might even destroy our recovery. It will certainly deny us the competitiveness that we need to move with China, India and other countries into the future,” Kerry said.
McConnell countered: “What’s reckless … is the $1.6 trillion deficit we’re running this year. What’s reckless is the $3 trillion we’ve added to our national debt.”
Last week Congress passed a bill to fund the government — a continuing resolution — for two weeks, until March 18. Rep. Hal Rogers, R-Ky., the chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, said if a budget agreement were not reached by then, his committee would attempt to approve another short-term funding bill “to give the Senate time to act and the negotiators time to try to resolve the spending problems.”
“We are determined not to have a shutdown,” Rogers said.
Daley spoke on NBC’s “Meet the Press while McConnell and Kerry appeared on CBS’ Face the Nation.” Durbin and Hensarling appeared on “Fox News Sunday.” Rogers’ interview on C-SPAN aired Sunday.
It’s tempting to say that the biggest losers on primary night last Tuesday were Chuck Schumer and Dick Durbin.
Their names weren’t on a single ballot, but their desire to lead the Senate’s Democrats next year is tied to Harry Reid’s November fate. If he loses his reelection campaign in Nevada, then his leadership post will open up. But if Reid somehow hangs on, then the race — presumably — will be off.
For months, it was assumed that Reid would go down to defeat. He’s had close calls in Nevada before, but never has the climate been as poisonous for him as it is now. When he fell behind his prospective Republican opponents by sizable margins earlier this year, his fate seemed sealed. Through all of this, of course, Schumer and Durbin professed utter and absolute confidence in Reid’s reelection prospects — even as they privately took steps to shore up their support within the Democratic ranks.
But this past week brought with it a twist: the victory of Sharron Angle, a far-right Tea Party adherent, in Nevada’s Republican primary. Angle’s presence potentially gives Reid an opportunity to make the campaign as much a referendum on her as it is on him. And if he can do that, then he’ll have a real chance to prevail in November.
So, what do Reid’s brighter (or less dim, at least) prospects mean for his would-be successors?
Between now and November, the answer is: not much. Durbin and Schumer will keep proclaiming their faith in Reid’s prospects (except now, they might actually mean it) while still taking steps that will, however indirectly, improve their standing with their colleagues.
If Reid does win, he should be able to hang on to his leadership post — if he still wants it. Democrats would very likely still be the majority party in the Senate (a GOP takeover is hard to fathom if they can’t knock off Reid) and they would hail his triumph as a powerful rebuke of the GOP’s rightward lurch. Senate Democrats would be far more likely to celebrate Reid than to overthrow him under those circumstances.
It’s also hard to imagine either Schumer or Durbin trying to foment a revolt. The odds of pulling it off would be long, and the price of failure would be severe. Given that Reid will turn 71 this year (two years younger than Mike Mansfield, the oldest Senate Democratic leader in history, was when he retired in 1977), that’s not a risk either man will want to assume. Better to look like a team player while waiting for Reid to step aside — or to be politely nudged aside — a few years down the line.
The only question, then, would be whether Reid wants to continue as leader, and it’s safe to assume that he would. After all, pundits and (privately) members of his own party spent the last year calling him a goner. His survival story wouldn’t be complete unless he is leading the Senate’s Democrats when the 112th Congress convenes.
Still, the clock would be ticking for Reid, who has been the Senate’s Democratic leader since 2004. Other leaders have served longer; Mansfield lasted 16 years, while Reid’s predecessor, Tom Daschle, made it through 10 (and was only ousted because he lost his ’04 reelection bid in South Dakota). But, given the modern demand for television-friendly party leadership, Reid’s advancing age figures to become an issue in the years ahead. Even if he’s elected to another six-year term from Nevada this fall, his fellow Democratic senators may start itching for a new public face somewhere in the middle of it.
There is a something of a precedent for this. Back in 1988, Majority Leader Robert Byrd fell victim to a polite coup, even though he’d led the party back to majority status in the 1986 midterm elections. Byrd had been the leader since 1977 (when he replaced Mansfield), surviving two challenges (from Florida’s Lawton Chiles in 1984 and Louisiana’s J. Bennett Johnston in ’86) in that time. With each passing year, though, desire for fresh leadership among Democrats only grew. By ’88, the 70-year-old Byrd, no longer certain he could beat back a challenge, opted to step down and to assume the chairmanship of the mighty Appropriations Committee instead.
That set the stage for a three-way contest between Johnston, Hawaii’s Dan Inouye and Maine’s George Mitchell, all of whom had been angling to succeed Byrd for years. Mitchell, relying on support from younger members (many of whom he’d helped elect as the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee’s chairman in ’86), ended up winning.
Something somewhat similar happened in the spring of 1994, when Mitchell announced his plans to retire. On paper, his logical successor was the Senate’s No. 2 Democrat, Majority Whip Wendell Ford. But Ford was pushing 70, which provided an opening for the 46-year-old Daschle, who quickly lined up support and intimidated Ford out of the race. (Ford and his friend Byrd nearly got revenge later in the year, twisting arms for Chris Dodd’s last-minute campaign against Daschle, which fell one vote short.)
Reid’s situation isn’t quite the same as Byrd’s or Ford’s, of course. But their examples point to a reality of politics: Eventually, every leader wears out his (or her) welcome. As Byrd found and Reid stands to discover, a legislative leader’s base of support tends to shrink with the years, not expand. Old allies retire, new members — with their own agendas, their own allegiances, and their own ambitions — arrive. And would-be successors grow impatient.
Which brings us back to Schumer and Durbin. If Reid prevails in Nevada, they’ll have no choice but to suspend their ambitions for another day — but there’s no guarantee that day will ever come. Right now, Schumer and Durbin have the standing to prevent any other Democratic senators from vying for the top slot. But Schumer will turn 60 later this year. Durbin will turn 66 (even if he looks a few years younger). What will they look like to their fellow Democrats two years from now, or more? New prospects could emerge in that time. Bob Menendez’s aspirations are obvious, for instance, but it’s too soon for him to make a play for the top slot. But if Reid hangs on for another few years, the timing could be right for Menendez — and for others.
This is especially problematic for Durbin, whose supporters in the caucus tend to be older. As they leave office and are replaced by new faces, Durbin’s prospects may flicker out. It’s possible that 2010 marks his last best shot at the majority leader’s slot.
For Schumer, the stakes probably aren’t quite as dire, since he has plenty of support among newer senators (those he recruited and supported in the 2006 and 2008 elections as DSCC chairman). He’d presumably be viable in a 2012 and 2014 majority leader’s race. But viable enough to win?
It’s hard to escape the conclusion that for Schumer and (especially) Durbin, a Harry Reid win in November would be a bittersweet moment.
There’s a very real possibility that Harry Reid will lose his reelection fight in Nevada — which means there’s a very real possibility that Senate Democrats will be choosing a new leader after November. In fact, a highly unofficial and very under-the-radar race to succeed Reid is already underway, featuring the hard-charging Chuck Schumer and the more mild-mannered Richard Durbin. Almost no one believes there’ll be room for a third candidate.
It’s notoriously difficult to predict the outcome of congressional elections, which are draped in mystery, with members intensely skittish about discussing internal matters in public. Personal relationships — friendships and grudges — that are invisible to or misunderstood by the public also loom large.
Still, it’s not impossible to handicap the Schumer-Durbin race. There are four major factors that should be crucial in determining the winner:
Freshmen allegiances. Chuck Schumer’s best asset may be his personal connection to the 17 members elected in the last two 2008 and 2006 election cycles, when he was running the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee. After this year’s elections, these freshmen should make up nearly one-third of the Democratic caucus.
It’s important to understand the nature of Schumer’s DSCC work. He personally recruited all of the Democrats elected in ’08 and ’06, and he stood with them through all of the ups and downs of their often-brutal months-long campaigns. In other words, he formed meaningful bonds with them long before they reached Washington — bonds that could garner Schumer great support in a caucus vote.
Precedent is on Schumer’s side in relying on the backing of younger members. In 1988, Maine’s George Mitchell became majority leader in large part because of the strong support he received from that 11-member freshmen class — a group he became close to from his prior stint as head of the DSCC. Having a base of younger caucus members is a formidable building block, and Schumer could potentially garner around half the votes he would need to achieve a caucus majority just from this group.
A jittery post-midterm caucus. The timing of the Schumer-Durbin vote would also play an important role. Leadership elections are held a few weeks after the midterms, and Democrats are today staring at almost-certain Senate losses — possibly significant losses. The mood in the ornate Capitol room where the Democratic caucus convenes will likely be sullen, downcast and probably a little testy. Surviving senators will be searching for explanations for their diminished political status, and much of the blame will be assessed to the vanquished Reid.
In selling himself, just as Mitchell did, Schumer can point to the gains the party made while he was head of the DSCC. He can also market his hyper-aggressive style as a welcome alternative to Reid’s vexing, taciturn approach.
For his part, Durbin has been making moves designed to bolster his standing as a partisan fighter. He was harshly critical of Kentucky Sen. Jim Bunning’s filibuster of an unemployment benefits bill, and later endorsed legislation sponsored by Sen. Tom Harkin of Iowa that would dismantle the filibuster, a popular cause with the party’s frustrated progressive base. Durbin even created a website with a petition to ban the filibuster. (Perhaps as a counter to this, Schumer recently held Rules Committee hearings on the tactic.)
The problem for Durbin is that if Democrats are coming off a rough midterm, Schumer’s hyper-aggressive, hard-edged style figures to be more attractive to senators, many of whom will crave wholesale change in the nature of their leadership.
The Obama factor. Durbin’s close friendship with President Obama, his fellow Illinoisan, might not be very helpful if Democrats are emerging from a midterm drubbing. History speaks to this. After Democrats lost their majority in 1994, the race to replace Mitchell was driven by senators’ desire to chart their own political course, independent of Bill Clinton’s White House. Both candidates to replace Mitchell, Chris Doff and Tom Daschle, pledged to assert greater control over the Senate’s agenda and message. If Senate Democrats react to significant midterm election losses with similar demands for autonomy, Durbin could be in trouble.
It’s also important to understand that members of Congress — particularly on the Senate side — tend to treat leadership votes as sacred affairs. When Mitchell was elected in ’88, one Democrat likened the process to a vote of the College of Cardinals, an insular event shielded from outside influences. Thus, Obama would potentially be constrained from twisting arms on Durbin’s behalf.
Senior members. Here is where Durbin might find considerable support. The senators naturally predisposed to back the whip will be quieter, more cautious members who feel uneasy with Schumer’s insatiable appetite for publicity and partisan combat. Committee chairmen, too, might be hesitant to back Schumer because he could be viewed as a more hands-on leader — someone who could potentially threaten the old bulls’ grip on their gavels (and thus their power in Washington).
Other factors are also worth mentioning. For instance, Durbin could raise concerns among liberals that Schumer is too close to Wall Street, an accusation the New Yorker is sensitive to. Not coincidentally, Schumer’s current support of financial reform seems geared toward distancing himself from his state’s top industry and many of his financial patrons.
And then there’s money. Like all senators who aspire to leadership, Schumer and Durbin have spent years greasing their colleagues with cash from their political action committees. Overall, they’ve invested similar amounts. But Durbin has given considerably more to Sens. Max Baucus, Mary Landrieu, Tom Carper, Russ Feingold and Al Franken, while Schumer has been more generous to Amy Klobuchar, Carl Levin, Mark Pryor and Ron Wyden.
Ultimately, of course, personal relationships loom as the biggest x-factor in the race. And because so many grudges and loyalties are unknown, it’s impossible to craft a fully accurate picture of how the vote might break. But with the above guide in mind, we can still construct an intuitive, if highly speculative, whip count. Here’s how things look for now.
(Note: Some of these senators are up for reelection and may lose this November, in which case they will not be able to vote in the leader’s race. Additionally, this list presumes that Richard Blumenthal — who is still leading his Republican opponent by 20 points in Connecticut — will be elected this fall. Other Democrats, like Joe Sestak in Pennsylvania and Jack Conway in Kentucky, could win open seats this November but are not included in this count.)
Logical Durbin Voters (16)
Committee chairmen and senior members who could feel threatened by Schumer: Baucus, Dan Akaka, Jeff Bingaman, Robert Byrd, Kent Conrad, Dianne Feinstein, Tom Harkin, Dan Inouye and Patrick Leahy.
Senators who could be put off by Schumer’s style: Carper, Feingold, Landrieu, Tim Johnson and Herb Kohl.
Senators who could be swayed by the White House: Michael Bennet and Claire McCaskill.
Logical Schumer Voters (21)
Close geographic allies: Kirsten Gillibrand, Frank Lautenberg and Bob Menendez.
Senators Schumer endorsed in contested primaries as DSCC chair: Bob Casey, Jim Webb and Jeff Merkley.
Freshmen recruited by Schumer and elected with strong DSCC support: Mark Begich, Ben Cardin, Kay Hagan, Klobuchar, Jeanne Shaheen, Tom Udall and Sheldon Whitehouse.
Frustrated liberals who might prefer a more confrontational leader: Franken, Sherrod Brown, Maria Cantwell, Barbara Mikulski, Jay Rockefeller and Bernie Sanders.
Toss-up (12): Wyden, Boxer, John Kerry, Levin, Patty Murray, Ben Nelson, Bill Nelson, Mark Pryor, Jack Reed, Debbie Stabenow, Mark Udall, Mark Warner and Richard Blumenthal.
Again, November’s election could cost a chunk of these senators their jobs, thereby altering this math. For now, though, Schumer is about five votes shy of his goal. Perhaps the most telling statistic is that of Durbin’s 16 logical supporters, only three have been elected in the last 10 years; conversely, 17 of the 19 members elected in the last four electoral cycles expected to return in 2011 seem more likely to back Schumer. This generation gap is what makes Schumer the early favorite.
Cable news was abuzz Tuesday about a report in Politico that Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., and Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., were both raising money hand over fist for Harry Reid. Schumer hosted a big event in Brooklyn Monday morning for the embattled Senate majority leader’s Nevada reelection race; Durbin will host one in Chicago next week.
That’s the stuff of palace intrigue in the Senate these days. Why? Because both Durbin and Schumer, the second- and third-ranking Democrats there, seem to want to take over Reid’s job if he loses in November. Which means just about anything — including attempts to help Reid keep the gig — is starting to be viewed by the media as an undercover maneuver designed to position his would-be successors for a leadership race-in-waiting.
To an extent, that makes some sense. Both Schumer and Durbin clearly appear to be making preparations in case Reid does lose and a contest does develop. The last close Democratic leadership battle, after all, came down to one vote, between Sen. Chris Dodd of Connecticut and former Sen. Tom Daschle of South Dakota; Reid managed to head off a run by Dodd after Daschle lost in 2004, in part by lining up support early and announcing it just hours after Daschle conceded his Senate race (which, at the time, wasn’t the most popular move among Daschle staffers). Smart politicians plan ahead so they can seize opportunities as they come up.
But that doesn’t mean everything the two of them are doing is being guided by visions of leadership jobs to come. If Reid does lose — which Senate Democrats all say they don’t expect, no matter what the polls show — it’s worth remembering the nature of the campaign that would follow. The leadership election would be held behind closed doors, and the electorate would be pretty small: Only Democratic senators would get to vote. So the kind of posturing for public show that’s necessary in, say, the early stages of a presidential campaign aren’t as important for Durbin or Schumer. Interest groups can weigh in, but senators aren’t likely to side with one candidate or the other on a matter that matters so much to their day-to-day work just because an outside organization prefers one of them. Current and former Senate aides say it’s personal relationships, more than policy positions on issues, that tend to decide how lawmakers vote on something like that. Both Durbin and Schumer are (obviously) well known by everyone in the caucus, and as members of the leadership team already, they don’t really need to prove they believe the party line; after all, they helped write it.
The fundraising for Reid isn’t particularly unusual. Both Durbin and Schumer host fundraisers for Senate Democrats all the time. Durbin, for instance, hosted two for Reid in Chicago already, and also one at Ronald Perelman’s New York home, as well as events for the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee in Texas, New York, Illinois, California, Florida and North Carolina. Aides say he’s also hosted more than half a dozen other events in Chicago for other candidates. Schumer, meanwhile, used to run the DSCC and is a very prolific fundraiser who has given the Nevada Democratic Party $25,000 in the last two years. (In 2004, when Daschle was losing to John Thune in South Dakota, Democrats helped out however they could; John Kerry’s campaign didn’t make a peep when Daschle ran a TV ad featuring him hugging George W. Bush, and at one point late in the campaign, national Democrats bought ads on South Dakota TV just to keep Thune from getting the time.)
Is that kind of work likely to be noticed by fellow Democrats if Reid does lose? Absolutely. But is it also the sort of thing the top-ranking Senate leaders would be doing anyway, even if Reid was cruising to reelection? Yes. Senate insiders say the best way either Durbin or Schumer can win support for a leadership bid is by doing their day jobs well. So while it makes sense to keep an eye on what both of them are doing — after all, either one could be the next Senate majority leader if Reid can’t turn his race around — the leadership race isn’t necessarily the only thing driving either of them. Sometimes, as Freud would say, a cigar is just a cigar. Even in the Senate.
FILE - In this Dec. 18, 2010 file photo, Senate Majority Whip Richard Durbin of Ill. speaks on Capitol Hill in Washington. Is anyone going to fix Social Security? Medicare? Medicaid? They're the big bills coming due. While President Barack Obama and congressional leaders offer vague assurances, six senators _ three Republicans and three Democrats whose ideologies cover the entire liberal-conservative spectrum _ are quietly taking up the baton. (AP Photo/Alex Brandon, File)(Credit: AP) 
U.S. Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL) and Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y. 
Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and U.S. Senator Richard Durbin (D-IL) 
U.S. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (L) stands on the floor with Assistant Majortiy Leader US Senator Dick Durbin (R) (D-IL) on the floor before U.S. President Barack Obama spoke about health care reform before a joint session of congress on Capitol Hill in Washington, September 9, 2009. REUTERS/Jason Reed (UNITED STATES POLITICS HEALTH)(Credit: Reuters) 