Exclusive Interview With Populist Caucus Chairman Bruce Braley
Representative Bruce Braley, from Iowa's First District, returned to the House of Representatives this week, after surviving a very brutal re-election campaign in which millions of dollars of outside money from anonymous right-wing donors were spent against him. His campaign was an interesting one, because rather than try to distance himself from his own party or from what Democrats have accomplished in the past few years, Braley instead embraced his own record, and proudly defended it to his voters.
Braley's victory was a narrow one -- 49.5 percent to 47.5 percent -- but this didn't make it any less satisfying for Democratic election-watchers looking for trends during this year's midterms. Braley holds the district in Iowa which stretches north and west from the "Quad Cities" area, which he won as part of the Democratic takeover in 2006. In 2008, he won his first re-election fight with a whopping 65 percent of the vote. But this year, the headwind of the Republican resurgence was a tough obstacle to overcome for any Democrat elected to the House in the past four years. Braley's victory certainly gives hope to those in the Democratic Party who have been calling on Democrats to refuse to apologize for who they are and what their party stands for.
Braley's opponent was an enormous beneficiary of the Citizens United Supreme Court decision, as a conservative group from outside the district pumped an enormous amount of money into the race, most of it spent on advertisements attacking Braley. Here's how Braley describes the campaign strategy he used to fight back: "When I first ran for Congress, we talked about bringing the troops home from Iraq, which we're now doing. We talked about raising the minimum wage. We did that. We talked about making sure men and women had equity in the workplace. We did that with the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act. We talked about lowering taxes for middle class families. We did that. We talked about improving access to health care for the 47 million Americans without health insurance. We did that."
Bruce Braley will continue as the chairman of the recently-revived Populist Caucus in the House. He founded the caucus a few years ago with like-minded Democrats who wanted a group to focus solely on the American middle class. So far, they have supported many commonsense bills which address middle-class concerns in various ways. The most recent bill Braley wrote which made it to President Obama's desk for signature, for example, was the "Plain Writing Act," which now requires the federal government to write all its documents (tax forms, aid applications, etc.) in "simple, easy-to-understand language." While not a high-profile sort of idea, it will be much appreciated by millions of Americans who are tired of digging through and trying to decipher the typical bureaucrat-ese used in the past on such documents.
The Populist Caucus did lose some members in the midterm election, but (because of the smaller number of Democrats overall), actually increased its proportional membership within the House Democratic Caucus, from roughly 13 percent of the outgoing House Democrats to around 14.5 percent of the incoming group. The Populist Caucus did better than the Blue Dogs in retaining membership in the recent election, but not quite as good as the Progressives did. In the next Congress, the Populist Caucus will start with 28 members.
We caught up with Braley this week, and had the chance to ask him a few questions about his recent campaign, and about how he sees House Democrats moving forward in the next few years. The full transcript of this interview follows.
Populist Caucus Chairman Bruce Braley
Photo credit: Office of Rep. Bruce Braley
Let me begin by congratulating you on your recent re-election, against some very tough odds. How was 2010 different from other campaigns you've been in?
The biggest difference between 2010 and other years was the sheer amount of secret donors dumping money into my district to help my opponent. Obviously, it was a bad year for many Democrats across the country and that kind of environment, coupled with a $2 million smear campaign that was funded entirely by secret donors, made my race closer than I would have liked. But Iowa's First District is 40 percent Independent, and then almost evenly split between Democrats and Republicans. Every year I have to go out and earn every single vote, so I feel very honored that the people of Iowa's First District re-elected me to continue fighting for middle class families.
During the campaign, it was reported that the conservative group "American Future Fund" had donated $800,000 to your Republican opponent's campaign. The Sunlight Foundation now reports that a total of over $2.2 million of outside money was spent on your opponent's campaign. How did you effectively manage to counter so much money spent against you in your district, which is a fairly inexpensive media market to begin with?
One of the biggest factors was that I've always been honest with my constituents. Whether they agree with me on an issue or not, I've always told them where I stand and why. When secret donors started dumping money into my race, we responded to every attack forcefully and honestly, telling them why I took the difficult votes I took. Iowans are smart people who take our electoral process very seriously. So when these ads went up on the air, we knew voters would take a look at who was trying to get rid of me and why. Throughout all of this, we tried to make clear the choice voters had: they could vote for a candidate supported by secret donors and corporate interest groups, or they could vote for someone who would stand up and fight every day for middle class families.
Did you feel your House seat had been targeted by the national Republicans as a winnable seat for them? How did that make you feel?
No. The National Republican Campaign Committee never invested in my race. Instead, secret corporate donors targeted me, because the actions I've taken to hold corporations accountable posed a clear threat to their interests. I consider it a badge of honor that these reckless corporations saw me as such a threat, that they would waste more than $2 million trying to take me out. I've spent my life fighting to help middle class families and I plan to continue fighting for values that strengthen and expand the middle class. I think the questions voters have to ask themselves as we move forward is: "Why did these secret donors spend this much money, and why are they so afraid to tell us who they are?"
You ran a campaign that Politico described before the election as an "unapologetically Democratic campaign." Your opponent tried his best to tie you to Nancy Pelosi and Barack Obama, and -- unlike many Democrats this year -- you did not run away from them, or the Democratic record. Do you think this is why you won?
I think I won because I spent a lot of time talking to voters about the important votes I took to help people in my district, why those votes were necessary, and why I was proud of them. When I first ran for Congress, we talked about bringing the troops home from Iraq, which we're now doing. We talked about raising the minimum wage. We did that. We talked about making sure men and women had equity in the workplace. We did that with the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act. We talked about lowering taxes for middle class families. We did that. We talked about improving access to health care for the 47 million Americans without health insurance. We did that.
In the last two years, we've been working hard to get our economy back on track after reckless Wall Street speculators nearly drove it off a cliff. It took eight years of failed Bush economic policies to get us into that mess and it's going to take a while for us to fully recover, but we've made progress.
I believe every elected official has a responsibility to explain their votes to the people who elected them. I believe that even those who disagree with me will respect the fact that I stand by the things I've done and fight for the values so many Iowans cherish.
Do you think there are any lessons from your campaign that other Democrats should learn, for the future? Or do you think the circumstances you faced were unique and wouldn't necessarily work in other districts or other states, or even other years?
Even though every district and state is unique, I believe voters in every district are looking for similar attributes in the people they elect to represent them. I believe our constituents are looking for leaders with integrity and principle who will listen, work hard and get things done. Not every single person is going to agree with every single vote we take. One lesson I think some of my colleagues learned was that you're going to get attacked for the votes you take, so there's no point trying to run away from them when campaign season rolls around. If you're not willing to stand up and explain why you voted for a certain bill, you shouldn't vote for that bill in the first place.
We weren't elected to solve little problems. We were elected to solve big problems. Some of my colleagues took courageous votes to solve the big problems we face and they lost their jobs as a result. But the people who sleep well at night are the ones who did what they thought was right and had the courage to stand by their records.
At the end of the day, people want to vote for someone they like, someone they trust, and someone who's not afraid to fight for them.
You are chairman of the Populist Caucus in the House. How did the Caucus do in the midterms? How many members will not be coming back in the 112th Congress?
The Populist Caucus lost five members in the midterm elections. Even though many of our members were listed as some of the most vulnerable Democrats, many members were re-elected because of the work we've done to fight for middle class families, create jobs and get our economy back on track.
We're saddened to lose these great members of our caucus and wish them well in the future.
Some in the media have slapped the "populist" label on the Tea Party movement. While this may not be very accurate on their part, do you see any sort of common ground whatsoever on any economic issues where the Populist Caucus -- made up entirely of Democrats so far -- could work together with the Tea Party wing of the Republican Party?
We have common ground in our shared frustration that more has been done to help Wall Street than to help Main Street. In the Populist Caucus, we've been advocating legislation and policies that give middle class families the chance to make it in America again. We have clear differences as to how we go about achieving those goals. Too frequently over the past two years, there has been a complete lack of bipartisanship. When I was growing up in Brooklyn, Iowa, if someone needed help or had a good idea, you didn't ask whether they were Republican or Democrat. I'm hopeful we can reduce the partisanship and get back to common sense in the next few years.
Do Democrats expect much out of the upcoming "lame duck" session of Congress, before the end of the year? Are any jobs measures ready to go, or any other bills we should hope to see passed before the end of the 111th Congress?
It's still unclear what we'll be able to accomplish in the final months of the 111th Congress. I know there has been a lot of discussion about the Bush tax cuts -- whether to permanently or temporarily extend the tax cuts for middle class families, and whether to let the tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans expire. And, as always, the biggest question mark is whether the Senate will be able to get anything done.
What do you hope to accomplish in the next two years, and what do you think will be possible for Democrats in the House to achieve over this period, given the minority you're going to have to work with?
My top priority is continuing to create jobs and getting our economy back on track for middle class families. After that, we need to take a hard look at our current involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan. We'll also need to look at our education policy and what we can do to make sure our kids are getting the education they deserve and need in a competitive global economy.
Regardless of whether I'm serving in the majority or the minority, my most important responsibility is helping people in Iowa's First District. I hope to continue providing a consistently high level of constituent service through my great staff in Iowa and Washington, D.C. Helping people is the most rewarding part of this challenging job and my life has been enriched by the people I've helped who inspire me with their courage and perseverance.
Cross-posted at The Huffington Post
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant
-- Chris Weigant
The biggest difference between 2010 and other years was the sheer amount of secret donors dumping money into my district to help my opponent.
I submit that the only difference is that in 2010 it was GOP secret donors and in 2008 it was DP secret donors...
"Why did these secret donors spend this much money, and why are they so afraid to tell us who they are?"
Same reason why all the secret money poured into the Obama campaign and no one would tell us (the American people) who they were...
When Democrats start identifying each and every one of their secret donors, then I am sure that the GOP will follow suit. :D
Michale.....
When Democrats start identifying each and every one of their secret donors, then I am sure that the GOP will follow suit.
it has nothing to do with left or right, democrat or republican. the secret donors aren't so secret, they're corporate and banking interests. any politician who won't play ball gets hammered with secretly funded smear campaigns against them, regardless of party.
http://usawatchdog.com/democrats-vs-republicans-its-you-vs-corporations/
Great interview, Bruce! I think you stated the best lesson I've seen for Democrats yet:
you're going to get attacked for the votes you take, so there's no point trying to run away from them when campaign season rolls around. If you're not willing to stand up and explain why you voted for a certain bill, you shouldn't vote for that bill in the first place.
BTW- Here's one of the secret donors:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-11-17/insurers-gave-u-s-chamber-86-million-used-to-oppose-obama-s-health-law.html
$86 million buys you an awful lot of anti-health care propaganda.
Cheers
David
p.s. BTW, Michale. I don't think the Obama campaign donors are much of a secret. For example, several Wall St. firm PACs including Goldman, J.P. Morgan and Citigroup made some of the biggest contributions. Do a quick Internet search and you can come up with them pretty quickly. I think things have been different though since the Citizens United decision.
I would say all this conversation about secret donors is unhelpful;Would it not be more prudent to discuss campaign finance reform?I know that no one is seriously going to do anything about political finance reform but I find it dishonest when both parties are pointing fingers.As the political climate heats up as I am sure it will;I will have more to say later on.
NYPoet,
it has nothing to do with left or right, democrat or republican.
It has everything to do with Left and Right, insofar as the political games are concerned.
This current screaming and yelling about "secret donors" is a perfect example..
Where was all the screaming from the Left when Obama and the Dems were raking in millions and millions of dollars from anonymous and traceless debit cards??
The actual problem of secret donors is an us vs corporations issue, true.
But the whining and crying about secret donors in the here and now is definitely a Right vs Left issue...
David,
BTW, Michale. I don't think the Obama campaign donors are much of a secret.
You DO realize that millions and millions of dollars flowed into the Obama campaign from trace-less debit cards, right??
It's funny how the Left screams about anonymous donors from the Right, yet doesn't lose an iota of sleep over the anonymous donors that gave Dems a complete lock on Congress and the White House..
I am with Americulchie. Let's do a total overhaul of campaign finance.
For starters, ANY candidate who wants to run for political office gets a set amount from the Government at the start of the campaign and that is all they get. No more fund-raisers, no more back-room deals, no more corporate influence..
In one fell swoop, ALL of the problems caused by corporate ownership of politicians and our government disappear..
Am I the only one who sees the logic in my plan??
Michale.....
David,
$86 million buys you an awful lot of anti-health care propaganda.
So, what you are saying is that anything that speaks against CrapCare is "propaganda"??
Isn't it just even SLIGHTLY possible that the 86 million simply told people the facts about how bad CrapCare is??
Why is it always only "propaganda"??
Michale.....
Would it not be more prudent to discuss campaign finance reform?
Ok, I'm with 'ya Americulchie.
According to the Internet, the first efforts at campaign finance reform date back to 1867. This is just interesting.
For starters, ANY candidate who wants to run for political office gets a set amount from the Government at the start of the campaign and that is all they get. No more fund-raisers, no more back-room deals, no more corporate influence.
You're talking about the "hard money". Direct contributions to political candidates. McCain-Feingold still has a lot of influence when it comes to this. Contributions are limited by individual donors. I don't see this as the big issue. But your proposal, Michale, is one way to equalize the hard money.
So what about the "soft money"?
What about the contributions to national political parties? What about the money going to organizations who want to influence elections?
Under your plan, would these organizations get a similar government grant?
(Of course this is all theoretical by the way. No way this would ever happen. But it's a good discussion.)
-David
p.s. Speaking of fundraisers. Here's a gentle reminder to donate to CW during the fall fund drive. I'm matching donations up until the first $250. And Michale has pledged to donate for every comment he makes during the holidays.
Click on the donate button in the upper right and support our own CW! Weigantites unite!
So what about the "soft money"?
Eliminate it..
Eliminate ALL contributions, period..
NO ONE gets to contribute ANYTHING to a politician.
That would solve ALL the problems..
Michale.....
I am with Americulchie. Let's do a total overhaul of campaign finance.
The problem is that no one who is in either house in Congress is going to get serious about killing the goose that lays the golden egg;in this 24/7 news cycle it won't take much to distract people from this issue.It is obvious to me that our representatives know most voters have a very short attention span and don't really think of how money has perverted the process.I have talked to people who don't really understand the difference between "soft",and "hard" money;nor do they care.I find myself four square behind Michale on this one;bit it looks to me we are talking about attempting to tilt a windmill.
I have talked to people who don't really understand the difference between "soft",and "hard" money;nor do they care.
Count me as one of those who just don't care..
The obscene amounts of money given to political candidates is the root of the problem.
Get rid of that and you'll see a government that is more representative of the people instead of the corporations..
And, yes. This IS one of those issues that is not a Right vs Left issue.. Because Democrats are as guilty of this as Republicans. Taking in secret donations, avoiding transparency, doing things with back-room deals...
Michale.....
The problem is that no one who is in either house in Congress is going to get serious about killing the goose that lays the golden egg
I find it hard to disagree with Michale on this one as well. Even as much as I would like to :) And you know I'm kidding, Michale. I've found over the years we have more common ground than I ever would have thought.
I do think there's been a push to up the priority of campaign finance reform recently. I think the Dems made a calculation after the 2008 election to hold off on any campaign finance reform to use their political capital elsewheres. In retrospect, it might have been the thing they should have gone after most.
But both of you are right. The bottom line is that pols have figured out that money wins elections. And until this changes or there's something in place to fight it, they'll keep chasing the money.
It's one of the reasons I thought this interview with Bruce was excellent. Here's an example of a guy who was outspent and still won. And he won not by trying to please everyone. He won by standing up for his votes.
-David
p.s. Love or hate?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vxRgNnue-zk
p.s. Love or hate?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vxRgNnue-zk
I got 56 seconds into it before I had to puke.. :D
Not so much the subject matter, that was nauseating enough, but it done to RAP...
Imagine how you would react if you heard someone singing the praises of FoxNews to the tune of "BEER FOR MY HORSE"
Same concept.. :D
Michale.....
10
Michale
I stand four square beside you on this one.We can discuss later who is Sancho Panza. :)
I stand four square beside you on this one.We can discuss later who is Sancho Panza. :)
hehehehehehehe
The best Don Quixote was played by Dr Sam Beckett in Quantum Leap.. :D
Michale.....
11
The best Don Quixote was played by Dr Sam Beckett in Quantum Leap
Michale you definitely have the advantage on the telly front.I rarely have owned a T.V. in the last 20 years as I find most of insipid or annoying.I find almost everything in popular culture insipid and annoying I am beginning to think that I have crossed over into the curmudgeon crowd prematurely.
@Americulchie
Ok. So I can't take it anymore. I have to ask. What's the etymology behind your sobriquet?
(And yes, it is indeed a big-worded day.)
p.s. I'm tired of all the people claiming to be early curmudgeons.
("That's a joke, son! Don't 'ya get. I swear, boy's about as sharp as a sack of wet mice!" - Foghorn Leghorn)
akadjian
I still love Foghorn Leghorn...in fact I remain a devoted fan of all Warner Bros. characters;I've always been since childhood a subversive by nature.
My name actually springs as it were from my Irish ancestry.A Culchie in Ireland is considered an uncouth and dimwitted country person,a rube if you will.Usually they are huge loud and doltish;alas I am short,slender and doltish or I once was.As I have stated before my last name is a Joycean allegory;I think I'll just leave it there.
Americulchie,
I thought your name was a kewl blending of the word American and Culture... :D
Michale
12
thought your name was a kewl blending of the word American and Culture... :D
Michale bless your heart I never thought you would respond to that one.Well Done Lad your post count is growing like a Florida wildfire.People do often ask where my moniker came from;one of the reasons I am here is Chris responded to one of my comments and knew where it came from;that impressed me no end Voila here I am.
Michale [5] -
Um, but that sort of campaign finance reform is a signature issue of the Left. Other than the "maverick" McCain (who disappeared a few years ago, I must point out), this sort of thing is always proposed from the left of the aisle, not the right. I'd be for it, myself. Get the money out of politics, I fully agree with that goal. Which is why I even agreed with the Tea Partiers on the earmarks thing.
David [7] -
Didn't we all agree on "Weigantians"? Now I'm confused...
Heh.
:-)
Americulchie [9] -
Ah, see, now there's the crux of the problem: the people who have to vote new campaign finance laws into effect are the very same people who benefit from the status quo -- meaning "here's a lance, there's a windmill," as you so aptly point out. Sigh.
Michale [12] -
"Beer For My Horse"?!? OK, you've just GOT to post a link to that. Seriously.
Americulchie [15] -
I spent the 1980s without a TV, and with a "Kill Your Television" bumpersticker on my car. I can relate. And curmudgeons are ALWAYS welcome here. My secret dream job is to take over for Andy Rooney -- five minutes a week bitching about something that is a burr under my ass? Heaven. Heh.
[18] -
"I say... I say, boy... you're doin' that all wrong!"
Heh.
As for "culchie" etymology, I would point any non-Irish person to Googling either "Kerryman jokes" or "culchie jokes" to see what Dubliners think of folks from the countryside. With absolutely no offense intended, of course. To their credit, culchies are the ones who can lead you to leprechauns. As my brother-in-law once told me: "You want to see a leprechaun? Go up into the mountains and drink a bunch of culchie poteen, and ye'll see leprechauns..."
But then he may have been pulling my leg. It's hard to tell, at times, with the Irish. Which is half the fun. Heh.
[20] -
... which I never would have been able to do without marrying off a fine redheaded Irish cailin...
:-)
-CW
Americulchie -
Since, as you said, you haven't been here from the beginning, here are the two columns written by the lovely Mrs. Chris Weigant, as guest columns on this site:
"Why I Decided To Become An American"
and
"Celebrating My First Year As An American"
Enjoy!
-CW
Chris
I just read your guest columnist pieces and I found them touching.I really do think that citizens who choose to be Americans are priceless.It is disturbing to note most people who become citizens here know more about the institutions of this country than the native born.I completely concur with your wife as to the importance of voting;but then I grew up around immigrants;everyone of them regardless of where they came from felt the obligation to vote.My feeling is no matter who you support politically one should use their franchise.As a personal aside;one of my first memories as a child was when John Kennedy and his wife were interviewed on Person to Person the excitement of my family was remarkable.Now we have another person in the White House who has a remarkable story;really part of the pageantry of this nation.
Now for the comedic aside of the day;I grew up in a household where the conventional wisdom was this;"Never listen to or vote for a Republican with an Irish last name as they are too stupid to figure out how they got where they are at";I'd say Ronald Reagan fit that to a "T";not to mention that the progenitors of the modern Republican Party were the Know Nothings.I'll leave it there.