Abuse of Power

Although significant attention has focused on the more than 400 anti-voter bills introduced (several dozen of which have become law) in state legislatures since the insurrection, some federal bills also portend a dangerous trend. Congressional Republicans have introduced more than 30 anti-voter bills since the insurrection that have largely gone unnoticed. These anti-voter bills telegraph what congressional MAGA Republicans would like to do: make it harder for certain Americans to vote.

Mr. Zeldin’s pledge to push him out “is an authoritarian move,” said Susan Lerner, the executive director of Common Cause New York, a good government advocacy group. “If the voters recall a D.A., that’s the will of the voters. But for some other entity to override the will of the voters is antithetical to our system of governance.”

A new report from Common Cause, “Extremists’ Plot to Nationalize Voter Suppression: 2023 and Beyond,” examines a new wave of anti-voter bills that have been introduced by Republicans in Congress representing an attempt to nationalize voter suppression. These extremist bills have largely been ignored by the public and the media, but should Republicans gain control of the U.S. House or Senate, these bills would represent a serious threat to the freedom to vote for millions of Americans.

"No American is above the law, including former presidents and their advisers," Aaron Scherb, senior director of legislative affairs at Common Cause, said in a statement. "Steve Bannon learned that today through a jail sentence and a fine for defying a subpoena from the January 6th Committee." "It is imperative that Congress have subpoena power with teeth in order to fulfill its oversight and investigatory responsibilities," Scherb added. "If individuals could defy congressional subpoenas with impunity, our system of checks and balances would break down."

No American is above the law, including former Presidents and their advisors. Steve Bannon learned that today through a jail sentence and a fine for defying a subpoena from the January 6th Committee.

The main reason behind the fight over assets, said Jonathan Mehta Stein of California Common Cause, is the political benefits they can bring to a council member. “It all goes back to campaign fundraising and building power,” said Stein, who is the group’s executive director. Those benefits are twofold, Stein said. First, having a business or commercial hub in your district puts you in contact with business owners who want to curry favor with you, which translates into campaign donations. And second, having a significant asset such as a major event space or a high-profile business gives you opportunities to hobnob with VIPs and powerful state figures. “You’re building your networks; you’re building your Rolodex,” developing social cachet that will come in handy when you’re running for higher office, he said. What the call revealed was council members “trying to build the political power of one racial or ethnic group at the expense of another,” Stein said. “But their own interest in the future of their political careers was also at play amid all the racism. ... When they’re trying to secure economic assets in their districts or their friends’ districts, they are trying to secure a glide path to more power, more influence and higher office for themselves and their friends.”