Why Republicans Can’t Stop Eating Chick-Fil-A

Congressional Republicans can’t get enough of the chicken sandwiches.

Robert Neubecker
Sarah Mimms
Add to Briefcase
Sarah Mimms
March 13, 2015, 12:42 a.m.

After the State of the Uni­on speech in Janu­ary, Sen. Lisa Murkowski pressed past the phalanx of shout­ing re­port­ers in Statu­ary Hall and snaked her way through the Cap­it­ol to­ward the Sen­ate cham­ber and a smal­ler, quieter gaggle of re­port­ers. It was nearly mid­night on a long day that had also fea­tured the year’s first meet­ing of the Na­tion­al Re­pub­lic­an Sen­at­ori­al Com­mit­tee, whose help Murkowski will need in her 2016 reelec­tion bid; in 2010, the Alaska Re­pub­lic­an lost the GOP nom­in­a­tion and had to mount a write-in cam­paign to keep her seat. But when I asked her what had happened at the NR­SC meet­ing, the sen­at­or’s mind went not to strategy and fun­drais­ing, but to food. “It was Chick-fil-A! We al­ways have Chick-fil-A!” she com­plained. “I don’t mind Chick-fil-A every now and again, but you know, here’s my deal: I’m really try­ing to eat health­i­er. I don’t know what they coat that Chick-fil-A stuff in.”

(RE­LATED: Di­et­ary Pan­el: Eat­ing Less Meat is Bet­ter for the En­vir­on­ment)

Since 2012, when the At­lanta-based fried-chick­en chain came un­der fire for donat­ing mil­lions to groups fight­ing same-sex mar­riage — and CEO Dan Cathy de­clared that re­de­fin­ing mar­riage was “in­vit­ing God’s judg­ment on our na­tion” — Chick-fil-A has be­come con­gres­sion­al Re­pub­lic­ans’ fast food of choice, a cul­ture-war state­ment on a bun. When former Arkan­sas Gov. Mike Hucka­bee or­gan­ized a “Chick-fil-A Ap­pre­ci­ation Day” that Au­gust, de­fy­ing lib­er­al boy­cotts, Cap­it­ol Hill con­ser­vat­ives en­thu­si­ast­ic­ally joined in, filling con­fer­ence rooms with chick­en nug­gets and tweet­ing pho­tos of them­selves at Chick-fil-A drive-ins.

Two and a half years later, the scent of fried chick­en prac­tic­ally per­meates the walls of the Cap­it­ol. Tea-party mem­bers in the House nosh on ori­gin­al chick­en sand­wiches and waffle fries at the Her­it­age Found­a­tion’s monthly “Con­ver­sa­tions with Con­ser­vat­ives.” Sen. Lind­sey Gra­ham of South Car­o­lina, a long­time Chick-fil-A afi­cion­ado, has the chain cater his birth­day lunch party every year. Dur­ing late-night GOP strategy ses­sions in the Sen­ate ahead of a po­ten­tial gov­ern­ment shut­down in Decem­ber, Chick-fil-A was the hun­ger-re­liev­er of choice. And while Speak­er John Boehner prefers a glass of red wine and Itali­an dishes served al­fresco at Trat­tor­ia Al­berto, his of­fice has dropped hun­dreds on Chick-fil-A fare in the last few years — though Boehner spokes­man Mi­chael Steel says he’s nev­er seen the speak­er him­self in­dulge. (Steel would not com­ment fur­ther.)

(RE­LATED: Why Some GOP Pres­id­en­tial Hope­fuls Are Stay­ing Quiet About Gay Mar­riage)

“They kinda got ab­used,” says Re­pub­lic­an Sen. Jeff Ses­sions of Alabama, “and I guess some would like to sup­port ‘em.” Evid­ently so: Since Cathy made his con­tro­ver­sial com­ments, House Re­pub­lic­ans have spent nearly $13,000 in tax­pay­er money or­der­ing Chick-fil-A, ac­cord­ing to ex­pendit­ure re­ports filed through Ju­ly 2014 (the latest avail­able). That’s the equi­val­ent of 3,900 ori­gin­al chick­en sand­wiches, and it rep­res­ents a 37-fold in­crease over the paltry $345 the House GOP had spent on Chick-fil-A the pre­vi­ous three years. (It also may be an un­der­count, since some re­ceipts say only “food and bever­age” without spe­cify­ing a source.) Fig­ures for the Sen­ate were not avail­able, but the GOP’s cam­paign arms have been eat­ing “mor chikin” as well: The Re­pub­lic­an Na­tion­al Com­mit­tee has doubled its Chick-fil-A spend­ing, while the Na­tion­al Re­pub­lic­an Con­gres­sion­al Com­mit­tee spends more than 10 times as much as it used to.

Demo­crats, on the oth­er hand, have dialed back their Chick-fil-A spend­ing sig­ni­fic­antly. The Demo­crat­ic Con­gres­sion­al Cam­paign Com­mit­tee hasn’t spent a dime on Chick-fil-A since May 2012 — and even then, it was for a single $6 meal. In a sign that Chick-fil-A re­mains a sens­it­ive polit­ic­al top­ic, the of­fices of the two Demo­crat­ic rep­res­ent­at­ives who’ve placed an or­der since the gay-mar­riage flap — Reps. John Con­yers of Michigan and Terri Sewell of Alabama — both de­clined mul­tiple re­quests to com­ment for this story.

Sev­er­al House Re­pub­lic­an staffers strenu­ously denied that cul­tur­al polit­ics was at the root of the mem­bers’ eat­ing habits. Re­pub­lic­an groups like Her­it­age, they poin­ted out, have been Chick-fil-A ad­dicts for a dec­ade. “It’s not served as some type of polit­ic­al state­ment,” House Budget Com­mit­tee spokes­man Will Al­lis­on told me by email. “It’s just tasty and I guess easy to or­der in bulk. They’re also great cor­por­ate cit­izens — not open on Sundays, so em­ploy­ees have the day off, and ter­rif­ic cus­tom­er ser­vice.”

(RE­LATED: The Four States the Su­preme Court Wants to Hear From on Gay Mar­riage)

Pla­cing an or­der might in­deed be a snap, but the de­liv­ery pro­cess is not. Al­though the Cap­it­ol is sur­roun­ded by dozens of res­taur­ants that cater, there is only one Chick-fil-A fran­chise in Wash­ing­ton, a small out­post at Cath­ol­ic Uni­versity that doesn’t de­liv­er. To get their bosses a fix, Hill staffers have to or­der from out­lets in Mary­land and Vir­gin­ia — of­ten from a tiny, dimly lit food court 8 miles away in Ball­ston, Vir­gin­ia, where Jeff Burke, a jovi­al 51-year-old with a white mus­tache, op­er­ates a Chick-fil-A fran­chise that’s been churn­ing out food for Re­pub­lic­an groups for more than a dec­ade.

To get the chick­en to hungry Re­pub­lic­ans still hot, Burke and his team of more than 40 em­ploy­ees have just 30 to 45 minutes to take raw chick­en breasts and strips, coat them in eggs, milk, and the brand’s spe­cial bread­ing (there’s your an­swer, Sen. Murkowski), fry them up, and then drive their own cars the 8 miles to Cap­it­ol Hill — where, un­able to get through se­cur­ity, they pass the still-steam­ing bags to con­gres­sion­al staffers, some­times in the middle of the street.

“They love us on the Hill,” Burke says. “You’d think it’s just where we’re at — you know, Geor­gia, South Car­o­lina. But we’re get­ting these del­eg­ates from all over the coun­try, even when we’re not in their states yet.” It all star­ted with Her­it­age — which still or­ders once or twice even in a “slow week,” he says — and then spread across the Cap­it­ol by word of mouth. Burke, who is not much for polit­ics, says most of the time he has no idea which party his cus­tom­ers be­long to. “I’ll do Lamar Al­ex­an­der,” he says, “but I don’t even know which side of the aisle he sits on. I’ve nev­er thought about that, which side’s en­joy­ing us the most.” The ques­tion re­minds him of one of the com­pany’s old ads, he says with a laugh: “Chick­en’s not right-wing or left-wing.” But he al­lows that the com­pany’s Chris­ti­an ori­ent­a­tion, sym­bol­ized by its de­cision to stay closed on Sundays, is prob­ably a factor. “It’s im­port­ant to me be­cause I get a day off,” he jokes.

Burke used to run a second fran­chise in Al­ex­an­dria, Vir­gin­ia, the one that caters Gra­ham’s birth­day parties. “Lind­sey,” as he calls him, would send Burke a photo with a note as a thank-you, and Burke would re­spond with a gift of his own — a mug or oth­er Chick-fil-A trinket as a birth­day gift for the sen­at­or. Sadly, Burke says, the two have nev­er met, but based on their cor­res­pond­ence, he be­lieves they are “kindred spir­its.” “I don’t know if we ever met that we’d be best friends, or any­thing like that,” Burke says. “But if he needed a good chick­en sand­wich, I know where he can get one.”

What We're Following See More »
Trump Tells Congress North Korea Remains a Threat
17 minutes ago

In a letter to Congress on Friday, President Trump wrote that he's continuing the national emergency status with respect to North Korea, citing the country's “provocative, destabilizing, and repressive actions," which "continue to constitute an unusual and extraordinary threat” to the United States. In a series of tweets following his meeting with Kim Jong-un, Trump said Americans could sleep well at night because North Korea no longer poses a nuclear threat.

Navy Document Outlines Plans For Detention Camps
1 hours ago

"The U.S. Navy is preparing plans to construct sprawling detention centers for tens of thousands of immigrants on remote bases in California, Alabama and Arizona, escalating the military’s task in implementing President Donald Trump’s 'zero tolerance' policy for people caught crossing the Southern border." The document outlines plans for "temporary and austere" internment camps for 25,000 migrants "at abandoned airfields just outside the Florida panhandle," and in Alabama, for 47,000 people near San Francisco, and "as many as 47,000 people at Camp Pendleton" in California. The document estimates that operating a camp to detain 25,000 people for six months would cost approximately $233 million.

U.S. Military Aircraft Targeted By Lasers
3 hours ago

"Lasers have targeted pilots of American military aircraft operating over the western Pacific Ocean more than 20 times in recent months," said U.S. officials. The lasers appeared to be coming from Chinese fishing boats in the South China Sea, said the officials, which is the setting of a "long-running dispute between China and Japan over the control of nearby islands ... The incidents likely will come up as part of a broader discussion of issues when Defense Secretary Jim Mattis visits Beijing next week and meets Chinese President Xi Jinping."

Trump Overturns Obama Orders on Oceans
3 hours ago

"President Donald Trump has unveiled a new policy that depicts the world’s oceans as a resource ripe for expanded business opportunities, reversing the Obama administration's emphasis on protecting 'vulnerable' marine environments." Rather than emphasizing environmental protection, as Obama's policy did, "Trump’s directive speaks mostly to the oceans as a resource for promoting national security" and creating jobs.

Supreme Court Says Warrant Needed to Track Cell Phones
4 hours ago

"In a 5-4 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court gave a victory to privacy advocates on Friday, ruling that police generally must have permission from a judge before they can get cellphone records to plot the movements of individual customers. The decision requires police departments nationwide to get a search warrant in order to obtain telephone company data to track where a user has been. The technique is widespread, given that 95 percent of Americans own a cellphone."


Welcome to National Journal!

You are currently accessing National Journal from IP access. Please login to access this feature. If you have any questions, please contact your Dedicated Advisor.