Inside Big Business’s Plan to Beat the Tea Party

Frustrated trade groups think they may have a way to counteract the tea party’s influence: Act more like it.

Demonstrators with the Tea Party hold a sign directed at Speaker of the House John Boehner during a protest against the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) targeting of the Tea Party and similar groups during a rally called "Audit the IRS" outside the US Capitol in Washington, DC, June 19, 2013. 
AFP/Getty Images
Alex Roarty
Add to Briefcase
Alex Roarty
Oct. 17, 2013, 1 a.m.

The Re­pub­lic­an Party no longer listens to big busi­ness. Amer­ica’s well-heeled chief ex­ec­ut­ives don’t want to hear this, but after help­lessly watch­ing the law­makers whose cam­paigns they fun­ded close the gov­ern­ment and drive the na­tion to­ward calam­it­ous de­fault, the busi­ness sec­tor — along with its trade groups in Wash­ing­ton — is start­ing to ad­mit it has lost its in­flu­ence. Now, it’s search­ing for a plan.

“We’re get­ting out­worked and out­muscled by a fac­tion of ideo­lo­gic­al act­iv­ism that we “¦ don’t un­der­stand the way we used to un­der­stand the cham­ber-of-com­merce Re­pub­lic­an,” said Dav­id French, a seni­or vice pres­id­ent at the Na­tion­al Re­tail Fed­er­a­tion. French and oth­er busi­ness-sec­tor lob­by­ists are not simply frus­trated; they’re down­right per­plexed by a creature they view as ex­treme and im­prac­tic­al.

But private-sec­tor in­terests — from the fin­an­cial in­dustry and re­tail­ers to de­fense con­tract­ors — see the path ahead as a mine­field. Not only do the tea-party voters who sent the no-com­prom­ise Re­pub­lic­ans to the House view na­tion­al busi­ness groups like the NRF or the cham­ber as “es­tab­lish­ment,” but sup­port­ing a chal­lenger will back­fire if the in­cum­bent pre­vails.

So they’re talk­ing about tak­ing an ap­proach with a smal­ler foot­print, about re­gain­ing lever­age in GOP circles by en­cour­aging grass­roots busi­ness act­iv­ism. That means get­ting loc­al (and polit­ic­ally mod­er­ate) busi­ness own­ers to pres­sure their tea-party law­makers to­ward ne­go­ti­ation and com­prom­ise, and nudging these loc­al (and more polit­ic­ally mod­er­ate) busi­ness lead­ers to run for of­fice them­selves. Any­thing, lob­by­ists and Re­pub­lic­an strategists say, to cre­ate the im­pres­sion that this is an or­gan­ic de­vel­op­ment — that Wash­ing­ton and na­tion­al busi­ness in­terests are keep­ing their heavy hands out of the dis­tricts. “It has to be more ef­fect­ively run out of com­munit­ies and dis­tricts, as op­posed to out of Wash­ing­ton,” French said. “It’s in­cum­bent on the busi­ness com­munity to get more in­volved so that there’s a broad­er base of sup­port than who might nor­mally be con­sidered es­tab­lish­ment.”

The mod­el for that kind of cam­paign move­ment is the tea party it­self, whose largely or­gan­ic groundswell in 2009 paved the way for the elec­tion of many of the House and Sen­ate mem­bers now ter­ror­iz­ing the busi­ness com­munity. “We’re get­ting these loc­al cham­bers a lot more in­volved in the fed­er­a­tion. They’re a lot more in­volved in the policy dis­cus­sions,” said Scott Reed, seni­or polit­ic­al strategist for the U.S. Cham­ber of Com­merce. “And they’re go­ing to be mak­ing some de­cisions on polit­ics.”

While this strategy might — might — help keep an “es­tab­lish­ment” tag from drag­ging down a busi­ness-friendly can­did­ate, there’s ample reas­on for skep­ti­cism. Act­iv­ists, by their nature, are far more en­gaged in polit­ics, and ask­ing more-cau­tious, prag­mat­ic busi­ness own­ers to sud­denly rise up against ul­tracon­ser­vat­ive law­makers could be a stretch. (Be­sides, Wash­ing­ton Re­pub­lic­ans cer­tainly know that many loc­ally fo­cused busi­ness own­ers, angry about the fail­ure of tax re­form and ir­rit­ated by new re­quire­ments un­der the Af­ford­able Care Act, have some stake in sup­port­ing the tea party.)

That’s why some or­gan­iz­a­tions are de­clin­ing to de­lude them­selves, even if their own plans to deal with the tea party amount to little more than white-board brain­storm­ing. Some Re­pub­lic­an op­er­at­ives have sug­ges­ted fun­nel­ing money in­to su­per PACs ded­ic­ated to back­ing only busi­ness-friendly Re­pub­lic­ans, with the aim of dis­guising the money’s ori­gin. That might pre­vent the kind of tea-party-versus-es­tab­lish­ment con­flict that busi­ness groups would be destined to lose. “You go find a will­ing bil­lion­aire and you’re off to the races,” said one former polit­ic­al strategist with a big-busi­ness trade group.

In­deed, money might ul­ti­mately be the only ef­fect­ive lever for many busi­ness groups — that is, if they spend it in a more tar­geted fash­ion and avoid the tempta­tion, fueled by a sea­son of fisc­al ir­rit­a­tion, to simply stop con­trib­ut­ing in large quant­it­ies to the GOP um­brella groups that need them: the Na­tion­al Re­pub­lic­an Sen­at­ori­al Com­mit­tee and the Na­tion­al Re­pub­lic­an Con­gres­sion­al Com­mit­tee. “I would hate to be [NR­CC Chair­man] Greg Walden or any of those people over there try­ing to raise money,” said the former big-busi­ness op­er­at­ive. The op­er­at­ive ad­ded that he’s “already circled the day of Nov. 15 on the cal­en­dar,” when the NR­CC’s Oc­to­ber dona­tions are due to be re­por­ted. Echoed French, “One likely by-product of this con­ver­sa­tion is for donors in busi­ness circles to just throw up their hands and give up and walk away.”

An NR­CC aide re­jects the idea that the cam­paign com­mit­tees will be pun­ished. “While [busi­ness in­terests] have every right to be frus­trated with ex­treme wings of both parties, I think at end of the day, they’ll come home to House Re­pub­lic­ans, be­cause we are the last line of de­fense when it comes to block­ing reg­u­la­tions and policies that will severely im­pact their bot­tom line,” the aide said. Sure, busi­ness lead­ers know their quar­rels are with a just few dozen of the most con­ser­vat­ive law­makers of Con­gress. They also still prefer the GOP’s an­ti­tax, an­ti­reg­u­la­tion agenda to the Demo­crats’ philo­sophy.

But the busi­ness sec­tor is op­er­at­ing with a fresh sense of ur­gency. So while some op­er­at­ives think hard-line con­ser­vat­ives will feel pres­sure only after true and tra­gic calam­ity ac­tu­ally en­sues (“It’s about their con­stitu­ents start­ing to feel a sig­ni­fic­ant amount of eco­nom­ic pain as a res­ult of their ac­tions,” one busi­ness lob­by­ist said), cor­por­a­tions are real­iz­ing they don’t have the lux­ury, or the stom­ach, to wait those voters out.

What We're Following See More »
JUST IN CASE…
White House Adds Five New SCOTUS Candidates
3 hours ago
THE DETAILS

President Trump added five new names to his Supreme Court short list on Friday, should a need arise to appoint a new justice. The list now numbers 25 individuals. They are: 7th Circuit Appeals Judge Amy Coney Barrett, Georgia Supreme Court Justice Britt C. Grant, District of Columbia Circuit Appeals Court Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh, 11th Circuit Appeals Judge Kevin C. Newsom, and Oklahoma Supreme Court Justice Patrick Wyrick.

SAVE THOSE PERTAINING TO EXEC BRANCH
Sessions: DOJ Will No Longer Issue Guidance Documents
3 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

"Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced Friday the Justice Department will revamp its policy for issuing guidance documents. Speaking at the Federalist Society’s annual conference in Washington Friday, Sessions said the Justice Department will no longer issue guidance that 'purports to impose new obligations on any party outside the executive branch.' He said DOJ will review and repeal any documents that could violate this policy." Sessions said: “Too often, rather than going through the long, slow, regulatory process provided in statute, agencies make new rules through guidance documents—by simply sending a letter. This cuts off the public from the regulatory process by skipping the required public hearings and comment periods—and it is simply not what these documents are for. Guidance documents should be used to explain existing law—not to change it.”

Source:
STARTS LEGAL FUND FOR WH STAFF
Trump to Begin Covering His Own Legal Bills
5 hours ago
THE DETAILS
DISCUSSED THE MATTER FOR A NEW BOOK
Steele Says Follow the Money
6 hours ago
STAFF PICKS

"Christopher Steele, the former British intelligence officer who wrote the explosive dossier alleging ties between Donald Trump and Russia," says in a new book by The Guardian's Luke Harding that "Trump's land and hotel deals with Russians needed to be examined. ... Steele did not go into further detail, Harding said, but seemed to be referring to a 2008 home sale to the Russian oligarch Dmitry Rybolovlev. Richard Dearlove, who headed the UK foreign-intelligence unit MI6 between 1999 and 2004, said in April that Trump borrowed money from Russia for his business during the 2008 financial crisis."

Source:
BRITISH PUBLICIST CONNECTED TO TRUMP TOWER MEETING
Goldstone Ready to Meet with Mueller’s Team
7 hours ago
THE LATEST

"The British publicist who helped set up the fateful meeting between Donald Trump Jr. and a group of Russians at Trump Tower in June 2016 is ready to meet with Special Prosecutor Robert Mueller's office, according to several people familiar with the matter. Rob Goldstone has been living in Bangkok, Thailand, but has been communicating with Mueller's office through his lawyer, said a source close to Goldstone."

Source:
×
×

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.

Login