Republican Lawmakers Retaliate Against Heritage Foundation

Conservatives kick the right-wing think tank’s employees out of planning meetings after a blowup over the farm bill.

Rep. Steve Scalise, R-La., speaks at the Southern Republican Leadership Conference in New Orleans, Saturday, April 10, 2010. 
National Journal
Tim Alberta
Add to Briefcase
Tim Alberta
Aug. 28, 2013, 11:17 a.m.

Since Re­pub­lic­ans re­gained con­trol of the House in 2011, con­ser­vat­ive out­side groups have ex­ecuted a re­lent­less pres­sure cam­paign aimed at push­ing the House ma­jor­ity fur­ther to­ward the base, and im­press­ing upon law­makers the risks of vot­ing against the re­com­mend­a­tion of these right-wing rain­makers.

But after a sum­mer­time spat over ag­ri­cul­ture policy, GOP law­makers de­cided to push back.

Ac­cord­ing to sev­er­al sources with dir­ect know­ledge of the situ­ation, the Re­pub­lic­an Study Com­mit­tee — a group of 172 con­ser­vat­ive House mem­bers — has barred Her­it­age Found­a­tion em­ploy­ees from at­tend­ing its weekly meet­ing in the Cap­it­ol. The con­ser­vat­ive think tank has been a pres­ence at RSC meet­ings for dec­ades and en­joys a close work­ing re­la­tion­ship with the com­mit­tee and its mem­bers. But that re­la­tion­ship is now stretched thin, sources say, due to a series of policy dis­putes that cul­min­ated with a blowup over last month’s vote on the the farm bill.

RSC Chair­man Steve Scal­ise, R-La., told Her­it­age of­fi­cials of his de­cision last month.

“The Her­it­age Found­a­tion and the RSC have a long­stand­ing re­la­tion­ship in de­vel­op­ing and pro­mot­ing con­ser­vat­ive solu­tions to the prob­lems fa­cing our na­tion, and we are proud to con­tin­ue that tra­di­tion to this day through reg­u­lar joint events and brief­ings,” said Steph­en Bell, spokes­man for Scal­ise and the RSC.

Still, the move to ef­fect­ively kick Her­it­age out of the weekly RSC meet­ing rep­res­ents “a seis­mic shift” in the re­la­tion­ship between the two in­sti­tu­tions, ac­cord­ing to one high-rank­ing Cap­it­ol Hill aide.

The ac­ri­mony can be traced to a pair of sum­mer show­downs over ag­ri­cul­ture policy.

In June, as the House pre­pared to vote on an ex­ten­sion of the farm bill — an enorm­ous le­gis­lat­ive pack­age that gov­erns everything from crop sub­sidies to food-stamp policy — con­ser­vat­ive law­makers and out­side groups ral­lied in op­pos­i­tion. Her­it­age Ac­tion, the lob­by­ing arm of the right-wing think tank, called for the bill to be split in­to two pieces — one deal­ing spe­cific­ally with ag­ri­cul­ture policy (called a “farm-only bill”) and an­oth­er le­gis­lat­ing the Sup­ple­ment­al Nu­tri­tion As­sist­ance Pro­gram, the food-stamp pro­gram known as SNAP.

Mem­bers of the RSC agreed. In fact, Rep. Marlin Stutz­man of In­di­ana sponsored an amend­ment that would ac­com­plish ex­actly what Her­it­age Ac­tion and oth­er out­side groups were ad­voc­at­ing: split­ting the farm bill. Stutz­man’s amend­ment failed, however, and Her­it­age Ac­tion is­sued a key vote alert warn­ing law­makers to vote “no” on the farm bill. (If they voted “yes,” mem­bers faced con­sequences, any­thing from a de­mer­it on their Her­it­age Ac­tion “score­card” to a 30-second ra­dio ad launched back in their dis­tricts.)

The vast ma­jor­ity of GOP law­makers, in­clud­ing many con­ser­vat­ives from rur­al dis­tricts, ig­nored the out­cry from the right and voted for the bill. But in the end, 62 House Re­pub­lic­ans sided with Her­it­age Ac­tion, enough to help Demo­crats de­feat a bill that they de­nounced for its steep cuts to safety-net pro­grams.

For Speak­er John Boehner, R-Ohio, who had pub­licly en­dorsed the farm bill, the de­feat was a black eye. With­in hours, mem­bers of his lead­er­ship team were con­fer­ring with lead­ing RSC mem­bers who had op­posed the le­gis­la­tion, and so­li­cit­ing sug­ges­tions on how to pass a re­vised farm bill. Their re­sponse: Split the ag­ri­cul­ture policy in­to a sep­ar­ate bill — just as the out­side groups have been ad­voc­at­ing — and we’ll vote yes.

Boehner and his team even­tu­ally agreed, and three weeks later a farm-only bill came to the House floor. Of the 62 Re­pub­lic­ans who voted against the first farm bill, 48 sup­por­ted this second it­er­a­tion, which passed by a nar­row mar­gin. Lead­er­ship had its farm bill vic­tory, and RSC mem­bers con­grat­u­lated each oth­er on achiev­ing an ideo­lo­gic­al goal that had been dis­cussed for dec­ades: sep­ar­at­ing ag­ri­cul­ture policy from food stamps.

But not all con­ser­vat­ives were cel­eb­rat­ing. The new farm bill had passed over the ob­jec­tions of Her­it­age Ac­tion, which, to the as­ton­ish­ment of some RSC mem­bers, had is­sued an­oth­er alert, telling con­ser­vat­ives to vote against the split bill — des­pite hav­ing spent years agit­at­ing for ex­actly that. In its warn­ing, Her­it­age Ac­tion said the re­vised le­gis­la­tion “would make per­man­ent farm policies — like the sug­ar pro­gram — that harm con­sumers and tax­pay­ers alike.”


To some con­ser­vat­ive mem­bers, this was Her­it­age Ac­tion mov­ing the goal­posts, plain and simple. And they were furi­ous about it. Mem­bers mumbled to each oth­er about how it had be­come im­possible to please these power­ful out­side groups, which are known to raise more money off Demo­crat­ic vic­tor­ies than Re­pub­lic­an ones. There was, as one Hill aide put it, “enorm­ous dis­con­tent” among con­ser­vat­ive mem­bers who were tired of feel­ing threatened by an out­side group that ex­is­ted as a para­site liv­ing off the Re­pub­lic­an mem­bers of Con­gress.

That’s when Rep. Mick Mul­vaney, R-S.C., de­cided to do something about it. An am­bi­tious con­ser­vat­ive elec­ted in the tea-party wave of 2010, Mul­vaney was per­fectly po­si­tioned to spear­head an of­fens­ive aimed at un­der­min­ing the in­flu­ence of these out­side groups. At the be­gin­ning of the 113th Con­gress, Her­it­age Ac­tion named Mul­vaney one of its “sen­tinels” for his ul­tracon­ser­vat­ive vot­ing re­cord, which had earned him a 95 per­cent rat­ing on the or­gan­iz­a­tion’s score­card for the 112th Con­gress.

Now, some six months later, Mul­vaney was de­term­ined to send a mes­sage to Her­it­age Ac­tion. “I wanted to take them to task for their in­con­sist­ency,” Mul­vaney re­calls. “I wanted to draw at­ten­tion to the fact that Her­it­age was now scor­ing against Re­pub­lic­ans for do­ing ex­actly what Her­it­age had been es­pous­ing only a month be­fore.”

(Her­it­age Ac­tion com­mu­nic­a­tions dir­ect­or Dan Holler said Mul­vaney was well aware that they would re­ject any farm bill that did not make sub­stan­tial re­forms to crop sub­sidies and oth­er pro­grams, and there­fore should not have been sur­prised by their op­pos­i­tion.) 

To do this, Mul­vaney needed strength in num­bers. A single con­ser­vat­ive law­maker re­buk­ing a like-minded out­side group wouldn’t mean much, he de­cided, but a posse of tea-party types cri­ti­ciz­ing the very or­gan­iz­a­tion that has been laud­ing their de­fense of liberty — now that would grab Wash­ing­ton’s at­ten­tion.

Mul­vaney’s idea was to pen a joint op-ed from con­ser­vat­ive law­makers, pub­lished in The Wall Street Journ­al, slap­ping the wrist of Her­it­age Ac­tion. Mul­vaney began draft­ing a list of re­cruits that met spe­cif­ic cri­ter­ia: They had voted against the first farm bill; they had voted for the second farm bill; and they had a strong score­card rat­ing with Her­it­age Ac­tion.

Mul­vaney reached out to roughly two dozen col­leagues who fit the bill. His star re­cruit, sources say, was Rep. Jim Briden­stine of Ok­lahoma, a fresh­man tea-party fa­vor­ite who en­joys a 95 per­cent rat­ing from Her­it­age Ac­tion — among the highest marks in the House. Briden­stine ac­know­ledged that he agreed to join Mul­vaney, but down­played his dis­pleas­ure with any out­side group. “The only reas­on I was in­ter­ested in the op-ed was to ex­plain my votes — why I voted against the first farm bill and for the second farm bill,” Briden­stine said. “It was not about go­ing on the of­fens­ive against Her­it­age Ac­tion, be­cause I think that would be very coun­ter­pro­duct­ive.”


Ac­cord­ing to Mul­vaney, “between six and 10” of the law­makers he con­tac­ted agreed to join him. They began pre­par­ing their WSJ piece, and, ac­cord­ing to sources, had reached an agree­ment with the news­pa­per on when to run it. As they were put­ting on the fin­ish­ing touches, however, Mul­vaney said he re­ceived an e-mail from one Her­it­age of­fi­cial. They knew what the mem­bers were up to, the of­fi­cial said, and asked them not to fol­low through. “We get the point,” the e-mail read.

After sev­er­al days of de­lib­er­a­tion, Mul­vaney and his crew de­cided to stand down. “There was frus­tra­tion there,” Briden­stine re­calls, speak­ing of oth­er mem­bers in­volved. “But ul­ti­mately we made a de­cision that cre­at­ing any kind of day­light between them and us was not really in our best in­terest. So we de­cided not to do the op-ed.”

Days later, The Wall Street Journ­al pub­lished a story in its print edi­tion — “Think Tank Be­comes a Hand­ful for GOP” — de­tail­ing the dis­pleas­ure GOP law­makers felt with Her­it­age Ac­tion. The first quote of the story be­longs to Mul­vaney. “We went in­to battle think­ing they were on our side, and we find out they’re shoot­ing at us,” he said of Her­it­age Ac­tion’s op­pos­i­tion to the re­vised farm bill, which he said “un­der­mines the cred­ib­il­ity of the or­gan­iz­a­tion.”

The story spawned a new wave of mur­mur­ings with­in the con­ser­vat­ive com­munity on Cap­it­ol Hill, where RSC mem­bers and their staffers had already be­gun hear­ing ru­mors of a co­ordin­ated rep­rim­and of Her­it­age Ac­tion.

That’s when Scal­ise stepped in. The RSC chair­man was among the mem­bers Mul­vaney had re­cruited for the op-ed, but had not com­mit­ted to join­ing. Now, with the WSJ story cir­cu­lat­ing and mem­bers grow­ing more vo­cal in their dis­pleas­ure with Her­it­age Ac­tion — one staffer de­scribed it as “an in­sur­rec­tion” brew­ing with­in the RSC — Scal­ise knew something had to be done.

After con­sult­ing with seni­or mem­bers of the RSC, Scal­ise reached a de­cision: Her­it­age em­ploy­ees would no longer be wel­come to at­tend RSC meet­ings.

“Scal­ise was work­ing on a way to quell the re­bel­lion, to let mem­bers know he was hand­ling it,” said one source, who is not af­fil­i­ated with Scal­ise or the RSC. After the farm-bill in­cid­ent, the source said, “There was a lot of mis­trust in that RSC meet­ing room.”

One GOP law­maker fa­mil­i­ar with Scal­ise’s de­cision, who spoke on con­di­tion of an­onym­ity, in­sisted that the RSC chair­man had long been con­sid­er­ing the Her­it­age ouster, and in­sisted that the tim­ing of Scal­ise’s de­cision was “en­tirely co­in­cid­ent­al.” Oth­er sources dis­puted that as­ser­tion, ar­guing that the farm bill epis­ode was cer­tainly the gal­van­iz­ing in­cid­ent that caused Her­it­age to be re­moved — re­gard­less of how long Scal­ise had been en­ter­tain­ing the idea.

Whatever the cause, many con­ser­vat­ive Hill aides say the move was long over­due, ar­guing that if the RSC really is a “mem­ber-driv­en or­gan­iz­a­tion” it should not al­low out­side forces to in­flu­ence its in­tern­al de­lib­er­a­tions. “These are closed meet­ings for a reas­on,” one aide said. “It’s one mem­ber, and one staffer al­lowed per mem­ber. No press. No guests. So why are they (Her­it­age) dif­fer­ent?”

Her­it­age of­fi­cials would not com­ment on their re­mov­al from RSC meet­ings. “Since its found­ing, the Her­it­age Found­a­tion has main­tained a strong re­la­tion­ship with the Re­pub­lic­an Study Com­mit­tee, one that con­tin­ues to this day,” said Mike Gonza­lez, vice pres­id­ent of com­mu­nic­a­tions for the Her­it­age Found­a­tion.

As for the Ac­tion side, Holler said simply, “Her­it­age Ac­tion does not com­ment on mem­ber meet­ings.”


Her­it­age was al­lowed unique ac­cess be­cause of its his­tor­ic­al bond with the RSC.

The two groups were formed in the same year by some of the same people, and worked side-by-side for dec­ades fo­cus­ing on policy re­search rather than polit­ic­al strategy. That changed in 2010, when Re­pub­lic­ans won back the House and the Her­it­age Found­a­tion spawned Her­it­age Ac­tion.

There were prom­ises of leg­al sep­ar­a­tion between the two en­tit­ies, of course, but Re­pub­lic­ans had little doubt that the line would even­tu­ally blur between policy shop and polit­ic­al out­fit. And in the 113th Con­gress, ac­cord­ing to Hill aides, the “wall” that Her­it­age em­ploy­ees refer to — sep­ar­at­ing the Ac­tion side from the Found­a­tion side — has come crash­ing down.

This time frame co­in­cides with the ar­rival of former Sen. Jim De­Mint, who in Janu­ary resigned his seat to take over as pres­id­ent of the Her­it­age Found­a­tion.

De­Mint and his Sen­ate Con­ser­vat­ives Fund had pre­vi­ously raised huge sums of money by pick­ing on es­tab­lish­ment Re­pub­lic­ans, many of whom had con­ser­vat­ive vot­ing re­cords. This re­lent­less pur­suit of ideo­lo­gic­al pur­ity, fin­anced by fat checks from con­ser­vat­ive donors, ali­en­ated law­makers from De­Mint and his or­gan­iz­a­tion.

With De­Mint now at the reins of Her­it­age, Re­pub­lic­ans on Cap­it­ol Hill see that pat­tern re­peat­ing it­self.

(Iron­ic­ally, it was De­Mint’s pre­de­cessor, Ed Feul­ner, who in 1973 was in­stru­ment­al in es­tab­lish­ing both the Her­it­age Found­a­tion and the Re­pub­lic­an Study Com­mit­tee. A former House aide, Feul­ner was a found­ing fath­er to both or­gan­iz­a­tions. That shared an­ces­try was crit­ic­al to main­tain­ing the power­ful co­ali­tion between Her­it­age and the RSC for the past 40 years. Now, mere months after Feul­ner re­lin­quished power at Her­it­age, the or­gan­iz­a­tion has been dis­missed from the RSC meet­ings it has at­ten­ded for dec­ades.)

If noth­ing else, the schism is sym­bol­ic, rep­res­ent­ing an emer­ging di­vide between some con­ser­vat­ives in Con­gress who ar­gue for amass­ing small policy vic­tor­ies, and the con­ser­vat­ive out­side groups that will settle for noth­ing less than out­right ideo­lo­gic­al pur­ity.

As one con­ser­vat­ive House aide put it, “We can’t score touch­downs on every play; our job is to put points on the board. But all they want us to do is throw Hail Marys.”

That sen­ti­ment echoes the frus­tra­tion of some mem­bers, but not all of them. There were 12 Re­pub­lic­ans who voted against both farm bills, and ad­di­tion­ally, some mem­bers, such as Briden­stine, who say they still trust the Her­it­age brand — des­pite be­ing on the op­pos­ing side of the farm-bill fight.

“I think they’re a great group; I think they help us as le­gis­lat­ors make good de­cisions,” Briden­stine said. “I don’t have any prob­lem with what Her­it­age Ac­tion is do­ing.”

It’s un­clear wheth­er this breach in re­la­tions will ex­tend bey­ond Her­it­age’s re­mov­al from the RSC meet­ings. The two en­tit­ies have long worked closely to­geth­er on le­gis­lat­ive re­search and event plan­ning, and Her­it­age pays for a vari­ety of jun­kets en­joyed by RSC mem­bers. (For ex­ample, the three-day RSC re­treat back in Feb­ru­ary was fin­anced en­tirely by Her­it­age.) Should a more last­ing schism emerge between the two, the RSC could be forced to look else­where for fin­an­cial sup­port for some of its tra­di­tion­al en­deavors.

So far there is no sign of es­cal­a­tion to that ef­fect. In fact, ac­cord­ing to pa­per­work filed with the House Eth­ics Com­mit­tee, Her­it­age re­cently paid for RSC Ex­ec­ut­ive Dir­ect­or Paul Tell­er to at­tend a one-day trip — along with dozens of oth­er con­ser­vat­ive House aides — to the his­tor­ic bat­tle­fields of Gettys­burg.

What We're Following See More »
Kasowitz Out, John Dowd In
43 minutes ago

As the Russia investigation heats up, "the role of Marc E. Kasowitz, the president’s longtime New York lawyer, will be significantly reduced. Mr. Trump liked Mr. Kasowitz’s blunt, aggressive style, but he was not a natural fit in the delicate, politically charged criminal investigation. The veteran Washington defense lawyer John Dowd will take the lead in representing Mr. Trump for the Russia inquiry."

Trump Looking to Discredit Mueller
58 minutes ago

President Trump's attorneys are "actively compiling a list of Mueller’s alleged potential conflicts of interest, which they say could serve as a way to stymie his work." They plan to argued that Mueller is going outside the scope of his investigation, in inquiring into Trump's finances. They're also playing small ball, highlighting "donations to Democrats by some of" Mueller's team, and "an allegation that Mueller and Trump National Golf Club in Northern Virginia had a dispute over membership fees when Mueller resigned as a member in 2011." Trump is said to be incensed that Mueller may see his tax returns, and has been asking about his power to pardon his family members.

Why Yes, Mueller Is Looking into Trump Businesses
5 hours ago

In addition to ties between Russia and the Trump campaign, Robert Mueller's team is also "examining a broad range of transactions involving Trump’s businesses as well as those of his associates, according to a person familiar with the probe. FBI investigators and others are looking at Russian purchases of apartments in Trump buildings, Trump’s involvement in a controversial SoHo development in New York with Russian associates, the 2013 Miss Universe pageant in Moscow, and Trump’s sale of a Florida mansion to a Russian oligarch in 2008, the person said. The investigation also has absorbed a money-laundering probe begun by federal prosecutors in New York into Trump’s former campaign chairman Paul Manafort."

House Reauthorizes DHS
6 hours ago

"The House voted Thursday to reauthorize the Department of Homeland Security. The bipartisan measure passed easily by a vote of 386-41, with nine Republicans and 32 Democrats voting in opposition. If the bill makes it through the Senate, it would be the first-ever reauthorization of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) since it was created in the wake of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks." Among the provisions it contains is a mandate that the Senate confirm the Secret Service director. It also boosts funding for the Urban Area Security Initiative by $195 million per year.

AFT’s Weingarten Likens Voucher Support to Segregation
6 hours ago

In remarks scheduled to be delivered today at the American Federation of Teachers' summer conference, President Randi Weingarten "likens U.S. Education Secretary Betsy DeVos to a climate-change denier" and "says the Trump administration's school choice plans are secretly intended to starve funding from public schools. She calls taxpayer-funded private school vouchers, tuition tax credits and the like 'only slightly more polite cousins of segregation.'" The pro-voucher Center for Education Reform said teachers should "consider inviting Weingarten’s resignation."


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.