The other OC Republican, Young Kim (R-Calif.), did not receive a contribution from Greene, perhaps because she represents a “safer” district where GOP registered voters outnumber Democrat voters. Of course, nothing in politics is permanent or safe. Feeling safe at any governmental level only invites complacency.
It is well known that politicians within the same party contribute to the campaigns of fellow members of the House and Senate. Some even cross the aisle and donate funds to the opposite party if a member is moderate or shares a number of similar policy positions. Could this be defined as cronyism or influence peddling?
To a degree this could be true, or it could merely be that a politician who shares similar domestic and foreign policy views with other members injects a boost for them to succeed in the 2024 general election cycle. Steel has also accepted donations from other GOP House members to help sustain her campaign for the next 17 months.
The article briefly outlined some of the pros and cons of GOP members accepting financial support from Greene. The legacy media often characterizes her as a far-right MAGA firebrand with some extreme views similar to those of Donald Trump. Certainly, Greene has entertained some far-out beliefs, but what politician hasn’t? One wonders why most journalists don’t brand a few Democrats as far-left or extreme radicals within their party.
Much of the media mentions Greene’s passionate rhetoric but ignores her constructive views. For example, she has endorsed free enterprise, traditional families, faith-based communities, energy autonomy, fiscal responsibility, border security, law and order, and a robust national security posture. How anyone could label this as extreme is mind-boggling. Who wouldn’t want America to be great and strong? Her positions are largely in line with the GOP platform.
Some analysts believe that Greene is attempting to accumulate more power in the chamber by extending her influence. Chapman University Professor Lori Cox Han told the OC Register, “In a lot of ways, being able to spend that kind of money on her colleagues equates to political power.”
Pomona College Assistant Professor Sara Sadhwani told the news outlet that a Steel alignment with Greene could be risky. It could possibly hurt her reelection chances in a district where Democrat registered voters have a six percent edge over Republican voters. The election outcome could hinge on swing voters who have declared no party preference.
By contrast, Jon Fleischman, who once was California’s GOP Executive Director, told the newspaper, “Maybe it would matter slightly more if someone named Michelle Steel who had never been in office before was running for Congress, and you were looking at who her contributors were to try to figure out more about her. But a four-year incumbent has their own record. It’s not like anybody is going to judge the job that she does based on who her donors are.” Fleischman went on to speculate that gifts from Greene could signal what wing of the GOP Steel aligns with.
Some political purists might argue that political candidates should only receive contributions from the electorate to avoid conflicts of interest. This would include individual voters and organizations that refrain from any form of back-and-forth quid pro quo between political candidates.
Should there be limits on how much people can donate to politicians, or how much politicians can freely give to one another? This is an issue that is always open to debate, because money and power can sometimes lead to corruption. It can also erode the responsibility that politicians have to abide by constitutional principles and the national interest.
Undoubtedly, campaigns can be expensive to operate (ads, campaign offices, travel, etc.), and candidates are allowed to raise money and receive donor gifts within legitimate parameters. Unlike many other countries that have short election cycles, America has lengthy campaign seasons, and candidates actively strive to build large war chests for future elections. One would hope that the process is as transparent as humanly possible.
The bottom line is that members of Congress are adults who can think on their own. It’s unlikely that any member completely agrees with any other member, but they probably agree on at least 70 percent of policy issues within their respective parties. Consequently, our representatives will continue to accept solicited and unsolicited financial support to compete for seats in Congress. Moreover, if the GOP is serious about winning at the federal and state levels in 2024, it would help if the party presents a unified front.
