Fulcher votes against his president and his Idaho constituents

The hubris and ego some politicians display in moments of crisis will never cease to amaze me. The inability of those who dig in, who hold their breath and refuse to compromise even on matters of life and death defies common sense and good judgment. To place partisanship and some misguided sense of what the perfect piece of legislation should look like ahead of the federal government’s effort to contain a pandemic that threatens American lives is beyond treacherous behavior.

If you are looking for such a political animal in Idaho who places self-interest ahead of the national interest and the interest of his constituents, he is not hard to find. He represents half of Idaho in the U.S. House of Representatives and his short and lackluster career in Congress has been marked mainly by serving as a “yes” man for President Trump.

Unfortunately for his Idaho constituents, U.S. Rep. Russ Fulcher, R-Idaho, has veered so far to the right and become so much the lackey of the Freedom Caucus that he joined 39 other Republicans in voting against President Trump and the Families First Coronavirus Response Act.

U.S. Rep. Mike Simpson, R-Idaho, voted for the bill, as did Sens. Mike Crapo and Jim Risch, both R-Idaho.

The legislation provides for paid sick leave for workers affected by the coronavirus. It injects federal funds into state unemployment coffers so there will be some assistance for those thrown out of work and living paycheck to paycheck. It guarantees free testing for those suspected of being infected and it bolsters food aid for needy families and seniors.

Proving that old saying about perfect being the enemy of the good, Fulcher found problems with the bill, including the fact that it would mandate small businesses to provide sick leave. He failed to mention in his statement justifying his “no” vote that the bill also provides tax credits for employers to offset the costs of providing sick leave and paid leave.

With his “no” vote, Fulcher has driven his politics beyond that of the bungling Trump. In a moment of clarity rare for Trump, he urged Republicans and Democrats to vote for the coronavirus bill after Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi hammered out their bipartisan agreement. In one of his tweets, Trump said “this bill will follow my direction for free Coronavirus tests and paid sick leave for our impacted American workers.”

Why would Congressman Fulcher at this most critical moment in our nation’s history cast a vote that denied his president the vote he requested of Democrats and Republicans? Why would Congressman Fulcher by his vote deprive Americans of testing, of sick leave and paid leave, of unemployment assistance if thrown out of work?

The answer to that question is the reason Americans lose faith in so many of their elected officials. Once elected and ensconced in office, a virus of a different sort overcomes so many in Congress. It’s a virus that infects the very nature of representative government and the duty of elected officials to represent those who sent them to Washington.

Unlike the coronavirus, this virus goes straight to the congressional brain and it calculates carefully how lobbyists can pad the campaign pockets of incumbents. Those are the dollars that allow incumbents to pay for campaign commercials that portray the incumbent as the perfect representative of the people, often stretching the truth. Those are the campaign commercials that guarantee reelection even if they are misleading or downright false.

In the case of the coronavirus bill, at least one lobby flexed its muscles early in the process. The National Federation of Independent Business — a lobby more conservative than most business lobbies in Washington — informed its loyal followers in Congress that it objected to the 12 weeks of paid leave to their workers. But here’s the reason Congressman Fulcher parted company with his constituents and voted to deny Americans economic and medical relief from the coronavirus.

According to Roll Call, a nonpartisan news group reporting on congressional voting, the NFIB threatened to consider the vote on the coronavirus bill to be a “key vote” on its legislative scorecard. That legislative scorecard — the percentage of the time the Congressman is deemed voting with this special interest — is the key to an incumbent’s reelection campaign. Without high grades from key lobbies such as the National Federation of Independent Business, campaign contributions for Fulcher could dry up, certainly from the NFIB and other PACs, as well. For Fulcher, that would be really bad news and here’s why.

According to the Center for Responsive Politics, in 2019-20 Fulcher received 67.43% of his campaign contributions from PACs, 29.92% from large individual contributions and a mere 2.64% of his contributions from small individual contributors. In short, Fulcher is bought, sold and paid for by special interest PACs and when one, such as the NFIB, lets the word out that a “no” vote on the coronavirus legislation will keep him in good stead with business and conservative lobbies, constituents be damned. The Idaho congressman is going for the money he cannot or will not raise from the congressional district he represents.

And there you have the outsized advantage an incumbent has over a challenger. Politics as usual in Washington with a special interest lobby essentially casting the vote for a pawn like Fulcher, placing its own narrow interest ahead of the national interest and feeding his campaign coffers with contributions.

Maybe voters will factor this into their voting when they see Fulcher’s name on the ballot.

The alternative of recalling as a way of removing senators and representatives from office is not allowed under the U.S. Constitution, and that’s too bad.