So, this is actually a really important progressive step, with some room for ratfucking and some caveats. In the House, "money committee" assignments are considered desirable because, wait for it, sitting on them helps you raise money. What this says is /1 
...that Dems are not going to give every damn "money committee" seat to a New Dem or a Blue Dog to help them raise money for reelection. That's how they did it in '07 and '09 and it left the key committees stacked with reactionaries who watered down legislation and still lost/2
Here's a longread from me and @ArthurDelaneyHP on how that works huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/29/the…
If you're on the Financial Services Committee, for instance, that helps you raise gobs of money from banks. In exchange, you water stuff down.
So this change says that, no, we're going to put some progressives on the committee, too, to actually legislate. Caveats...
So this change says that, no, we're going to put some progressives on the committee, too, to actually legislate. Caveats...
As @rmc031 & I wrote, most of the CPC actually STILL takes corporate PAC money. There's pressure to stop, but they still do as of now. theintercept.com/2018/10/14/con…
And there are a handful of CPC folks who are ALSO members of the New Dem caucus, which is utterly incoherent. So if those folks satisfy the quota for CPCers on a panel, you've gotten nowhere...
But there's a movement afoot to toughen up what it means to be in the CPC. So that, coupled with this announcement, would mean something about the ecosystem of money and politics in DC...
If you got to the bottom of this thread, you care enough that you might as well sign up to get an email when my book comes out next year, which is on all of this ish actionnetwork.org/forms/get-an-e…
