Time and time and time again, House Republicans have voted to make their deliberations as secret as possible. They refuse to to have their votes be recorded and, lest somebody accidentally observe how they vote, they refuse to broadcast their deliberations. Tim Craig reports in the Washington Post that now they’re upset that the free market has solved this problem, with the DPVA videotaping some subcommittee meetings in order to make public the secret subcommittee votes.
Damn that capitalism!, cries the RPV.
Del. Vince Callahan, entirely missing the point, describes recording the proceedings as “indicative of a culture of viciousness that is infecting these halls.” Presumably he also believes that, if they’re forced to start putting their votes on the record, “the terrorists have already won.”
Republicans are threatening to respond in kind, recording subcommitee meetings and posting the video. I call bullshit. House Republicans recording subcommittee deliberations and making the video available publicly? They won’t even let the clerk record their votes on paper. No, what they’ll do is tote around cameras and post videos of Democrats nodding off or instant messaging or whatever, precisely the opposite of what the DPVA has been doing with their website.
If House Republicans really wanted to respond, they’d simply syndicate their existing video feed publicly, making each day’s session available as a QuickTime file on their website. By flooding the market with superior goods, they’d so devalue the DPVA’s video that few people would watch it. But they won’t do that.
Frankly, I see all of this as enormously good news. Had House Republicans failed to respond to Democrats’ videotaping, I’d have been disappointed. Had they responded properly, by announcing they’d be providing their own video feeds and recording their votes (since clearly the market is demanding that they do so), I’d have been pleased to have access to such information, but disappointed for what this means for November elections.
No, instead, House Republicans fucked it up. (Surprise!)
This setup should be familiar to any delegate who has been in the House for at least a decade or two. Democrats were doing the same thing then, back when the were in charge, running proceedings like they might run their own caucus meeting, totally uninterested in open government and oblivious to how the public felt about this approach to democracy. Democrats got their comeuppance, and learned that if governing can’t be done in daylight then you’re doing something you shouldn’t be.
So I’d like to offer my public thanks to the House Republicans. Thank you for providing us with this fresh batch of cement and this bucket. Pay no attention while, between now and November, we pour this cement into the bucket, place your collective feet in the cement, and give you a gentle push over the side of this here bridge. We appreciate it.
Well said. What’s even worse, politically speaking, for the RPV is how they’ve painted themselves into a corner. Reverse their position and allow votes to be recorded, and they appear weak and hand the Dems a victory. Continue to stonewall, and look shifty like they’ve something to hide. It’s untenable in the long run. “Long” being measured in months, not years.
Do you hear me, Ed? Are you listening? I used to watch that beastly little show on CNN where you were always a guest. You owe me one.
That Republicans (or any elected official of any party affiliation) chooses that a vote for non-recorded votes “improved the process of attending to bills in a timely manner and moving them along to meet the crossover and end of session deadlines.” as my Delegate said, over transparency is shameful.
JS- You’re right about the political ramifications as of now. But they could’ve prevented this by opening up the process in the beginning of session. Democrats wouldn’t have an extra issue to beat them over the head with.
Who is your delegate, Jim Duncan? What is “over transparency” and how is it shameful?
I would certainly agree that they can probably vote faster if they don’t have to worry about how their vote looks to their constituents, but why is it worth sacrificing accountability for speed?
Judge Smails,
It’s not too late for them to reverse their position without much damage. Yes, they would look a little weak but few voters are paying attention to that sort of thing right now. It would be forgotten by the time that serious campaign season rolls around.
Jack,
I agree that correcting course is preferable and more politically savvy than digging in on an indefensible position. That’s what my shout-out to Chairman Ed was all about. It just pisses me off they were so effortlessly outmaneuvered in the first place.
Being Chairman of the RPV when they lose majorities in both house of the GA is not much of a platform to run for governor from.
The only defense that House Republicans are able to muster is that “Democrats did stuff kind of like this a couple of decades ago” which is, as we’ve seen, a bullshit excuse. It ranks only slightly better than “we’re just trying to help Democrats. More important, there’s no way that the electorate cares that Democrats did bad things a decade ago. They care what their legislator is doing for them now. And I guess that’s the trouble — their legislator is keeping that a secret. It don’t look good, does it?
I’ve got to say, if the House Republicans reversed their position on all of this, you’d hear nothing but praise from me. It would shut down their single largest political liability, in terms of Democrats’ messaging for the November elections, but that’s a sacrifice that I’d make cheerfully in exchange for open government.
Changing one’s mind is an admirable trait. It’s a terrible thing that so many people believe that they must be consistent for the sake of public appearances. History remembers most fondly those who do the right thing, not those who maintained a foolish consistency.
Choosing efficiency rather than recorded votes is shameful. The public have a right to know how their/our elected representatives are voting, whether in committee or on the floor of the Gen. Assembly. Don’t get me wrong, part of me understands what they are saying when they argue that they are are able to deal with the bills in a more timely manner; that doesn’t change the fact that having non-recorded votes is wrong.