A Bigger, More Extreme, Conservative Bloc in Congress Could Be Good News for…Democrats

“They’re anarchists. They want total chaos.” 

Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) speaks to fellow Freedom Caucus members Rep. Scott Perry (R-PA) and Rep. Mark Meadows (R-NC). Alex Wong/Getty Images

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.

The rabble-rousing, deficit hating, far-right Freedom Caucus has been a perennial thorn in the Republican establishment’s side since they first appeared with just nine members in 2015. Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) was barely able to keep them in line long enough to squeak through a repeal of the Affordable Care Act through the House last year. It was one of the few instances where Ryan emerged less scarred by an encounter with the caucus than his predecessor, former Speaker John Boehner, who once observed to Politico, “They can’t tell you what they’re for. They can tell you everything they’re against. They’re anarchists. They want total chaos.” In the fall of 2015, rancor from the far-right segment of his membership drove him to give up the speaker’s gavel.

Democrats are widely expected to regain control of the House in November for the first time in six years. But, even if the Freedom Caucus is demoted to a role in the minority party, it will almost certainly grow in size. Only five of the group’s roughly 34 members are in competitive races this fall and, depending on the success of 11 Freedom Caucus-backed Republicans vying for open seats, the ranks of its members could swell by nearly 20% next year, according to a Mother Jones analysis. The Freedom Caucus does not make its list of members publicly available, so this analysis used donations from the group’s political action committee, the House Freedom Fund, as an unofficial marker that shows which incumbents and Republicans vying for open seats are allied with the group. 

They will have strength, certainly, within the conference,” said Nadeam Elshami, former chief of staff to House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi. “The future of the Freedom Caucus in any Congress is not going to change unless you have redistricting.” 

At least 24 Freedom Caucus members are in seats they have more than an 82% chance of holding, according to election analysis by FiveThirtyEight. In 14 deep-red districts, incumbents like current caucus leader Rep. Mark Meadows (R-N.C.) and loyal Trump allies Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Texas) and freshman Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.) have more than a 99% chance of retaining their seat. 

The rosy picture most Freedom Caucus members are seeing in their own races contrasts with a treacherous election season for the rest of the Republican conference. Twenty-eight Republican-held seats are considered toss-ups by Cook Political Report, a nonpartisan election handicapper; only two Democratic seats are. 

Nonetheless, for some Freedom Caucus members, reelection will not be so easy.

“Unlike many of the more centrist Republicans who are accustomed to battling Democratic challengers, many of the most vulnerable Freedom Caucus members are running with less money in the bank and in districts where their deeply conservative voting records might not be welcome,” the Wall Street Journal reported in May. 

Four years after dethroning House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, for instance, Rep. Dave Brat is fighting for his political life in Virginia against Democratic challenger Abigail Spanberger in a district Trump, Romney, and McCain all won. Rod Blum, whose district in northeastern Iowa went narrowly to Trump, trails Democrat Abby Finkenauer in the most recent polling conducted there. Even though a win would be surprising at this point—FiveThirtyEight only gives Blum a 2.5% chance of retaining his seat—the Freedom Caucus still funneled $54,800 to him this cycle through the House Freedom Fund. Only one incumbent seeking reelection, Rep. Ralph Norman (R-S.C.), has received more money from the Freedom Caucus PAC than Blum.

The Freedom Caucus imprimatur has not been a blessing for all candidates. In Pennsylvania and Ohio, Republicans supported by the centrist Defending Main Street super PAC defeated three Freedom Caucus-backed challengers. In the special election to replace retiring Rep. Pat Tiberi in Ohio, the Freedom Caucus PAC dumped $74,106 in support of Melanie Leneghan, the largest contribution made all cycle to any candidate. She lost by 653 votes to Troy Balderson, who ended up winning the seat. The Freedom Caucus fared better in Arizona where preferred candidate Debbie Lesko emerged from a primary against 11 other candidates and ultimately won the seat. 

As frustrated as Freedom Caucus members get with moderate Republicans, they will undoubtedly chafe at the prospect of the Democrats controlling the House. Should party control flip, Democratic committee chairs will likely launch investigations into Donald Trump’s personal finances, amp up the existing probes into Russian election interference, and end far-right lawmakers’ focus on anti-Trump bias in the Justice Department. Meadows and Freedom Caucus co-founder Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), who once drew Trump’s ire on Twitter due to their opposition to an early version of Ryan’s Obamacare repeal, have grown closer to him through a shared suspicion of Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into whether the Trump campaign colluded with Russia to influence the presidential election. 

But if their past action predicts their future behavior, the Freedom Caucus could inadvertently help a new Democratic majority by splintering the Republican conference.

“They have repeatedly tied the Republican speaker’s hands on spending fights and ended up giving Democrats more leverage,” Elshami said. “You could see the conference moving even further to the right, which would give power to those Republicans who would be willing to negotiate and talk to Democrats to pass bipartisan legislation.”

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate