An interesting new report details how the swampiest, most establishment members of Congress have the highest average median incomes in their districts, while the least establishment types across both parties have the lowest.
The report, titled “Class Dismissed: Reframing Political Bias in Congress,” compiled by GOP mega-lobbyist Sam Geduldig and obtained by Breitbart News exclusively ahead of its public release, offers a novel and different way for Washington insiders to see how Congress operates. Geduldig, who has donated more than any other Republican lobbyist to GOP lawmakers in recent years, writes that “to many Americans, Washington, DC — our country’s capital city — has increasingly felt out of reach, and even worlds away from their own life experiences.”
Class Dismissed: Reframing Political Bias in Congress by Sam Geduldig by Breitbart News on Scribd
“But let’s not mince words. We’re talking about bias. Bias in American politics is largely determined by race, sex, religion, and of course, political affiliation,” Geduldig writes. “It is also based on class. Specifically, members of Congress who run for election, win, and represent districts populated by lower income, less educated, and less healthy constituents, are often deemed by each party and the apparatus that supports and analyzes Congress to be ‘extreme.’ Which really just encapsulates the range of social dissonance assumed by elite cohorts in Washington (note: by ‘elite,’ we mean Washington’s academic, media, and lobbying establishment). Meanwhile, members of Congress from wealthier districts earn adoration and support from political elites. They are dubbed as more serious, thoughtful, and ‘moderate,’ titles that signal to important people that one possesses a perspicacious temperament worthy of respect. In short, the ‘moderates’ have just the right mix of education, viewpoints, and socio-economic background.”
Geduldig has long argued that Congress should be approached in a way that is different from how the swamp normally operates. As the co-CEO of GOP lobbying firm CGCN, he has, over the years — as Breitbart News has reported — extensively engaged in efforts to try to break the normal way of business in the nation’s capitol by building new and different coalitions along class lines, particularly through a group he helped found called United By Interest (UBI). UBI, in the past, sought to reorient the way things were done by focusing on building coalitions of House conservatives with people from the Congressional Black Caucus and Congressional Hispanic Caucus.
The way most stuff gets done — or passes the House — in Washington is that a coalition of the most establishment members on both sides of the aisle, usually around 120 or so Republicans along with 150 or so Democrats, give or take on both sides, band together, and pass the legislation. We have seen this phenomenon repeatedly in recent months and years and most recently with things like the debt ceiling deal earlier in 2023, then the government funding fights in September and again in November, and then with the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) in December. Members of Congress often group themselves in caucuses that are either partisan or bipartisan, with the thinking being there is more strength in numbers in a legislative body ruled by a majority — in other words, the closer you can get to majority support (or 218 votes) off the bat, the easier it is to get something done. Some of the bigger caucuses in the House include groups like the Problem Solvers Caucus, the New Democrat Coalition, the Tuesday Group, the Civility and Respect Caucus, the Progressive Caucus, the Blue Dog Coalition, the Freedom Caucus, the “Squad,” the Republican Study Committee, the Hispanic Caucus, the Anti-Woke Caucus, and the Congressional Black Caucus.
The way it usually works these days is the more “centrist” or establishment-minded groups of members dominate the inside game and get whatever they want — the priorities of the more hardcore groups on either side be damned. Traditional partisanship keeps people divided, and nothing changes as Washington glides from one self-created deadline-driven crisis to the next. The swamp keeps on rolling, and the swamp keeps on winning. “The swamp is undefeated,” one consultant who regularly talks with Breitbart News likes to say whenever these admittedly frustrating moments keep happening. Basically, the rich get richer, the elites get whatever they want and need, and the insiders are always taken care of — at the expense of the rest of us.
This particular Congress, by the way, has dropped off significantly in terms of the number of bills passed given the traditional partisan divides throttling productivity — with a slim GOP majority in the House and a slim Democrat majority in the Senate, this power structure of these overbearing swampy caucuses has hit a breaking point when it comes to the swamp’s ability to maintain control over the process. To stay in charge and keep the two bases of the respective parties in their partisan corners, the establishment in Congress has had to drop the number of things it is passing to record lows.
That is where Geduldig’s work comes in. Geduldig has often tried to reframe the way in which legislation gets done in Washington by building a new coalition of the outsiders on both sides — getting the bases of the two parties to bypass the centers of both. And this particular report he is publishing here could be the beginning of the answer to the gridlock paralyzing Washington — as if the members representing the poorest and least-heard districts across America banded together, they could, in fact, get the numbers they need to flip the script on the wealthier and more well-connected folks.
“So how does this confluence of people manifest itself in Congress? The elite recoil and reject the more extreme members of Congress,” Geduldig writes. “The elites discount the decision of voters to send their representative to Washington. Because these members of Congress do not think, talk, look, or even dress like the elite, their proposals to represent their community have little merit to the ‘in crowd.’ Such bias was long quietly assumed rather than spoken. But with the advent of social media, and transformative social and political changes over the last two decades, it’s now out in the open. We know it’s true because we see it every day. But from the perspective of social science, it’s been difficult to quantify. So we embarked on a novel approach: we decided to examine the Congressional caucuses, formed over time to address political, social, and economic issues of interest to specific groups of members of Congress. To our minds, these groupings helpfully illustrate, in microcosm, the political and intellectual biases now so prevalent in Washington.”
Geduldig’s report looks first at the socioeconomic data of the various powerful caucuses’s congressional districts, then looks at the political contributions of the members of those groups. “Here’s a look at our methodology: We examined the major caucuses (six Democratic, four Republican, and two bipartisan) that help shape the agenda in Washington,” Geduldig writes. “We first ordered them according to the socioeconomic status of their communities. Then we cross-referenced their power, measured by seniority, with fundraising and political contributions. Here’s the kicker, which to most observers is probably intuitive, but here, in our analysis, is supported by empirical data: ‘moderate’ members raise more PAC contributions (which are controlled by government affairs professionals) than members who belong to more partisan, and, as some would have it, ‘extreme,’ caucuses. This is the case even with members who have more experience and influence — for instance, if they are committee chairmen — than their less experienced, ‘moderate’ counterparts.”
The five-page report includes several charts that break things down, and the differences in the average median income of the congressional districts this Congress between the more-establishment-minded swampier caucuses versus the more populist caucuses is stark. The bipartisan Problem Solvers Caucus, one of the most establishment groups in Congress, has an average median income across the districts of its 61 members of $79,188. That is nearly $16,000 more than the average median income across the 55 Congressional Black Caucus — a Democrat group — districts of $63,224 or across the 26 Anti-Woke Caucus — a Republican group — districts of $63,703.
Rounding out the bottom of the group is the Democrat Congressional Hispanic Caucus, which across its 37 districts has an average median income of $65,972, and the GOP Republican Study Committee, which across its 174 districts has an average median income of $66,253.
At the top near the Problem Solvers Caucus, the New Democrat Coalition — an establishment Democrat group — has across its 97 districts an average median income of $77,883, while the Tuesday Group — an establishment GOP caucus — has across its 41 districts an average median income of $77,555. The bipartisan “Civility and Respect Caucus” is up there, too, with an average median income across its 30 districts of $75,758.
In the middle of the pack are groups like the “Squad” — the hardcore progressive left-wingers that Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), among others, leads — which across its nine districts has an average median income of around $66,912 and the House Freedom Caucus, which across its ballpark 52 districts has an average median income of $67,511. The Democrats’ Progressive Caucus, across its 101 districts, has an average median income of $75,144, and the Democrats’ Blue Dog Coalition, across its nine districts, has an average median income of $67,933.
Geduldig’s report also looks at health metrics across the various districts and caucuses and finds a very similar result.
“Similarly, the Congressional District Health Dashboard shows that the less healthy communities are heavily represented by members in more partisan caucuses, while the healthier ones are dominated by moderate and bipartisan affiliation,” Geduldig writes. “The national poverty rate for children in 2021 was 16.9%. The Problem Solvers and Tuesday Group have averages of children in poverty at around 13.8% and 13.7%. In contrast, the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC) average is 21.3%, the Republican Study Committee (RSC) is 16.2%, and the Anti-Woke Caucus is 16.5%. In short, the poorer the district, the less healthy it is. Not surprising, then, that these constituents, and the members who represent them, often strike notes discordant to elite sensibilities. You won’t find them talking about ‘bridg[ing] the partisan divide,’ or taking stances that ‘reflect[] the values and priorities of most Americans’ — platitudes common to members from wealthier districts and bipartisan caucuses. For those from more partisan caucuses, it’s more likely that their constituents, rather than luxuriating in easy, high-minded discussion, are just trying to reach an equal quality of life.”
But then Geduldig’s report looks at power metrics — fundraising from PACs, tenure in Congress, and more — and finds that the more establishment-focused districts get more attention from lobbyists and insiders in Washington, even though maybe it should be the other way around.
“Cross-referencing the socioeconomic backdrop of the caucuses with the levers of power in the Capitol tells an even more interesting story,” Geduldig writes. “While the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC) represents the poorest and least healthy constituents, its members have the second longest tenure in Congress, with each serving an average six terms in Congress. Only the Blue Dogs (a much smaller caucus of only nine members) has a higher average term in office. Meanwhile, the bipartisan and moderate caucuses that represent wealthier, healthier districts have between two to three fewer average terms in office. In a world free of bias, attention and support would flow to the most senior and influential members of Congress. After all, lobbyists and communications experts are hired to inform and influence Congress. But that’s not what happens. Three of the caucuses with the highest average PAC dollars – which are largely controlled by lobbyists, or groups of influential individuals who determine how to use a corporations’ or wealthy donors’ money– are the less tenured, bipartisan or moderate identifying groups: the Civility & Respect Caucus, the Problem Solvers, the New Dem Coalition, and the Tuesday Group. Although the CBC has one of the highest seniority averages, its members do not receive nearly as many PAC dollars as the Blue Dog Coalition or its other more bipartisan counterparts.”
On the GOP side, a similar story emerges.
“Similarly, conservative-aligned caucuses that share very similar socioeconomic conditions as the CBC, such as the Freedom Caucus and the Anti-Woke Caucus, also have among the lowest PAC contributions,” Geduldig writes. “Together, the CBC rescued the 2020 presidential campaign of Joe Biden while the Freedom Caucus continues to dominate the Republican conference in the House of Representatives. A heady bunch, you might say, or to the average American observing the comings and goings in the halls of power. But not according to Washington’s political elite.”
While things do not seem to be changing for the time being, Geduldig concludes his report with a warning for the establishment: “In a democracy, such biases, while powerful, aren’t dictatorial. From time to time they are challenged, and successfully so, leaving the elite class frustrated and even more confused about their country than they normally tend to be.”
In other words, Geduldig is saying that eventually, if the swamp keeps ignoring the interests of the tens of millions of Americans who comprise the poorer districts from both sides of the political aisle, those groups may band together down the road and change the way the swamp works forever. It may seem far-fetched now, but it certainly could happen with the right circumstances. Interestingly, newly seated House Speaker Mike Johnson’s (R-LA) Louisiana congressional district’s median income, according to the New York Times, is even below any of these groups’ averages, down at just around $48,600. So, while Johnson has been slowly getting started, it is possible he could lead such a truly populist coalition entering 2024.
