It has been difficult to impossible to determine what if any parts of the For the People Act led to Joe Manchin’s position on the legislation. It’s difficult to make any sense of his position at all apart from either nefarious influences or his determination to screw President Joe Biden who won nearly 81 million votes and Congressional democrats. Congressional Democrats conducted research and the results of that research seem to lead to only one unfortunate conclusion: Joe Manchin’s position was mostly determined by corporation donations. Below I explain why what he wrote in defense of voting against the For the People Act doesn’t withstand scrutiny. First, however, let’s consider what what is revealed by this article.
.
Manchin, who co-sponsored the sweeping voting rights legislation in 2019 and has supported filibuster reform in the past, became the first Senate Democrat to oppose the bill this week while reiterating his opposition to changing the filibuster, a key roadblock to voting reform. Skeptical members of Manchin's party have questioned the reasons for his opposition, especially after after a recent poll found that a majority of West Virginia voters support changing the filibuster rules and that 79% of the state's voters — including a large majority of Republicans — support the For the People Act.
.
This makes Manchin’s opposition a head scratcher because it seems clear that it could not be based upon the merits of the bill since he supported a similar bill and supported filibuster reform in the past. It is doubly so because the For the People Act has almost 80% approval in West Virginia. Therefore, it isn’t because he is representing the views and wishes of his constituents. This information and the abrupt reversals in his position lead to an inevitable albeit unfortunate conclusion: he switched because of corporate donations.
.
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., suggested that Manchin's opposition to the proposal and filibuster reform may really be about measures in the bill aimed at cracking down on lobbyists and dark money.
"This is probably just as much a part of Joe Manchin's calculus than anything else," she told MSNBC on Tuesday. "You look at the Koch brothers and you look at organizations like the Heritage Foundation and conservative lobby groups that are doing a victory lap ... over the fact that Manchin refuses to change on the filibuster. And I think that these two things are very closely intertwined."
"When it comes to this 'bipartisan' argument, I gotta tell you, I don't buy it," Ocasio-Cortez said. "Joe Manchin has voted for bills that have not been bipartisan before. Look at the American Rescue Plan. So this is not just about bipartisanship."
The op-ed came after the Chamber, which has launched an expensive lobbying effort against the bill, resumed donations to Manchin's campaign for the first time since 2012. Reuters described this flow of corporate dollars as a "reward" for Manchin's opposition to numerous Biden administration's initiatives, as well as his stalwart support for the filibuster, which has almost certainly doomed the For the People Act.
"The timing of Sen. Manchin's announcement is highly suspicious," Kyle Herrig, president of the progressive government watchdog group Accountable.US, said in a statement to Salon. "Not long after the Chamber reopened their corporate checkbook for him, he made his opposition to voting rights known. Now millions of Americans may face significant roadblocks when they try to exercise their constitutional right to vote. Once again the U.S. Chamber of Commerce has found a way to stop any progress on voting rights from progressing on Capitol Hill.
Here is the gist of his defense for his position.
seeking partisan advantage. Whether it is state laws that seek to needlessly restrict voting or politicians who ignore the need to secure our elections, partisan policymaking won’t instill confidence in our democracy — it will destroy it.
garnered zero Republican support. Why? Are the very Republican senators who voted to impeach Trump because of actions that led to an attack on our democracy unwilling to support actions to strengthen our democracy
(the filibuster was) critical to protecting the rights of Democrats in the past. And I cannot explain strictly partisan election reform or blowing up the Senate rules to expedite one party’s agenda.
Voter suppression is wrong. Popularity is not a test for what is true or good. These voter suppression bills are a means to an end which Lindsay Graham even admitted. Republican motivation can’t be good because (1) we know this because voter fraud is extremely rare. We have no examples of widespread voter fraud. (2) Voting by mail is the normal way to vote in five states including a republican state as well as expatriates and the military and people who work for the federal government. There is no evidence that suggests that voting by mail is less secure than voting in person. There is zero evidence that Congressional Democrats oppose voter suppression exclusively because it helps them. Since voter suppression is wrong and bipartisan research has found no widespread voter fraud and voting by mail is secure and performs a good , expanding voter participation, and there is no evidence of Congressional Democrats exclusively opposing voter suppression due for partisan gain, then bills like the For the People Act should be supported and your lines ‘seeking partisan advantage , politicians ignore the need to secure our elections’ and your requirement for republican support are nonsense.
Voting to convict a president who clearly incited the insurrection is not proof or evidence of moderate views or a commitment to undoing voter suppression. Since you support the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act which won’t do nearly enough and it only has the support of one Senate Republican, then you have a blatant contradiction as you can’t answer the question you pose. Republicans are incentivized to block legislation to help them win elections. They are incentivized to suppress the vote of people of color and African Americans especially in order to win elections. The obvious vote to convict the president who incited the insurrection does not begin to address these motivations and their past history.
We are seeing the commencement of the second era of Jim Crow. There are approximately 400 voter suppression bills in play across the country, some have already become law and others are close to becoming law. Due to what I wrote above, there will not be ten Senate Republicans who will vote for a bill to undo voter suppression as your experience with the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act indicates. If we don’t stop the voter suppression efforts across the country with the For the People Act, we are likely to see the end of our democracy since if republicans obtain a majority in both chambers, it is very likely that a majority of the members of both chambers will object to the electoral college votes which give the Democratic Party nominee for president the victory. Thus, there is a choice: either you can save democracy and stop a second era of Jim Crow or you can avoid filibuster reform or elimination. You can’t do both. Donald Trump owns Republicans in Congress and House Republicans were not joined by Senate Republicans only because they knew that the Democratic Party has a majority in the House of Representatives and, thus, it would not work. If voter suppression wins the day, then we will lose both chambers of Congress and a majority of members in each chamber will vote to object to the electoral college votes which give the Democratic Party nominee for president in 2024 the victory. That fact and the likelihood that the filibuster will be eliminated by the republicans next time around should make this an easy choice for any democrat: support the For the People Act.
Based upon the substantial amount of information that we have, Joe Manchin’s opposition to the For the People Act is based upon corporate donors.