The following exchange between PBS's Geoff Bennett and Lisa Desjardin caught my attention (somewhat after 07:30) in the January 3, 2022 piece House adjourns until Wednesday after McCarthy fails to win enough votes to become Speaker:
DESJARDINS: ...Right now, it really is a game of chicken, neither side blinking.
BENNETT: Well, to the extent that anyone knows, I mean, based on your reporting, what happens next?
DESJARDINS: OK, so there are a few scenarios that can happen. I think that this divide is so great that it actually will be hard to solve by tomorrow morning. That is possible, however. Conservatives, those holdouts, want things like the ability to get onto top committees without reaching a certain fund-raising goal. Right now, you have to bring in a certain amount of donations, frankly, to get some top positions. They want that to change.
I would think that committee appointments would be assigned on some kind of merit-based system; perhaps "consensus builder" or "legislative skills and/or output".
The highlighted line by journalist Desjardin suggests that for at least some committee appointments in the US House of Representatives, and at least for one party if not both, one needs to "bring in a certain amount of donations", and I have a hunch - though I don't know - that those donations need to make their way to the party coffers (e.g. RNC/DNC) not just to the representative themselves.
I'm curious to find out:
- if this is indeed so ("Say it ain't so Joe, say it ain't so!)
- to what extent it is so, within each party
- to what extent it is explicit and/or codified vs unwritten/unacknowledged but understood
- do the funds raised need to make it to something like a party organization (e.g. RNC/DNC) or can they remain in the individual's campaign finances once demonstrated