The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Congressional Staffers Demand Their Bosses Enact Climate Legislation
"We've crafted the legislation necessary to avert climate catastrophe. It's time for you to pass it," proclaim staffers in a letter to Congressional leaders.
CNN reports that Congressional staffers are circulating a letter demanding that Congress enact sweeping climate legislation. The letter has been signed anonymously by over 200 staff from House and Senate offices.
From the CNN story:
In a rare move, more than 200 congressional staffers have sent a letter to Democratic leadership in the House and Senate, demanding they close the deal on a climate and clean energy package and warning that failure could doom younger generations.
"We've crafted the legislation necessary to avert climate catastrophe. It's time for you to pass it," the staffers wrote in a letter, sent to Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on Tuesday evening. The letter, which staffers signed anonymously with initials, was shared first with CNN.
"Our country is nearing the end of a two-year window that represents a once-in-a-generation opportunity to pass transformative climate policy," the letter continues. "The silence on expansive climate justice policy on Capitol Hill this year has been deafening. We write to distance ourselves from your dangerous inaction."
As CNN reports, letters from congressional staff telling members of Congress what to do are uncommon. From the CNN story:
Anonymous letters from congressional staffers criticizing leadership are rare -- especially ones that push for specific legislation -- but staff have spoken out in letters before.
In summer 2020, Black staffers penned a letter to leadership urging action in the wake of George Floyd's killing by a Minneapolis police officer. Over 400 staff members also signed a letter in December 2021 urging House leadership to condemn "incendiary rhetoric" in the workplace after Republican Rep. Lauren Boebert made anti-Muslim remarks against Democratic Rep. Ilhan Omar.
Still, the bulk of letters calling on congressional leadership to act on climate in the last year have come from outside climate advocacy groups.
It is almost as if voters elected the actual members of Congress, rather than their staff.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Children gonna children.
Wait until you hear what lobbyists do.
I hear they treat you to fancy dinners.
Time to fire some Congressional staff.
Why? It's their government too.
You don't want your employees demanding the right to dictate policy.
You REALLY don't want your employees who do research and legislative drafting for you demanding the right to dictate policy.
I wouldn't trust any of them to do an honest job going forward, if it conflicted with their priorities.
My employees don't have the right to demand squat from me.
But the government's employees, at least the ones who are citizens, have rights they didn't abandon when they took their jobs. Rights that are in plain view in the Constitution. Why do you hate it so?
I think it's how they are exercising their rights that is the problem.
If they were exercising their rights by acting as citizens, and getting a broad based petition with many other citizens, that would be one thing.
But instead they are using their unique power as Congressional Staff to attempt to alter policy as per their personal preferences. Which is problematic.
What "unique power?"
They can't pass legislation.
No....they just end up writing the laws, doing the analysis, and doing the editing on the laws, not to mention their close relationship to the Congressmen. And if they're pushing their "personal preferences" overtly there, it biases what should be impartial.
To use an analogy, think about stock brokers. Stock brokers do analysis for their clients and recommend what stocks they think are best for their clients, not to mention executing trades. They have a fiscal duty to work in the interests of their clients. Now imagine instead if the brokers worked in their own interests. If they "demanded" their clients invest in certain stocks that the broker liked, or else. It creates a problem, a conflict of interest.
Something similar is happening here.
Stockbrokers are not fiduciaries.
Oh, LOL. Go to the rear of the class.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/forbesfinancecouncil/2020/06/17/know-the-differences-between-brokers-and-advisers-suitability-vs-fiduciary-standards/amp/
You didn't say Simon Sez.
This isn't a topic so complex that it needs an analogy to understand or discuss. The only reason to use one is to change the discussion from the actual topic to arguing the analogy.
There are no stockbrokers here, nor relevant fiduciary duties, only some people who signed a letter as a group, petitioning Congress to enact their preferred policy.
What "unique power?"
They can't pass legislation.
You really are the epitome of the target of a blue-haired southern lady's declaration of, "Bless your heart".
Minority gets less staff so between election losses and loss of control, many will be gone in due course.
I'm sure they can go into the ranks of paid protestors.
Lots of them will be out of a job after November.
Fuck Joe Biden.
118 days.
Open wider, Union.
Better Americans will continue to shove even more progress -- reason, science, inclusiveness, modernity, education -- down the whining throats of conservative bigots and superstitious culture war casualties for the rest of your deplorable life.
You get to whimper about it as much as you like -- especially at this white, male, right-wing, faux libertarian blog -- but you will continue to comply with the preferences of your betters.
Just as the Volokh Conspirators are the disaffected fringe of modern legal academia, nipping at the mainstream's heels and ankles, guys like you are the obsolete, downscale fringe of modern American society.
How much did Joe Biden kick Donald Trump's ass? Was it six, seven, eight million votes? Just not enough half-educated racists, gullible religious kooks, on-the-spectrum incels, old-timey misogynists, economically inadequate xenophobes, and pathetic gay-bashers left in America to give Republicans much chance in national elections.
Somnolent Joe's "Opening Wider" as we speak, for MBS's (redacted)
and seriously, Jerry S, should you really be saying "Open Wider"?? to anyone??
and I know takes time to get word to https://www.cor.pa.gov/Facilities/StatePrisons/Pages/Greene.aspx
but Somnolent Joe won 303-232 with the only voters who count, thanks to (fraudulent) counts in GA, PA, and AZ...
Frank "Jerry, Jerry, San-dusky!"
They're working to fire themselves.
"It is almost as if voters elected the actual members of Congress, rather than their staff."
Well that's a dickish and Blackman-esque framing. Kind of expected better from you. I didn't realize that staff members couldn't press their own government on issues that are important to them. It's likely uncommon due to the relationship between staff and the members/leadership...but it is by no means out of bounds or inappropriate or an affront to voters to do so. Indeed, I would suspect staff members are also voters.
Subordinates who publicly embarrass their bosses get fired in real life.
They aren't writing as citizens. They lack the courage of their convictions as well, hence the use of only initials.
And? That doesn't change Adler's dumb framing as this being somehow an affront to voters.
He didn't say it was an affront to voters, only that its the electeds that have the final say, not staffers.
Right. There’s this thing called an inference I can make based on his dickish framing.
It's an affront to voters because using the extra influence from their position to affect what Congressmen do is a form of corruption, and this corruption is aimed at making the Congressmen follow the demands of the people with the influence instead of the demands of the voters.
Wait till you learn about lobbyists and wives.
Wait till you learn about lobbyists and wives.
Not to mention donors.
Now, imagine if the politicians were trusting the lobbyists to do the impartial analysis and fine print writing to put the laws in place 100% of the time.
Well, I admit it's only about 90%.
Anyone who trusts lobbyists to do an impartial analysis is too dumb to stay in office.
Are any of those (lobbyist, wife, donor) drawing a salary funded by the taxpayers?
One of these is not like the other.
Just like everyone else, I'm not saying they don't have a right to petition their representative. They just can't do so using their employment as a platform.
1) wait til you hear what lobbyists do 2) do you think it’s a form of corruption when a law clerk strongly urges a judge make a certain decision in a particular case? Or agency staff strongly urge a particular action?
2) do you think it’s a form of corruption when a law clerk strongly urges a judge make a certain decision in a particular case?
Based on the law clerk's personal views, rather than as impartial professional opinion. Absolutely.
If a judge is ruling on a divorce case, and the law clerk is directly related to one of the parties and "strongly urging" a certain decision....and the judge accepts their urging...is that corruption?
You are assuming that the judge is actually being persuaded, rather then the persuasion merely lining up with what the judge was going to do anyway.
This is a very common assumption to make, but I think I would be remiss to not point out that the same assumption, that Clarence Thomas is influenced by his wife, has been repeatedly rejected by conservatives.
Which is to say... sure, let's cross this bridge together. I'm sure it goes to only good places.
Or, we can stay on this side of not pretending we're telepaths, and trust --however foolishly-- that judges and legislators both aren't unduly influenced by wives, lobbyists, or clerks.
I don't think any conservative has ever said that Thomas isn't influenced by his wife at all. That would be odd. The question is one of undue influence.
Now, if Thomas's wife was "demanding" that he rule in a specific manner on a specific case, to the point that she was making a public demand that he do it, and the time was now. Then she specifically crafting the opinion for him. That would be undue influence.
Likewise, of course lobbyists seek to influence politicians. It's literally their job.
But are STAFFERS supposed to influence politicians in such a manner? Or are they taking advantage of their position and power for something that is abnormal? I would say this is undue influence.
Yes, isn't it terrible when certain people have privileged access to politicians?
It is. We should move Congress. Have it rotate through the various cities and counties of the US on an annual basis. Having just DC have privileged access isn't fair.
" Subordinates who publicly embarrass their bosses get fired in real life. "
If that were true, UCLA would have at least one less embarrassment on its law faculty by now.
That's actually a good one, Arthur, I mean Jerry, Golf Clap/High 5
Frank
Maybe you can provide us with the name of your employer, so we can help relieve them of one less embarrassment as well.
Adler is finally publicly admitting that the 2020 election was stolen. ;-b
What does it mean to be 'anonymously signed'?
Those staffers are entitled to write letters to Congress too.
It is better that they are doing this openly rather than applying improper behind-the-scenes pressure.
"openly"
They are hiding behind initials. They realize they are being dumb.
"applying improper behind-the-scenes pressure"
They are also doing that.
There’s nothing improper about urging your political bosses to make a certain decision. Agency staff do it. Law clerks do it.
Outside of a clear ethical or legal violation, a subordinate who issues a *public* and *unsolicited* comment chastising his/her boss is absolutely acting improperly. The boss who cans that subordinate is acting neither illegally nor improperly. Agency heads do it. Judges do it. So does everyone in private industry.
If younger generations are so collectively stupid maybe they should be doomed.
"We've crafted the legislation necessary to avert climate catastrophe. It's time for you to pass it,"
Reminds me of the SNL skit where the heads of the big three automakers had been called to Washington, to be harangued about CAFE standards.
"We've passed legislation requiring cars to get 130 miles per gallon. We've done our part, why haven't you stepped up?"
Historically, whenever standards have been increased, automakers have found a way.
Because the automakers effectively make the standards, not congress lol.
Congress shall pass no law abidging the laws of thermodynamics. Or geometry. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indiana_Pi_Bill
Well, they do a lot of lobbying about it.
They also do a lot of complaining about how it's unwise, unnecessary, impractical, too costly, impossible to do, etc.
It happens with fuel economy, it happened with seat belts and shoulder belts. Then they just do it. Genius engineers show up from somewhere, I guess.
If they can do it no matter what, why set it at a pedestrian 50 mpg or whatever? Why not 500? If physics is suspended the sky’s the limit.
"Our country is nearing the end of a two-year window that represents a once-in-a-generation opportunity"
The government already spent its once in a generation opportunity on trillions of dollars of giveaways. The important interest groups have been paid off. There is no political payoff in serious CO2 reduction and global warming mitigation, which impose costs on America and benefit poor countries.
"serious CO2 reduction and global warming mitigation"
"The bill’s biggest climate spending components include 10-year tax credits to expand and accelerate investments in renewable power, including wind, solar and nuclear. The bill also includes a proposal to raise the electric vehicle tax credit to up to $12,500 for vehicles made at a unionized factory in the U.S.
Other climate-related items in the legislation include:
Delivering consumer rebates for shifting to clean energy and electrification
Advancing environmental justice by investing in disadvantaged communities
Creating a new Civilian Climate Corp to create jobs and conserve public lands
Investing in coastal restoration, forest management and soil conservation." cnbc Nov 19 2021
Seems like small ball. It spends $550 billion, less than 1/7th of the annual regular budget. If $550 billion will stop climate change, its not a serious problem.
I'm sure the "unionized" caveat isn't a payoff to a important interest group, right?
Yeh - only half a $trillion$ More as we slide into a major recession, with the highest inflation rate in over 40 years, as a result of spending those $trillions$ earlier that we didn’t have. Do they really believe that spending another half a $trillion$ That we don’t have won’t make both problems worse? Will 12% inflation instead of the current 9.1%, be worth it if they can further destabilize our electric grid with more solar and wind energy generation? How many people dead from starvation or exposure, through not being able to afford food or heat is too any for them and their goals? They don’t have to worry - their bosses can just vote them raises.
Of course they are concerned. Their gravy train is likely to come to a abrupt stop at the end of the year. Only a bunch of entitled wannabe elites could believe that it was urgent to beggar ourselves in the name of destroying our economy trough their cargo cult ignorance of actual science.
The correct question: Why hire staffers out of alignment with voters preferences.
If these staffers are so convinced that their cause is right and just, why are they afraid to go on the record by signing with their full names. If any of them were fired, wouldn’t that only help their cause and raise its profile?
Whenever you see “justice” attached to anything (E.g, climate justice), read it as take money from the bad guys (oil companies) and give it to special interest lobbying groups.
Yes, isn't special interest lobbying terrible?
Yes, isn't special interest lobbying terrible?
No. Funneling money to them as a result of that lobbying (you know, what you were responding to you dipshit)...yes.
Not really. "Justice" basically means it’s ok to hurt people (or at the very least disregard whether your actions might hurt people). Those people who will be hurt are judged guilty and hurting them is ok, because "justice".
It never meant anything different. They are using "justice" here to give themselves license (a. k. a. justification) to act as they wish.
People who routinely talk that way think of themselves as above or outside moral constraints on their behavior. Or that the morality has already been decided and the people they might like to hurt are already righteously condemned.
Obviously, it’s pretty bad and they should stop it.
Congress shall make no law (...) abridging (...) the right of the people (...) to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Is someone suggesting that writing this letter was or should be illegal?
Nobody’s saying it’s illegal. We’re saying it’s stupid. Really really terminally stupid.
The pride you take in being too stupid to differentiate between "illegal" and "inappropriate" is noted.
What is the nature of this catastrophe?
" It is almost as if voters elected the actual members of Congress, rather than their staff. "
That's a Blackman-Volokh move. Prof. Adler is customarily better than this.
> Writes "It is almost as if voters elected the actual members of Congress, rather than their staff."
> Supports Citizens United and its progeny.
So if you want to try to influence politicians, you better be able to buy them, huh?
So if you want to try to influence politicians, you better be able to buy them, huh?
Sure, in an alternate universe were "electing" is a synonym for "buying".
Suppose you're a typical Congresscritter. You don't read the 500 pp bills and 10,000 pp reports you vote on -- you rely on your staff to do that and tell you what the bills and reports say AND how the passage or defeat of a bill would effect your prospects in the next election. You rely on your staff to have YOUR best interests at heart. But NOW you can't be sure that your staff actually has your best interests at heart. Maybe what they tell you is influenced by THEIR OWN opinions about public policy rather than by their concern for YOUR best interest. What do you do?
Me? I'd fire my whole frigging staff.
But that's just me.
Yep.
I don't understand your use of the word "NOW" in that quote. How was that not true every day for the past 250 years (or however long it's been since members of Congress had staff?)
They need to start with bipartisan legislation on climate change and build support by imposing changes first on the people most likely to buy in to the inevitable sacrifices that will have to be made.
I think a good first step would be to turn off the air conditioning in all EPA offices, at least in Washington.
And Biden can do it with an executive order, but I think it would be much better for Congress to do it with a bipartisan majority.
AC is a major contributor to global warming and this could be a huge game changer in setting an example and getting buy-in.
And Congress's staff should update their petition to demand that they too work in non-air conditioned offices.
What does it mean to "anonymously sign" something? It's impossible. "Signing" means to put your name to something, to attest to your support. Anonymously signing is silly, and ver high school - and by that, I don't even mean seniors in high school, more like sophomores.
More newspeak.
Seems like an ethical breach to me. Congress is elected to represent the needs of their constituents, not the needs of their staff. Leveraging their proximity to a congress person to exert their political will is a misuse of their position.
C'mon Man, you know the main function of these "Staff" are to be sex toys for the Representatives/Senators, giving BJ's, Anal, hand Jobs, "Happy Endings"
Not really sure what the Chick's do (Rim Shot)
Frank
Yet absolutely no performative outrage over Supreme Court justices being hunted and harassed by left wingers. Which, by the way, is happening with the backdrop of the sham infomercial that is supposed to be a congressional investigation attempting to hold grandma without bail for taking pictures in the capitol.
How do these lefties think this is going to end for them?
Remember, remember the eighth of November.
What have fossil fuels ever done for us?
Well they have lifted 92% of the world out of extreme poverty.
Well there is that, but besides lifting 92% of the world out of extreme poverty what have fossil fuels done for us?
"All right, but apart from the sanitation, medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, the fresh water system and public health, what have the Romans ever done for us?"
Invented Pizza???
Some staffers did something.
I agree. Vote immediately on it. Then we can see who supports what.
Americans might like to know how little their congressmen value them. If their congressmen value people living in the tropics in the year 2200 higher than Americans living in the congressional district right now, this is a vehicle to reveal that.
I gotta say, it's hilarious to see so many commentators cry foul over people calling a politician a coward.
This is America. Dragging your politicians --and your bosses-- is a time-honored tradition. May it get them fired? Sure. Firing sub-ordinates for mouthing off is also a time-honored tradition. But the pearl-clutching here is hilarious. "How DARE they!" "Corruption!" "Outrage!"
Dudes, chill. If a politician is so weak-willed that a sternly written letter from their staffers is going to change their mind, then they're probably named McCarthy and would have been voted out if they ever had to run in a competitive district.
It's the mindset that's more concerning.
If they're willing to publically commit to such a letter, what else is going on? Is there biased groupthink occurring? Selective analysis? Altered analyses? Subtly tweaking proposed laws?
You may think I'm overexaggerating. But we've seen an FBI agent deliberately falsify documentation in order to obtain an illegal search warrant.
What type of mindset justifies that?
AL was born an adult, and has never met anyone under 30.
It’s rigorous scientific thinking, obviously. Sooo very, very sciency.
Surely there are more than 200 anonymous people willing to take a stand.
200 Staffers? each producing 200ml CO2/minute, 12L/hr, 264L/day, 105,120 L/yr, or 210,240L in 2 years, x 200= hommina hommina hommina
a little over 42 million liters of Climate Warming CO2,
Solutions clear,
they all need to kill themselves, the sooner the better,
for the Climate of Course,
Frank
And pretty sure they all have Plastic I-phones, for the most part not Solar/Wind Powered, Fly to DC from their home states in Jets (for the most part not Solar/Wind/Battery powered) Live in housing with AC/Heat.
It's (redacted) like them that gets normal Amuricans to erect a Gallows in front of the Capitol...
Frank
The hubris that these staffers claim to have developed the perfect legislation that will lead to the end of climate change. What are the economic tradeoffs? How are they going to control the emissions from China & India?
If these staffers want to influence government decisions with respect to climate change, they should hire Ginni Thomas and file a bunch of cert petitions.
So the House staffers (who are anonymous) want their bosses to publicly vote for wildly unpopular legislation that will die in the Senate only months before a midterm election.
How do people with such analytical skills even get hired?
If CNN is reporting on it, it must be "true." Not a single one of the staffers took any science courses in college, how do they claim support claims (propositions, not scientific truths) that they don't even know how to make any judgment of whether it is scientifically correct, supportable by real scrutiny of the proposition etc. etc. Claimiing scientific truth has real and difficult hurdles. I can say that the rhetoric from the climate community is a bunch of "hot air" (sic).
Publicly embarrassing your boss is childish, so I'm not surprised you think its ok.
Doesn’t it depend on the circumstances? I’m pretty sure it’s not childish to out your boss as a sexual harasser even if it results in public embarrassment.
If you're suggesting most of these legislators are sexual harassers then I hope these staffers keep writing public letters.
No. Suggesting that embarrassing your boss isn’t per se childish, and can often be the right thing to do.
My Name?? "Puddin-Tane"!!
ask me agin, I'll tell you the same...
Frank
Heywood Djablomi. You asked…