Ask Us Anything
Midterm concerns, blue state activism, money, power, and civic engagement
If you have not already done so, please become a paid subscriber to Wolves and Sheep and Bowers News Media for $8 per month or $80/year. You will receive access to two paid articles per week, invites to our monthly briefings, opportunities to ask us questions in our Ask Us Anything series, and the ability to post comments on our articles.
You have both assured me that it is extremely unlikely the midterm elections will be prevented or meaningfully tampered with. I appreciate your detailed rationale for this. However, I am still concerned that Mike Johnson could find some excuse to delay the swearing into office of Democratic winners in a way that would interfere with the legislative process, like when he delayed the swearing in of Rep. Adelita Grijalva.
(Chris) This is an interesting loophole, as it is 100% true that the House of Representatives doesn’t have to seat anyone that a majority of members are unwilling to seat. The Constitution gives the House the power to be the final adjudicator of all House elections, without appeals to the states, the Supreme Court, or anyone else.
That said, I wouldn’t worry about this. What happened with Rep. Grijalva is that she was due to be sworn in when the House was on a very extended recess when Republican leadership was trying to prevent the discharge petition to release the Epstein files from passing. It wasn’t like the House was in session and conducting regular business without swearing her in. The House was shut down because Republican leaders had lost control of it.
There is an overwhelming, bipartisan majority to seat the declared winners of 2026 House elections. And the number of contested elections is actually on the decline and is at an historic low.
I live in a very blue state (WA) and cannot afford to donate a lot of money to national political entities. I have relied on writing letters to infrequent Democratic-leaning voters in swing states via Vote Forward to have an effect nationally, and I have recruited friends and family to do so. What can people like me in blue states do to help Democrats win in other states apart from give money?
(Chris) It can sometimes be frustrating to be an activist in a deep blue area, because it means you are not on the frontlines of the electoral battle. I lived in Philadelphia for a long time, which was kind of the best of both worlds: a deep blue city in a swing state.
It is true that you cannot make as much of a difference in a deep blue area as you could in a purple or light red area, but you still can make a difference no matter where you live. The suite of actions you can engage in is actually the same regardless of location: voting, attending meetings or rallies, donating, contacting your members of Congress, speaking out on social media or in person, and educating yourself.
P.S. I LOVE Vote Forward, and played an important role in helping them make it big back in 2018.
Is there any possibility that Donald Trump, Pam Bondi or Kristi Noem could be prosecuted after departing the White House?
(Chris) I admit to personally feeling quite squeamish about this. After watching the Trump administration systematically target the people who Donald Trump dislikes the most for prosecution, I just don’t want to be like that in reverse when Democrats are in power.
I am also pretty dubious about the practical impact that the prosecution of Donald Trump had from 2021-2024. He was never really punished for anything, raised huge amounts of money from it, and then he was re-elected anyway and came back more hellbent on revenge than ever.
At the same time, I also don’t want to avoid prosecuting people who have committed crimes just because it would look bad. That is not how justice should work. So, I admit don’t really know what to do.
All that said, I think the chances approach 100% that Donald Trump and other Trump administration figures will be prosecuted once they leave office, either by the next Democratic administration or some state or local Democratic officials.
How much do you think Citizens United and income inequality have contributed to the rise of Trumpism?
(Matt) Quite a bit, in both direct and indirect ways. Opening the financial floodgates has permitted the hyper-wealthy to spend on elections without constraints. And while money does not determine outcomes—I wrote recently that no amount of money can sell a defective product that people have rejected—it is an important factor if for no other reason than it forces Democrats and progressive groups to counter with spending of their own.
With Trump weighted down by dismal approval ratings and an agenda the public intensely dislikes, Republicans believe their best hope for maintaining control of Congress is to spend their way out of the political hole they have dug for themselves. They couldn’t do it if we had strict campaign spending limits. Try to imagine where Republicans would be if they had to defend Trump’s record on a level playing field. It would be all over for them.
Indirectly, campaign spending that’s pushed officials (of both parties) to prioritize the interests of their wealthy supporters has worked to weaken the connection between voting and representation. We’ve seen this over the years in policies that have contributed to the vast wealth and income disparities that leave people receptive to a demagogue who talks about blowing up the system. And while the racist impulses Trump has channeled into MAGA politics will unfortunately always be with us, it takes widespread anger and angst to empower them.
Money has always been a factor in politics. It always will be. But regulating it will be a key step in recalibrating the relationship between the government and the governed. Water can be a source of nourishment when you drink from a tap or a source of destruction in a hurricane. When this era is over, it will be incumbent on us to end the flood.
My mother ran for state representative back in the 60s and wanted to get me involved with the political process. I was game to do so at 14, so I became a TAR (teenage Republican). To my younger eyes and mind it seemed that many people running for office on both sides of the aisle were truly interested in a making our state and country a better place to live. Fast forward 62 years and my politics have changed. I think that a number of those running have become more interested in dollars than civic betterment. Do you agree and how do we change that?
(Matt) I wanted to pair your story with the earlier question about Citizens United, because it illustrates an important point about how massive amounts of uncontrolled money can change the incentive structure for people who run for office. Even for those who are drawn to public life by civic virtue—and they still exist—the experience of running for and holding office is now infused with the need to “dial for dollars” to raise the outsized sums necessary to compete in elections. I’ve never met a member who enjoys the hours spent asking for cash—actually, I’ve never met a member who doesn’t hate it—but it is a fact of life even for those who ran because they want to improve lives.
And for those motivated by personal enrichment rather than advancing the public good, there are ample opportunities to trade access for dollars after leaving elected office. Private lobbying firms will pay top dollar to former members who can get meetings with current members on behalf of well-paying clients. For some in public office, this is their desired long-term payoff and a hedge against losing elections. Where Congress awards power, lobbying awards money.
So how do we change that? In a way, circumstances may be on our side. The massive disruption caused by the Trump presidency is upending Washington while birthing a new era of civic engagement. Moments like this in the past have led to periods of meaningful reform, where there is a recalibration of the relationship between the governing class and the governed. We will have to work hard to make it happen—as hard as we are working now to hold back the forces of authoritarianism. But we are likely to have a moment when meaningful reform is possible after all this is over. If you’re interested, I’ve written about the importance of campaign finance reform in my Project Democracy series. You can find it here.