Pelosi Considering Republican for Commission Investigating Financial Crisis

For indispensable reporting on the coronavirus crisis, the election, and more, subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily newsletter.


Is House Speaker Nancy Pelosi acceding to Republican demands that the membership of a special commission to investigate the global economic crisis be evenly divided between Republicans and Democrats? The 10-member commission was originally slated to have a 6-4 split in favor of the Democrats. Earlier this month, Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), the ranking member of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, urged Pelosi to follow the model of the 9-11 Commission and the Iraq Study Group, on which both parties were equally represented. He may be getting his wish: at her weekly press briefing on Friday Pelosi suggested that she had a Republican in mind for one of her two picks.   

Previously, a Pelosi spokesman had been quick to defend the idea of a panel made up of six Democrats and four Republicans. While asserting that the speaker would choose the “most qualified” people regardless of political affiliation, the spokesman argued that 50-50 commissions have been the exception, not the rule, in recent years. He even sent Mother Jones a detailed set of commission-related statistics:

Counting all the commissions identified by CRS Report R40076 and subtracting out the commemorative commissions (such as the Ben Franklin Tercentenary Commission), there are a total of 23 congressional commissions created by legislation between the 107th and 110th Congress (2001-2008).

Of these 23 commissions:

7 had an even partisan split

4 had a one-appointment advantage to the majority party

8 had a super-majority advantage to the majority party

4 were appointed entirely by the executive branch, with only recommendations or consultation with congressional leaders

Pelosi’s spokesman, Nadeam Elshami, also noted that two other bills introduced by House Republicans would have created similar bodies with majority-Democratic memberships. Plus, Sen. Johnny Isakson (R-GA), who sponsored the original Senate amendment creating the commission, has said he thinks Republicans are already getting a fair shake, even if they’re outnumbered on the panel.

So why is Pelosi bowing to Issa’s demands?  Maybe she has come around to the view that an even split would help the commision’s credibility. Or maybe she just thinks she’s found the best person for the job.

DOES IT FEEL LIKE POLITICS IS AT A BREAKING POINT?

Headshot of Editor in Chief of Mother Jones, Clara Jeffery

It sure feels that way to me, and here at Mother Jones, we’ve been thinking a lot about what journalism needs to do differently, and how we can have the biggest impact.

We kept coming back to one word: corruption. Democracy and the rule of law being undermined by those with wealth and power for their own gain. So we're launching an ambitious Mother Jones Corruption Project to do deep, time-intensive reporting on systemic corruption, and asking the MoJo community to help crowdfund it.

We aim to hire, build a team, and give them the time and space needed to understand how we got here and how we might get out. We want to dig into the forces and decisions that have allowed massive conflicts of interest, influence peddling, and win-at-all-costs politics to flourish.

It's unlike anything we've done, and we have seed funding to get started, but we're looking to raise $500,000 from readers by July when we'll be making key budgeting decisions—and the more resources we have by then, the deeper we can dig. If our plan sounds good to you, please help kickstart it with a tax-deductible donation today.

Thanks for reading—whether or not you can pitch in today, or ever, I'm glad you're with us.

Signed by Clara Jeffery

Clara Jeffery, Editor-in-Chief

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest