Schrader, K Rep

=corp dem? mta hr 48?5 22 primaried from left? manchin of the house<a href="https://theintercept.com/2022/05/18/kurt-schrader-oregon-election-jamie-mcleod-skinner/">https://theintercept.com/2022/05/18/kurt-schrader-oregon-election-jamie-mcleod-skinner/</a>=no lnxThe desperate need in this country coupled with skyrocketing levels of wealth concentration requires bold action. Refusing to address this inequality is counter to everything the Democratic Party claims to stand for and is, frankly, at this moment in history, un-American. 
The President of the United States, who is also the head of the Democratic Party, has called for $3.5 trillion worth of investments and new revenues to match those expenditures. We hope and expect members of the President’s party to support his agenda in its entirety. 
The following Democrats have refused to support the President’s agenda and are actively working to maintain preferential treatment for millionaires, billionaires and corporations:
U.S. SENATE DEMOCRATS
SEN. JOE MANCHIN (D-WV)Email using this link!
Or call: 202-224-3954
Manchin wants to begin with rolling back the TCJA and moving from there.
SEN. KYRSTEN SINEMA (D-AZ)Email using this link!
Or call: 202-224-4521
Sinema refuses to state what problems she has with the bill and what size package she would vote for. She has met with President Biden several times with no immediate action steps.
U.S. HOUSE DEMOCRATS
REP. RICHARD NEAL (D-MA), Chair of House Ways and MeansEmail using this link!
Or call: (202) 225-5601
Neal has neglected to put a strong revenue-raising package together through taxes exclusively on millionaires, billionaires, and corporations, despite the majority of the Ways and Means committee being in favor of such a plan.

REP. CAROLYN BOURDEAUX (D-GA)Email using this link!
Or call: 202-225-4272
Bourdeaux has concerns about the elimination of the stepped-up basis. She is more supportive than she lets on publicly though.

REP. ED CASE (D-HI)Email using this link!
Or call: 202-225-2726
Case is worried about eliminating the stepped-up basis loophole and does not want to tax unrealized capital gains.

REP. LOU CORREA (D-CA)Email using this link!
Or call: 202 225-2965
Congressman Correa says we need to “pause” efforts to ensure multinational corporations pay their fair share of taxes.

REP. JIM COSTA (D-CA)Email using this link!
Or call: 202-225-3341
Costa won’t support regressive tax increases and is concerned about inflation. He is fearful of voting for a bill that will die in the Senate.

REP. HENRY CUELLAR (D-TX)Email using this link!
Or call: 202-225-3341
Cuellar has said he does not want to vote for bill that will fail in the Senate. He is also unhappy with the targeting of oil and natural gas industries in the bill.

REP. JOSH GOTTHEIMER (D-NJ)Email using this link!
Or call: 202-225-4465
Gottheimer mostly wants to make sure BIF gets passed, and passes before the larger reconciliation package. He insists on only passing a bill that will also pass cleanly in the Senate. He also wants to see SALT amended in reconciliation.

REP. STEPHANIE MURPHY (D-FL)Email using this link!
Or call: 202 225-4035
Murphy has issues with raising taxes. She wants to tackle climate change but doesn’t think we need to change taxes to do it. She toes a complicated line between being ‘fiscally responsible’ and focused on ‘tax fairness,’ yet she somehow doesn’t support amending our tax structure. She will not vote for a bill that is not agreed upon with the Senate.

REP. TOM O’HALLERAN (D-AZ)Email using this link!
Or call: 202-225-3361
Congressman O’Halleran says we need to “pause” efforts to ensure multinational corporations pay their fair share of taxes.

REP. SCOTT PETERS (D-CA)Email using this link!
Or call: 202-225-0508
Scott Peters voted against allowing Medicare to negotiate drug prices, which would immediately lower drug prices for seniors. He has intimated that he may be a “no” on the entire package.

REP. KATHLEEN RICE (D-NY)Email using this link!
Or call: (202) 225-5516
Rice voted against allowing Medicare to negotiate drug prices, which would immediately lower drug prices for seniors. 90% of her constituents and 80% of all Americans support allowing Medicare to negotiate drug prices. Approximately 100% of Pharmaceutical companies do not support allowing Medicare to negotiate drug prices, on the other hand, and they give campaign contributions to politicians who support their position.

REP. KURT SCHRADER (D-OR)Email using this link!Or call: 202-225-5711Schrader says the reconciliation number is too high, and he won’t support it unless it’s under $1 trillion. He is one of the votes we are most likely to lose in the House.<div>---</div><div><a href="https://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/wall-street-leading-attack-pelosi-steny-hoyer-real-barrier-progressive-agenda">https://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/wall-street-leading-attack-pelosi-steny-hoyer-real-barrier-progressive-agenda</a></div><div>
</div><div>It’s impossible to understand the Democratic rebellion against Nancy Pelosi without understanding the way power works in the House of Representatives. To understand the self-serving men behind this rebellion, heed the words of the late screenwriter William Goldman: Follow the money.</div>There is discontent with Pelosi’s ideology on the left, and that’s understandable. But ideology is not driving this campaign, and this is no populist rebellion. In fact, its leaders have no discernible ideology at all.That’s how corporate money rolls in the Democratic Party. It lays low, hides its true colors, and pretends it only wants to “get things done.”The anti-Pelosi insurgency is not a movement. It’s a cabal, orchestrated by the appropriately hashtagged #FiveWhiteGuys, a group of self-self-interested players with big money behind them. These white males resemble nothing so much as the next-generation terminator played by Robert Patrick in “Terminator 2: Judgment Day.” They’re cunning, aggressive, shape-shifting, and so reflective that anyone who looks at them sees only a distorted image of themselves.If you’re looking to change politics, they don’t reflect you.Rebel Without a CauseThis ersatz rebellion’s most visible leader is Massachusetts Rep. Seth Moulton, a custom-crafted biography in a suit who appears to hold no core beliefs. That’s undoubtedly a plus for the political operatives who recruited and promoted him. An early <a href="https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/07/28/seth-moulton-congressman-run-president-2020-profile-215428" style="text-decoration-line: none;">profile</a> has Moulton variously calling himself “a progressive Democrat,” a “pragmatic Democrat,” and a “frustrated Democrat”—and that was just during his first primary.Moulton was reportedly <a href="https://www.wgbh.org/news/2016/04/04/politics-government/us-rep-seth-moulton-and-his-politics-new-politics" style="text-decoration-line: none;">recruited</a> to run for Congress by “New Politics,” a group that seeks to elect both Democratic and Republican veterans. It describes itself as “<a href="https://www.newpolitics.org/about" style="text-decoration-line: none;">bipartisan</a>,” a word will come up again in the story of the anti-Pelosi rebellion. New Politics’ other success story is Republican Rep. Mike Gallagher of Wisconsin, who notably <a href="https://www.greenbaypressgazette.com/story/news/politics/elections/2016/09/16/mike-gallagher-takes-aim-career-politicians/89787538/" style="text-decoration-line: none;">blamed</a> Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, rather than the ill-advised Iraq war, for the rise of ISIS.Moulton, who <a href="https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/07/28/seth-moulton-congressman-run-president-2020-profile-215428" style="text-decoration-line: none;">reportedly</a> backed that tragic misadventure, enjoyed the early support of two generals who helped lead it, David Petraeus and Stanley McChrystal.(Unfortunately, both are now disgraced: McChrystal for disrespecting the civilian chain of command, and Petraeus for revealing secrets to an extramarital lover as he cheated on his wife, a crime that would have likely led to criminal indictment for a less well-connected official.)As the <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/powerpost/democratic-rep-moulton-draws-fire-for-campaign-to-deny-pelosi-speakers-job/2018/11/16/5e17ea30-e91e-11e8-bbdb-72fdbf9d4fed_story.html?utm_term=.dfbf1b3cc6dc" style="text-decoration-line: none;">Washington Post</a> reports, Moulton “has aligned with Republicans on some policy bills, ranging from a ban on the gun accessories used in last year’s mass shooting in Las Vegas to a recent legislation allowing veterans to use medical marijuana.”Moulton had praise for Pelosi when he was asked about her <a href="https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/07/28/seth-moulton-congressman-run-president-2020-profile-215428" style="text-decoration-line: none;">last year,</a> saying she had achieved an “awful lot.” He told Politico’s Michael Kruse that he thought much of the Republican criticism of her was “unfair,” but added, “the reality is that we’re losing.”Well, Pelosi’s winning now. What’s his rationale for opposing Pelosi today? “If that many seats change hands,” Moulton <a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/do-democrats-really-want-stop-nancy-pelosi-becoming-speaker-n936386" style="text-decoration-line: none;">said</a> after the election, “that’s just all the more reason the American people are calling out for change.”Heads, he wins. Tails, Pelosi loses.The FIRE BrigadeMoulton’s given to making hazy <a href="https://twitter.com/sethmoulton/status/1062890799552192512" style="text-decoration-line: none;">statements</a> like: “Congress needs a new leader. Period.”The only concrete thing about him appears to be the money he’s raised for like-minded candidates. “Thanks to a network of donors rooted in the financial centers of Boston and <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/election-results/new-york/?tid=a_inl_auto" style="text-decoration-line: none;">New York</a>,” reports the Post, “Moulton’s Serve America PAC and related political committees raised a combined $8 million for the election cycle.”Moulton has been well-rewarded for his ideological plasticity. During his short political career, Moulton has received a total of $1,723,870 from the investor class that comprises the so-called “FIRE” sector—financial, insurance, and real estate. He has also received more than $160,000 from Pharma. (These figures come from <a href="https://www.opensecrets.org/members-of-congress/industries?cid=N00035431&cycle=CAREER" style="text-decoration-line: none;">Open Secrets</a>.)Moulton isn’t the only member of the five-man anti-Pelosi band, of course. The rhythm section is composed of Colorado’s Ed Perlmutter, Oregon’s Kurt Schrader, and Bill Foster of Illinois. The three men have received $4,082,803, $987,050, and $2,747,969 respectively from the FIRE sector. Rep. Tim Ryan of Ohio, who mounted a <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2016/11/29/meet-tim-ryan-the-ohio-democrat-challenging-nancy-pelosi-for-control-of-house-democrats/?utm_term=.85aff03533dd" style="text-decoration-line: none;">longshot challenge</a> to Pelosi in 2016, is the band’s other leader—the Keith Richards, if you will, to Moulton’s would-be Jagger.Ryan isn’t running this time around. Instead, Ryan recently insisted that there are “plenty of really competent females that we can replace her with.”For sheer tone-deafness in gender relations, that phrase belongs with Mitt Romney’s 2012 comment about the “binders full of women” he hoped to appoint as president. It may be worse, in fact, since it suggests females can’t be assumed to be competent. The remark will have an added sting for Democratic women who remember Ryan’s past positions on reproductive rights.Why does Ryan say Pelosi has to go? “We need a brand change,” Ryan told <a href="https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/nancy-pelosi-speaker-fight-757178/" style="text-decoration-line: none;">Rolling Stone</a>. For content-free criticism, that’s about as empty—and as cringeworthy—as it gets.No Labels, No PointThe rhetorical style of these Democratic “rebels”—vague on the issues, big on cliches and platitudes, the rhetorical equivalent of cotton candy—comes with a pedigree. It is the hallmark of “centrism,” the billionaire-funded political faction that serves its financial backers by selling themselves as “non-ideological,” “technocratic” architects of “bipartisan” consensus who can “<a href="https://www.insidernj.com/press-release/problem-solvers-caucus-propose-changes-house-rules-break-gridlock/" style="text-decoration-line: none;">break the gridlock</a>” and “solve problems.”For this crowd, “solving problems” always winds up meaning the same thing: cuts to Social Security and Medicare, and an unwarranted obsession with the federal deficit that always—just accidentally, mind you!—winds up helping corporations and the billionaire class.The “centrist” political style claims to be “above parties and partisanship”—which, in the end, is another way of saying it’s free of any principles except the interests of its paymasters. It often comes in the guise of patriotism, as when Seth Moulton says he places “<a href="https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/30/politics/veterans-running-democrats-midterms/index.html" style="text-decoration-line: none;">country over party</a>”—a comment that, implicitly, is a deep insult to those who believe one party’s proposals would serve the country better than the other’s.The anti-Pelosi campaign is being supported by one of the mainstays of the corporate centrist world—the cynical political ploy known as “No Labels,” which I wrote about in <a href="https://www.huffingtonpost.com/rj-eskow/the-slick-no-labels-effor_b_1678389.html" style="text-decoration-line: none;">2012</a>, and its <a href="https://ballotpedia.org/Problem_Solvers_Caucus" style="text-decoration-line: none;">creation</a>, the “Problem Solvers Caucus.” If you called “No Labels” a guaranteed-employment plan for Republican and Democratic political hacks, you would not be wrong.Besides, the Problem Solvers Caucus—which, predictably, promised to “break the gridlock” and get things done—<a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2018/11/05/house-problem-solvers-caucus-has-solved-few-problems-bipartisan-critics-allege/?utm_term=.4671d8c524a4" style="text-decoration-line: none;">hasn’t solved any problems</a>. Given their agenda, that’s a good thing—but it’s hardly a mandate to lead.It’s Not About the Speakership—It’s About Blocking Progressive ChangeThe No Labels crowd is throwing its public influence (negligible) and its ability to muster campaign cash (considerable) behind the anti-Pelosi effort for a reason: they see this as an opportunity to weaken the Democrats’ newfound power in the House. That’s especially urgent for the big-money crowd at a time when <a href="https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/13VFDbv4MfGE1xAvrHzcYrOcI06BtIQJcD7OZdHvEPbI/edit?source=howdemswon2018.com#gid=490594513" style="text-decoration-line: none;">nearly half</a> of successful new candidates ran on Medicare for All and more than <a href="https://tinyurl.com/yc866eqj" style="text-decoration-line: none;">100 House Democrats</a> have joined the Expand Social Security Caucus.The “centrist” campaign may help explain why Pelosi plans to impose a new rule making it harder to raise middle-class taxes. This rule would make it harder to achieve either Medicare for All or expanded Social Security, even though any new taxes would leave the working class much better off financially than it is today.Rep. Tom Reed, a Republican member of the Problem Solvers Caucus, has already <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/fight-for-house-speaker-explodes-into-national-political-campaign/2018/11/17/afc17ae8-e9cf-11e8-b8dc-66cca409c180_story.html?utm_term=.f3fd44f113ad" style="text-decoration-line: none;">indicated</a> he could back Pelosi if more such changes were put in place. The caucus’ additional proposed changes, roughly outlined <a href="https://gottheimer.house.gov/uploadedfiles/break_the_gridlock_packet.pdf" style="text-decoration-line: none;">here</a>, would effectively give Republicans veto power over progressive legislation.It is noteworthy that there was no serious attempt to implement these rules when Republicans ran the House.Even more than the speakership, this procedural power grab motivates the anti-Pelosi crowd and its backers. They might even withdraw their opposition to her if they could seize this power for themselves and their “centrist” allies in both parties.No wonder these “rebels” are vague about their goals. Given the massive support for Medicare for All (more than 70 percent of the public, 85 percent of Democrats) and expanding Social Security, they know their agenda is extremely unpopular. If they truly believed in “country over party,” they would support programs that most of the country wants and needs.How Power WorksHere’s how power really works in the House of Representatives. The Speaker holds enormous power, but only serves at the pleasure of her caucus. The representatives in that caucus are not her employees; they are her constituents. Anyone who wants to become Speaker has to win their support.One very effective way to do that is by raising money, as Pelosi has prodigiously done. Another is by managing the House, and the caucus, effectively enough to rack up a list of accomplishments that will help those representatives win reelection.Here’s something else worth knowing about Democratic power in the House: Its party organizations are still deeply hierarchical, and are built on deeply embedded relationships. If the Moulton/Ryan gang succeeds in unseating Pelosi, the speakership will not go to someone the left supports. Sure, it would be great to see Barbara Lee become Speaker, but that simply isn’t going to happen. Besides, she’s not even running. (Lee is running for the House’s number five position.)The Five Guys (not to be confused with the burger chain of the same name) and their backers are almost certainly looking for one of two outcomes: either Pelosi accedes to their demands, which will paralyze the Democratic agenda, or Pelosi is replaced with someone who will. But if Pelosi goes down, that replacement will probably not be Rep. Marcia Fudge, despite her public expressions of interest (as of this writing) and Moulton’s professed support for her.The Five Guys may block Pelosi, but they will not choose her successor. Instead, in the chaos that would follow a Pelosi defeat, the speakership will probably go to the second-highest member of the Democratic hierarchy: Steny Hoyer.End GameThe left is distressed with Pelosi, and that’s understandable. Pelosi’s commitment to “pay as you go” funding is a political and procedural mistake of the first order. The new tax rule is, as <a href="https://twitter.com/MoveOn/status/1063539971288641538" style="text-decoration-line: none;">MoveOn.org</a> and others have said, “<a href="https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2018/11/pelosi-mulls-super-majority-rule-for-tax-hikes-on-bottom-80.html" style="text-decoration-line: none;">a staggeringly bad idea</a>”—although that may have been forced on her by the Five Guys crowd. (Progressives should note, however, that this rule could be waived at any time to pass progressive programs.)A Hoyer speakership would be a catastrophe for the left, for reasons Politico’s Bill Scher lays out <a href="https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/11/12/nancy-pelosi-steny-hoyer-democrats-222411" style="text-decoration-line: none;">here</a>. Hoyer represents the worst of the corporate-backed, “centrist,” economically neoliberal party elite. His faction’s disastrous policies and muddled messaging led it into the political wilderness. With this election, the party has only begun to make up some of the ground lost under its rule.Progressives should mobilize to defeat Hoyer and replace him, preferably someone who can serve as an heir apparent. And if the left wants a more progressive House Speaker, it needs to run candidates in more primaries. When House Democrats are more progressive, Pelosi or her successor will either change accordingly or be replaced.Yes, Pelosi’s a big fundraiser. She reportedly raised <a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/nancy-pelosi-presides-over-democratic-victory-in-house-1541586602" style="text-decoration-line: none;">$135.6 million</a> for this election cycle. A cynic might say that this figure, when compared to Moulton’s $8 million, makes her about 17 times more likely to win this speakership fight.Pelosi raises that money, from a variety of sources, because she plays to win in the current system. Nancy Pelosi can’t, and won’t, lead the fight to get money out of politics. But then, the Democratic left needs to stop waiting for politicians to fight their battles. That’s what movements are for.This country needs a mass movement that will demand fundamental political change. But nobody needs the Five Guys’ corporate-backed chaos, or the reactionary regime it seeks to impose on the House of Representatives.If some leftists don’t want Pelosi to win, that’s understandable. But they should hope with all their hearts that her opponents lose.This article was produced by the <a href="https://independentmediainstitute.org/" style="text-decoration-line: none;">Independent Media Institute</a>.<div>
</div><interaction data-token="5b96855f8198b4e625350260" data-context="true" data-tags="" data-fallback="true" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" /><div></div><div>trumped/flanked RINO 5 22</div><div>
</div><div>In January 2020, McKinley and Representative <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurt_Schrader" title="Kurt Schrader" style="background-image: none; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; text-decoration-line: none; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none;">Kurt Schrader</a> co-authored an opinion piece for <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USA_Today" title="USA Today" style="background: none rgb(255, 255, 102); text-decoration-line: none; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none;">USA Today</a> on climate change. It read in part, "climate change is the greatest environmental and energy challenge of our time, and our government is failing to meet it. Instead of energy policy that lurches in a different direction after every election cycle, we need a new approach to develop realistic solutions that will enjoy support from both parties in Congress. Setting a steady course would be far better for both industry and the environment." The piece also called for "policies that will make clean energy technologies for all fuels affordable—solar, wind, hydro and other renewables, as well as nuclear, carbon capture for fossil fuels, energy efficiency, storage, and other technologies that will make the grid more secure, resilient, and affordable."<sup id="cite_ref-43" class="reference" style="font-family: " times="Times" new="New" roman="Roman" background-color="background-color" rgb="rgb" line-height="line-height" unicode-bidi="unicode-bidi" isolate="isolate" white-space="white-space" nowrap="nowrap"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_McKinley#cite_note-43" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none; background: none;">[43]</a></div><a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/salmon-dams-congress-2563523631.html">https://www.ecowatch.com/salmon-dams-congress-2563523631.html</a><div class="headline-container" style="margin-top: 10px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><h1 class="headline h1" style="margin: 10px; padding: 0px; position: relative; line-height: 31px;">Alarming 'Salmon Extinction Act' Passes in U.S. House</h1></div><div id="utm_campaign" style="margin-top: 10px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><div class="body js-expandable clearfix js-listicle-body js-update-url" data-elid="2563523631" data-authors="Earthjustice" data-headline="Alarming 'Salmon Extinction Act' Passes in U.S. House" style="margin: 10px; line-height: 24px;"><div class="body-description">A small group led by Republicans in Congress spearheaded a bill that <a href="http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2018/roll153.xml" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">passed</a> in the U.S. House of Representatives on Wednesday. If the bill becomes law, it could lead to the eventual extinction of wild <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/salmon" style="text-decoration-line: none;">salmon</a> in the Columbia and Snake rivers—iconic species in the Pacific Northwest that the federal government is required by law to protect.House Resolution 3144 seeks to overturn multiple federal court decisions that protect endangered salmon and steelhead. It undermines bedrock environmental laws and forbids any action that might reduce power generation at Columbia and Snake River dams without an act of Congress—from spilling more water over <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/dams" style="text-decoration-line: none;">dams</a>in the spring to help endangered fish migrate, to studying the possibility of removing the four aging lower Snake River dams.Further, it mandates that salmon populations be managed based on a 2014 federal plan that was rejected in two court decisions as being illegal, for not doing enough to save the fish from extinction."HR 3144 is a giant step backwards in our region's effort to restore salmon populations," said Todd True, an <a href="https://earthjustice.org/" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">Earthjustice</a> attorney who has been at the forefront of this issue for more than two decades. "The entire goal of the bill is to circumvent the law and the courts, because a few legislators want to put a narrow set of economic interests ahead of the broad support in our region for salmon restoration. They have inserted themselves into the process, without considering the true consequences—for the fish, our energy future, or the Northwest economy."</div></div></div>=<a href="https://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/trumps-inauguration-donations-are-still-missing-one-year-later-report">https://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/trumps-inauguration-donations-are-still-missing-one-year-later-report</a>Almost one year after President Donald Trump took the oath of office, millions of dollars from his leftover inauguration funds have still not been donated to the charities they were promised to.Trump's inauguration committee raised a record-breaking $107 million as his administration prepared to assume the White House last year, but very little has been disclosed about where the remaining money was allocated. Nearing the one-year anniversary of Trump's inauguration, a government watchdog group is questioning why the funds disappeared, and a congressman is proposing legislation to keep future administrations from obscuring their own inaugural donations.The organizing committee led by billionaire investor Thomas Barrack doubled the funds raised by any previous U.S. president during Trump's transition period. The money raised eyebrows among political operatives because there was nothing about the celebration that indicated it would exceed a more traditional price tag, according to the liberal-leaning consumer rights advocacy group, Public Citizen.For the group's government affairs lobbyist, Craig Holman, this has raised one key question that remains unanswered on the cusp of Trump's inaugural anniversary: where did the extra money go?"It really raises a lot of suspicions that these funds were mismanaged and probably no longer even exist," Holman told Newsweek Wednesday. "I strongly suspect that the funds have just been wasted away. I mean, there was no reason in the world the Trump Inaugural Committee needed to raise $107 million."The inauguration tab is split between <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/17/us/politics/trump-who-pays-for-inauguration-cost.html">several groups</a>: the Joint Congressional Committee on Inaugural Ceremonies, the U.S. federal government, state and local governments, as well as the Presidential Inaugural Committee. The latter group traditionally collects funds from private donors to finance inaugural balls, a concert and private dinners where a hefty donation often secures a seat at the table.After funding Trump's celebration, the committee said it was evaluating charities that would receive the remaining money. In late September, the committee announced that it had donated <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/27/us/politics/trump-inaugural-committee-donations-hurricanes.html">$3 million</a> to multiple groups involved in hurricane relief efforts in the Gulf Coast, Florida and the Caribbean. An undetermined amount of funds were allocated to  <a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/trump-inaugural-funds-charity-2017-9">redecorating the White House</a> and Vice President Mike Pence's home in Washington, rather than charitable efforts.Barrack, chairman of the private Presidential Inaugural Committee, said details about the committee’s donations to charity would be <a href="http://apnews.com/0756ba7480444895b4fabc9a2f0909b3">released in November</a>. Yet the deadline passed without further financial information being disclosed. A spokesman for Barrack declined to comment on the report's delay or allegations that the committee mismanaged funds under his leadership. The President's Inaugural Committee is required to <a href="https://www.fec.gov/data/committee/C00629584/?tab=filings&cycle=2018">disclose total donations</a> to the Federal Election Commission, but there is no mandate that the committee publicly disclose where the money is spent.Representative Kurt Schrader, a Democrat from Oregon, intends to introduce legislation that would change that. He wants to require future inaugural committees to submit public disclosure reports on how the privately collected dollars are spent. He told Newsweek that it is "wildly unacceptable" that there are no laws to regulate how money raised under the president's name can or cannot be spent."There needs to be transparency and accountability for money raised or spent in the name of our elected offices," Schrader told Newsweek in a statement. "The American people expect and deserve more, and working on this should be an easy, bipartisan slam dunk that everyone can get behind.”Such measures have never been necessary before, Holman said. Most committees for previous administrations raised only enough money to finance the presidential inaugural festivities. Former President Barack Obama's first inauguration committee in 2009 raised <a href="https://apnews.com/aa6f547f15a64e74866e1b813629eb46">$55 million</a> while his second committee raised <a href="https://apnews.com/aa6f547f15a64e74866e1b813629eb46">$43 million</a> in 2013. Before that, former President George W. Bush raised $42.3 million in 2005."We’ve never had an inaugural committee that just went hog wild and raised $107 million and had a huge surplus leftover," Holman told Newsweek. "There are no rules set up for how this money should be spent. It may not be illegal, but it certainly reeks of gross mismanagement and possibly political opportunism."=