If you only read one thing from below make it the last paragraph where the summation is these groups have pared up with Manchin to save the Republic from influence peddlers.
I wrote about this prior but never saw this article which lays it out so raw.
This is Manchin and SInema's caucus. This is who they court and represent eagerly.
LEAKED AUDIO OF SEN. JOE MANCHIN CALL WITH BILLIONAIRE DONORS PROVIDES RARE GLIMPSE OF DEALMAKING ON FILIBUSTER AND JAN. 6 COMMISSION
Manchin urged big-money donors with No Labels to talk to Sen. Roy Blunt about flipping his vote on the commission in order to save the filibuster.
Joe Manchin, in a private call on Monday with a group of major donors, provided a revealing look at his political approach to some of the thorniest issues confronting lawmakers.
...The call included several billionaire investors and corporate executives, among them Louis Bacon, chief executive of Moore Capital Management; Kenneth D. Tuchman, founder of global outsourcing company TeleTech; and Howard Marks, the head of Oaktree Capital, one of the largest private equity firms in the country.... Tudor Investment Corporation, the hedge fund founded by billionaire Paul Tudor Jones. Also present was a roster of heavy-hitting political influencers, including Republican consultant Ron Christie and Lieberman, who serves as a representative of No Labels and now advises corporate interests...
...The wide-ranging conversation ... offers a frank glimpse into the thinking of the conservative Democrat who holds the party’s fate in his hands.
...When it came to Sen. Roy Blunt, a moderate Missouri Republican who voted no on the commission, Manchin offered a creative solution. “Roy Blunt is a great, just a good friend of mine, a great guy,” Manchin said. “Roy is retiring.
If some of you all who might be working with Roy in his next life could tell him, that’d be nice and it’d help our country. That would be
very good to get him to change his vote...
...Regarding Blunt, Manchin appears to be suggesting — without, perhaps, quite explicitly saying so — that the wealthy executives on the call could dangle future financial opportunities in front of the outgoing senator while lobbying him to change his vote.
Senate ethics rules forbid future job negotiations if they create a conflict of interest or present even the appearance of a conflict of interest. ...
... During the Zoom event, Manchin’s Senate office appeared in the background. It is against campaign finance ethics rules to solicit funds while in a federal building, but Manchin did no solicitation beyond the broad suggestion that donors help out Republicans who switch their votes on the commission. Rather, the group talked openly about how much money it planned to raise, and how — and on whom — it would spend that cash....
...Margaret White, co-executive director of No Labels, said the same. “
The group who engaged with Senator Manchin is motivated by a concern about the future of our nation,” she said in a statement. “This was not a fundraising call and any suggestion to the contrary is a false and obvious attempt to undermine Senator Manchin because he is one of the rare leaders in Washington who refuses to just toe the party line. It’s often a lonely place to be. No Labels is proud to stand with him.”...
..THE ZOOM CALL also featured a lengthy discussion about campaign money. “As far as the members of Congress, I mean, we did over 500,000 for [Rep.] Brian Fitzpatrick, which took us two weeks to put that together,” Jacobson said on the call, adding that the group planned to raised and direct some $20 million in “hard” dollars this cycle, referring to money that goes directly to a member of Congress’s political action committee; that means the member of Congress has control over it, rather than having to rely on an outside super PAC.
“It’s dollars that they control, hard money dollars,” said Andrew Bursky, another co-founder of No Labels and the founder and managing partner of private equity firm Atlas Holdings. “I will tell you that I participated in the last cycle, when
we handed out checks to a number of our members of the House in the range of $50,000. And in many cases, they went there, the fact that was
the single largest check they received, overall in their campaigns.”
It would be illegal for an individual donor to give a $50,000 check, though the money could theoretically be bundled from multiple donors....
...“Think about joining the House: You’re there for 730 days, unless you pick the leap year, and maybe you get 731,” said Bursky. “And
for the vast majority, those days, you’re spending four hours on the telephone, dialing for dollars. And so what this does — aside from
sending the very strong message that there are folks who will have your back if you take tough votes that by partisan nature
that may not be popular within your party — it also in real life frees them to do more work, because it’s spending less time raising those funds.”
“So it’s powerful. And there’s just no question that we have had and we continue to have an impact,” ...
... “We’ve been working hard to build a coalition.
Most recently, the Chamber of Commerce has agreed to lock arms with us,” ... a group of donors who could be tapped to give anywhere from $5,000 to $50,000 a year in support of No Labels candidates...
...White, the No Labels co-executive director, said in her statement to The Intercept that
thinking of those in attendance as peddling influence misunderstood the situation. “No Labels believes America urgently needs a two-party infrastructure solution,” she said. “Senator
Manchin has been courageously working to forge such an agreement and he was briefing a group of our supporters on progress with his colleagues in both parties.
Our community from all over the country would likely not be recognized or understood by Beltway reporters or influence peddlers.”