The House Freedom Caucus has apparently changed its rules

In the 118th Congress, the House Freedom Caucus certainly received considerable attention. Not all of that attention was fair. And none of them conspicuously mention how the group has deviated from its early days.

As for fairness, reports that the Freedom Caucus was leading the charge against Kevin McCarthy during January’s House Speaker election defied simple math. Although the caucus does not advertise its membership, it is generally accepted that its membership number is approximately. The number of members is 40. At most, about 15 people voted against Kevin McCarthy during the speaker campaign. And the “Never Kevin” group was probably closer to five people.

The Freedom Caucus has rules. Some are unwritten, but most exist in writing. I know because I wrote them. I also don’t know of any official changes to them.

One of its rules is that 80% of caucus members are required to adopt a formal HFC position on a particular issue. Last time I checked, 5 or even 15 didn’t even come close to 80% of her 40. In fact, fewer than 20 people are even a simple majority. Therefore, it is incorrect to say that the effort against McCarthy was a Freedom Caucus effort.

That rule, and another, albeit unwritten rule, regarding formal caucus positions are now in focus as part of the debate over government funding and the impending government shutdown.

It comes after some members of the Freedom Caucus recently agreed with moderate Republicans to temporarily fund the government as part of a deal that cuts spending levels and also introduces specific policy initiatives, including: The agreement was reached with members of the Main Street Partnership. Border security.

Yet, despite members of the Freedom Caucus abandoning the deal and members of the Freedom Caucus like Rep. Chip Roy (R-Texas) actively calling for support for the deal. , some media outlets still claim that the House Freedom Caucus itself is the deal. Pushing for a government shutdown.

And this brings us to one of the unwritten rules of HFC. When we started the group in 2015, there was an informal test of potential members. At the end of the day, we wanted conservatives who we could count on to fight when necessary, and who could compromise when doing so seemed to advance conservative policies. did. (This approach led to our own short-lived working title for the group, “The Reasonable Nutjob Caucus.”)

To screen potential members, we conducted a two-part test. We are looking for members who can vote against procedural motions (commonly known as “rules”) and who can vote in favor of short-term continuing funding resolutions or CRs. I did. The former was one of the most treasonous operations we could think of at the time. The latter was the most despicable. But both had to be done in the belief that doing so would ultimately advance conservative policy.

We created this test knowing that there would be so-called conservatives who would flip-flop and vote for short-term CRs put forward by the leadership, while they would put up a good fight. , knowing that there were some people who would never get such a policy. A spine that votes against the rules.

At the same time, we knew that there were anarchists who would vote against any rule because they wanted to see the world burn. We were looking for a solid conservative who could figure out the right time to play either card and had the backbone to play the cards needed.

To that end, we excluded some people from the caucus who wanted to participate.

But apparently HFCs have changed since 2015, or at least their review process has changed. Some people who now claim to be members of the caucus claim that they would never vote for a short-term CR under any conditions.

This is unfortunate, as members of the Freedom Caucus appeared to be working with moderates in the party to find something that would cut spending and improve border security. Last I checked, these were supposed to be conservative priorities. And that is exactly what He HFC was founded to foster compromise and progress.

I’m not saying compromise is perfect. There is probably no viable bill. What I’m saying is that if there’s anything that we have in the world right now that seems truer to the spirit of the founding of the Freedom Caucus, it’s working with moderates to try to pass something that reflects solid conservative principles. That means it’s an effort.

Yes, there is a short-term CR, but it was always envisioned by the caucus’s founders as acceptable under certain circumstances.

At the same time, for much the same reason, it would be a mistake to call for opposition to the House Freedom Caucus’s spending bill, and by extension, the Speaker.

The truth is, the Never CR Never Burn Kevin initiative doesn’t really seem to come from an organized group. Someone this week called it a “one-man caucus” gathering. Some people appear to be using the initiative to raise their profile on Fox News and social media. Some are trying to capitalize on the newfound attention by running for high-level office.

Some people may just really want to burn the place down, and some certainly have honest motives.

But it would be lazy, inaccurate, and unfair to describe the current situation as driven by the Freedom Caucus.

Former South Carolina Congressman Mick Mulvaney is a NewsNation contributor. He served as Director of the Office of Management and Budget, Director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, and Acting White House Chief of Staff under President Donald Trump.