Q&A: Killing the Filibuster Mutes Iowa’s Voice

Q: Why is killing the Senate “filibuster” bad for Iowa?

A: If Democrats and Ex-Rep. Abby Finkenauer get their way, they will kill the filibuster in the Senate. That might be good for a liberal agenda pushed by Californians and New Yorkers, but it’s bad for Iowa. Quite simply, killing the so-called “filibuster” would be damaging to working families and our way of life in America’s Heartland. The architects of the U.S. Constitution carefully constructed the balance of power in the upper and lower chambers of the federal legislature through strategic compromise to preserve the principles of federalism. The Senate, which has two members for every state, no matter how large or small, prevents populous states from running roughshod over the interests of less populated and rural states. For more than 200 years, Senate rules have upheld the ability for each individual senator to keep check on the tyranny of the majority. Ex-Rep. Abby Finkenauer’s stance on the filibuster aligns with her voting record that mirrored Nancy Pelosi 93 percent of the time, supporting the interests of California liberals instead of Iowans. That’s a big reason why voters in Iowa’s First District kicked her out of office in 2020 – a loss that’s especially embarrassing considering Iowa voters haven’t kicked a Member of Congress out of office after just one term in more than 50 years. Now, ex-Rep. Finkenauer wants members of her political party to unilaterally change Senate rules to ram through a partisan progressive agenda. She has lambasted Senators Manchin and Sinema for seeking compromise and consensus. Changing the rules would come at Iowa’s expense. First of all, it would allow President Biden to pass his partisan progressive agenda filled with reckless spending and higher taxes. But even worse, going forward it would freeze Iowa’s Senators out of negotiations on laws that impact Iowans. Without it, we’d have a New Yorker–Chuck Schumer and a Californian–Nancy Pelosi, writing laws behind closed doors, instead of engaging with members from other states like Iowa. Consider the Biden administration’s effort to ram through another multi-trillion dollar reckless tax and spending spree on top of the $2 trillion package it passed on a party-line vote in March. Build Back Better was developed with no Republicans at the table. Absent the guardrails of what is usually derisively, if inaccurately, called the Senate filibuster, the Democrats’ progressive agenda serving the interests of coastal elites would sideline states like Iowa and put our kids and grandkids on the hook for reckless deficit spending for generations to come. 

Q: What would happen if the Democrats killed the Senate’s 60 vote rule? 

A: If Democrats are successful in their effort to change the Senate rule that requires 60 votes for legislation to advance, it would freeze rural states like Iowa out of the legislative process and end bipartisanship as we know it. Unlike the House of Representatives, Senate rules allow any individual senator to offer an amendment and also prevent a narrow majority from stopping the amendment process. That means some bipartisanship is required to pass most legislation, and paves the way for individual senators to participate and better represent the views of their constituents. History shows during the brief period when Democrats had 60 votes in the U.S. Senate, the Majority Party threw consensus out the window and sought to pass more sharply partisan legislation with little or no effort to reach across the aisle. Bills were written in the Democrat Leader’s office and even rank-and-file Democrats lost the ability to offer amendments on behalf of their states. History is repeating itself in today’s 50-50 Senate where Democrat leaders have attempted to ram through a historically large and sweeping series of social welfare programs and climate spending proposals, including mass amnesty, on the slimmest majority using the budget reconciliation process. A permanent change in Senate rules to allow a narrow majority to cut off debate and choke amendments would empower Senate leaders to neuter the ability of individual senators to legislate on behalf of their states. In effect, it would allow lawmakers from California and New York to push the mute button on so-called flyover states. That makes Ex-Rep. Finkenauer’s full-throated support for killing the so-called “filibuster” disqualifying to represent Iowa in the U.S. Senate. Despite giving lip service to bipartisanship, ex-Rep. Finkenauer is campaigning to be a reliable vote for Democrat leadership and a sharply partisan agenda, not a serious, independent legislator. Iowans count on Chuck Grassley to champion Iowa at every turn. Chuck Grassley is one of the most bipartisan lawmakers in the U.S. Senate. He has consistently opposed allowing narrow majorities to unilaterally cut off the fundamental right of senators to offer amendments under both Republican and Democrat majorities and Presidents of both parties. Grassley Works for Iowa. Having served Iowans in the U.S. Senate for the past 41 years, Chuck Grassley’s unmatched commitment to representative government is reflected by his historic electoral success at the ballot box. He’s won every re-election to the U.S. Senate by double-digit victories and is working as hard as ever to repeat this outcome on Election Day in November. Chuck Grassley’s success is earned by keeping in touch with Iowans and putting Iowa first—from the Senate Floor to every county, every year.