When did the concept of election security become a partisan issue?
Two months after President Donald Trump was elected, United States intelligence officials issued a report that detailed Russian attempts to influence and interfere in the 2016 presidential election.
The Russian interference took the form of thousands of dollars of Facebook ads and cyber-espionage, where multiple high-profile Democrats had their email accounts and data targeted.
This was in order to gain access to embarrassing and personal information, to further discredit the Democratic Party.
Almost a year later, the Senate Intelligence Committee released a report that backed intelligence agency findings that Russia had influenced the election to ensure Trump’s victory. This further enshrined the committee’s belief that Russia was systematically trying to weaken and discredit American democracy.
As stated in the report, “Russian efforts to influence the 2016 U.S. presidential election represent the most recent expression of Moscow’s long standing desire to undermine the U.S.-led liberal democratic order, but these activities demonstrated a significant escalation in directness, level of activity and scope of effort compared to previous operations.”
Keep in mind, this is not a “crackpot” conspiracy theory pushed by liberal or conservative supporters. These are facts verified and corroborated by our own intelligence organizations.
So, the big question is, what is Congress doing to prevent a repeat of a foreign interference in the 2020 elections?
So far, nothing substantial.
There have been multiple bills that have gone to the Senate for discussion after passing the House, but the self-named “Grim Reaper,” Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, has not allowed most of them to go to the floor for debate.
To name a few: In July, McConnell shot down a measure that would authorize $775 million to be allocated to state election systems and require paper ballots as an additional security measure.
He then prevented another proposal that would have required all candidates, their staffers and family members to inform the federal authorities if they were offered any kind of aid by foreign governments, which was inspired by the events of the
2016 elections.
A byproduct of both McConnell’s bill blocking and the building frustration of Senate inaction, the nickname “Moscow Mitch” was born.
The name implies the Senator is a Russian asset that is helping push Russian interests.
At the very least, blocking the numerous election security bills portrays McConnell in a negative light.
When asked about the nickname, he said, “It’s modern-day McCarthyism, . . . You know, I can laugh about things like the ‘Grim Reaper’, but calling me ‘Moscow Mitch’ is over the top.”
The thing is, I pity Mitch McConnell. While he is certainly the face and driving force of the Republican-controlled Senate, passing or defeating election security bills does not entirely fall upon him.
I ask you to keep in mind each and every Senator is an autonomous, free thinking individual and therefore not completely beholden to party politics. The Republicans have only a 53-47 majority in the Senate and it would only take 4 of those Senators to vote yes on the aforementioned election security bills. (Or 13 to avoid the filibuster.)
It’s astonishing that not even 4 out of 53 Republican Senators have the courage to “break ranks” and defy the “will of the party” as dictated by McConnell.
I ask you, do you want a government that will not even debate the issue of election security, even after there is credible evidence of foreign interference?
McConnell shutting down bills before even having a discussion on them is tantamount to a child plugging in its ears and screaming “La La La.”
To Senate Republicans, I implore you to think for yourself, not simply along party lines.
To Mitch McConnell, I say if you want to get rid of the moniker “Moscow Mitch,” you simply need to stop acting like a Russian asset, and defend our democratic voting institutions.
