JD Vance, a first-term Ohio senator and Republican vice-presidential nominee, faced scrutiny for criticizing a bipartisan 2021 law aimed to invest over $1 trillion into America’s dilapidated infrastructure. Despite denouncing the legislation, Vance has sought more than $200 million in federal funds from the same law for various projects in Ohio, as per records reviewed by The Associated Press. This move highlights a trend among Republicans who disparage spending initiatives under Democratic leadership but later benefit from the funds allocated to popular projects in their home states.
Vance’s criticism of the infrastructure bill, authored in part by former Ohio Republican Senator Rob Portman, whom Vance succeeded, was vocal during his campaign. However, his actions post-election seem contradictory to his initial stance. Ohio state Senator Matt Dolan, a Republican primary competitor of Vance who supported the bill, emphasized the importance of consistency between campaign rhetoric and governance.
A spokesperson for Vance, Parker Magid, defended the senator’s actions by stating that constituents expect their senators to advocate for them in Washington regardless of party affiliations. The spokesperson asserted that Vance ensured fair consideration of legitimate expenditures on Ohio projects within the federal government. Former Democratic congressman Tim Ryan, whom Vance defeated in the election, criticized Vance’s apparent shift in position, labeling it as consistent with Vance’s alleged pattern of inconsistency.
Despite his previous criticism of the bill, Vance reportedly sought funding for Ohio projects through letters to Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg, with requests totaling over $213 million. Several projects, including one to revitalize a disadvantaged area in Toledo affected by discriminatory transportation policies, were approved for approximately $130 million in federal funding. Vance’s evolving support for the legislation contrasts his past disapproval, raising questions about his political consistency.
Vance’s advocacy for funding for projects such as low or no emissions buses, despite his past objections to Democratic emission reduction efforts, further underscores the complexity of his positions. Fellow Republican Dolan acknowledged the importance of separating campaign rhetoric from governing responsibilities and highlighted the potential negative impact on Ohio if lawmakers refused available federal funds for political reasons.
The case of Vance’s change in stance regarding the infrastructure bill serves as a noteworthy example of the complexities and nuances involved in political decisions and governance. It underscores the challenges faced by politicians in balancing campaign rhetoric with the practicalities of governing and the expectations of their constituents.