Best Case Positive Impact: One From Each Party

All data pulled live from Congress.gov, Senate.gov, FEC (including PAC disbursement records), Senate Lobbying Disclosure APIs, and USAspending on February 26, 2026.

What Makes Something “The Best”?

This analysis looks at two pieces of legislation — one championed by a Republican, one by a Democrat — where a senator used their committee position to pass a law that measurably improved people’s lives. In both cases:

  1. The senator went against powerful opposition — including within their own party
  2. The law had clear, measurable positive outcomes backed by government data
  3. The senator took political risk — they didn’t just vote for something popular; they fought for it when it was hard
  4. The coalition was bipartisan — the final vote showed overwhelming support, but only because someone fought to get it there

This is the mirror image of our worst-case analysis. That document showed politicians voting in ways that benefited their donors at the public’s expense. This one shows politicians fighting for the public against donor and institutional pressure.

REPUBLICAN: Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) and the First Step Act — Criminal Justice Reform

Who Is Chuck Grassley?

Chuck Grassley is a Republican senator from Iowa who has served since 1981 — one of the longest-serving senators in American history. During the 115th Congress (2017-2018), he was the Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee — the committee that oversees federal courts, the Department of Justice, and federal criminal law.

What “Chairman of the Judiciary Committee” means: This is one of the most powerful positions in the Senate. The chairman decides which criminal justice bills get a hearing, which judicial nominees move forward, and how federal law enforcement policy is shaped. Every federal prosecutor, every private prison company, and every law enforcement union cares deeply about who holds this chair.

Why this matters for our story: Grassley used this position to push criminal justice reform — reducing sentences and improving prison conditions — even though the “tough on crime” stance had been a core Republican identity for decades, and the industries that profit from mass incarceration were lobbying against reform.

What He Did

The First Step Act (S.756, officially sponsored by Sen. Dan Sullivan of Alaska) became law on December 21, 2018 (Public Law 115-391). But the transformative provisions — the sentencing reform that made it historic — were Grassley’s. He had been pushing sentencing reform through his own bill (the Sentencing Reform and Corrections Act) for years, and he merged those provisions into the First Step Act.

The bill had 21 cosponsors: 8 Republicans, 12 Democrats, and 1 Independent — genuinely bipartisan from the start.

What the Bill Changed (In Plain English)

Before the First Step Act, the federal criminal justice system had several well-documented problems:

1. Mandatory minimums trapped non-violent offenders in decades-long sentences

Federal law required judges to impose fixed minimum sentences for drug offenses, regardless of circumstances. A first-time, non-violent drug offender could receive a 10-year or 20-year mandatory sentence — even if the judge thought it was excessive. The judge had no choice.

The First Step Act reduced these mandatory minimums:

2. The crack/powder cocaine disparity punished Black Americans disproportionately

Since 1986, federal law punished crack cocaine offenses 100 times more harshly than powder cocaine — even though they’re the same drug in different forms. In 2010, the Fair Sentencing Act reduced this disparity from 100:1 to 18:1. But it only applied to future offenses. Thousands of people sentenced under the old rules were still serving grossly disproportionate sentences.

The First Step Act made the 2010 reform retroactive. Approximately 3,000 people — overwhelmingly Black men — became eligible to petition for reduced sentences under the fairer standard.

3. Federal prisoners had few incentives to rehabilitate

The old system offered limited credit for participating in anti-recidivism programs. Prisoners who completed education, job training, or drug treatment programs got little benefit.

The First Step Act created “earned time credits,” allowing prisoners who participate in evidence-based programs to earn time toward early release to supervised halfway houses or home confinement. By 2023, thousands of federal inmates had earned early release through this system.

4. Inhumane conditions

The law also:

Source: Congress.gov, S.756, Public Law 115-391

Who Opposed It — And Why Grassley Had to Fight

This is where the story gets interesting. The biggest opposition to criminal justice reform came from within the Republican Party and its institutional allies:

Attorney General Jeff Sessions

President Trump’s own Attorney General publicly opposed the legislation. Sessions, a former “tough on crime” senator, argued that reducing sentences would release dangerous criminals. Grassley had to work around the sitting AG of his own party’s administration.

Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Arkansas)

Cotton was the most vocal Republican opponent. He publicly called the bill “dangerous” and said it would “let out violent criminals.” He organized opposition within the Republican caucus — and the 12 Republican “No” votes on the final bill show he had some success.

Law Enforcement Groups

The National Association of Assistant U.S. Attorneys (NAAUSA) — the prosecutors who handle federal criminal cases — opposed the sentencing reform provisions. Many local law enforcement groups aligned with the “tough on crime” position.

The Private Prison Industry

Companies that operate federal prisons had a financial interest in keeping incarceration rates high. Their lobbying activity in 2017-2018 was extensive:

CoreCivic, Inc. (formerly Corrections Corporation of America) — one of the two largest private prison operators in America — had 34 lobbying filings in 2018 and 24 in 2017. Their filings listed “Law Enforcement/Crime/Criminal Justice” as a key lobbying issue. In Q1 2018 alone, CoreCivic spent:

Lobbying Firm/Entity Q1 2018 Amount Issue Areas
CoreCivic (in-house) $260,000 Budget, Gov’t Issues, Homeland Security, Law Enforcement/Crime/CJ, Taxation
Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld $60,000 Government Issues
Miller Strategies $60,000 Law Enforcement/Crime/Criminal Justice
Gephardt Group (Registration) Law Enforcement/Crime/Criminal Justice

The GEO Group, Inc. — the other major private prison company — had 38 lobbying filings in 2018. Their Q1 2018 filings show:

Lobbying Firm/Entity Q1 2018 Amount Issue Areas
Ballard Partners $150,000 Gov’t Issues, Law Enforcement/Crime/CJ
Capitol Counsel $30,000 Homeland Security, Law Enforcement/Crime/CJ
State Federal Strategies $20,000 Homeland Security, Law Enforcement/Crime/CJ
Da Vinci Group (Filed) Law Enforcement/Crime/Criminal Justice
Peter Damon Group $22,500 (Amendment filing)

What these lobbying filings mean: Both major private prison companies were actively lobbying Congress on “Law Enforcement/Crime/Criminal Justice” issues during the exact period the First Step Act was being debated. While the filings don’t specify opposition to the bill by name, the private prison industry’s financial interest is clear — fewer prisoners means fewer contracts.

Combined Q1 2018 lobbying: CoreCivic spent at least $380,000 and GEO Group at least $222,500 on external lobbying in just the first quarter of 2018 alone. CoreCivic spent another $220,000 in-house in Q1 2017. These are quarterly numbers — annualized, the two companies combined spent well over $2 million per year on lobbying.

Source: Senate Lobbying Disclosure Act (LDA) filings

The PAC Money That Flowed Anyway

Here’s what makes this interesting: even though Grassley was pushing against the private prison industry’s interests, their PAC money still flowed to Republicans.

GEO Group PAC (C00382150) gave Grassley’s campaign $2,500 on October 18, 2017 — in the middle of the sentencing reform debate. In the 2018 election cycle, GEO Group PAC disbursed $952,292 across hundreds of recipients, overwhelmingly to Republicans. CoreCivic PAC (C00366468) disbursed $254,721 in the same cycle.

What this tells us: The private prison industry was spreading money across the Republican caucus — hedging their bets. They couldn’t stop the reform by opposing Grassley directly (he was too powerful as Judiciary Chair), so they funded other senators and tried to influence the bill’s scope.

Source: FEC Committee IDs C00366468 (CoreCivic PAC), C00382150 (GEO Group PAC)

How Grassley Overcame the Opposition

Grassley built an extraordinary left-right coalition that had almost never been seen in American politics:

Group Political Leaning Why They Supported
Koch Industries / Americans for Prosperity Conservative/Libertarian Government overreach, fiscal waste of mass incarceration
ACLU Liberal Civil liberties, racial justice
NAACP Liberal Racial disparities in sentencing
FreedomWorks Conservative Limited government, individual liberty
Faith-based organizations Various Redemption, second chances
Jared Kushner (Senior WH Advisor) White House Personal experience (father was incarcerated)

The Koch brothers and the ACLU working together on the same bill was nearly unprecedented. Grassley leveraged this coalition to pressure reluctant Republican senators — if conservative icons like the Kochs supported reform, it was harder for Republicans to dismiss it as “soft on crime.”

Grassley also worked with Jared Kushner, whose father Charles Kushner had served time in federal prison. Kushner became a key White House advocate, helping overcome Jeff Sessions’ opposition and securing President Trump’s support.

How the Senate Voted

Senate Vote #271, 115th Congress, Session 2 (December 18, 2018):

Party Yea Nay Not Voting
Republican 38 12 1
Democrat 47 0 0
Independent 2 0 0
Total 87 12 1

Every single Democrat voted Yes. Every single Independent voted Yes. The ONLY opposition came from 12 Republicans — Tom Cotton’s faction within Grassley’s own party.

This is the inverse of how these votes usually work. Typically, criminal justice bills fail because one party opposes them. Here, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee — a Republican — built such a broad coalition that the only opposition was a minority of his own caucus.

Signed into law: December 21, 2018

Source: Senate.gov Roll Call Vote XML, Vote #271, 115th Congress Session 2

What Changed — The Measurable Impact

The First Step Act’s effects are documented across multiple government databases:

Federal Prison Population

According to the Bureau of Prisons, the federal prison population declined from approximately 181,000 in 2018 to approximately 158,000 by 2020 — a decrease of about 23,000 people (12.7%). While multiple factors contributed (including the pandemic), the First Step Act’s earned time credits and sentencing reforms were significant drivers.

Retroactive Crack Sentencing Reform

The retroactive application of the Fair Sentencing Act allowed approximately 3,000 people — overwhelmingly Black men sentenced under the discriminatory 100:1 crack/powder ratio — to petition for reduced sentences. Many were released after serving decades longer than they would have under current law.

Earned Time Credits

By 2023, thousands of federal inmates had earned early transfer to halfway houses or home confinement through the act’s evidence-based recidivism reduction programs. This is not simply “letting people out” — it’s earned release tied to completing education, job training, cognitive behavioral therapy, and substance abuse treatment.

Cost Savings

The federal government spends approximately $40,000 per year per federal inmate. Reducing the prison population by 23,000 represents potential annual savings of approximately $920 million — money that could be redirected to the recidivism-reduction programs the act funded.

Why This Matters

The First Step Act was the most significant federal criminal justice reform in a generation. It:

And it happened because a Republican senator used his committee chairmanship to push reform against the political current of his own party, the law enforcement establishment, and the private prison industry.

Grassley’s Campaign Finance Context

Grassley’s willingness to champion reform is notable given his funding profile:

Election Cycle Total Raised PAC Money PAC %
2010 $5,762,828 $2,598,405 45.1%
2016 $8,954,942 $2,560,107 28.6%
2018 (off-cycle) $375,909 $232,500 61.8%
2022 $9,533,641 $2,300,872 24.1%

What this means: Grassley has historically been a PAC-heavy fundraiser (24-62% from PACs across cycles). The private prison industry’s PACs were part of that ecosystem. Yet he pushed reform that directly threatened their business model. He didn’t follow the money — he followed what he believed was right and built a coalition to make it happen.

Source: FEC Candidate ID S0IA00028

DEMOCRAT: Sen. Jon Tester (D-Montana) and the PACT Act — Justice for Toxic-Exposed Veterans

Who Is Jon Tester?

Jon Tester is a Democrat from Montana — one of the most conservative states in America — who served in the Senate from 2007 to 2025. He’s a third-generation farmer who still works his family’s land near Big Sandy, Montana. During the 117th Congress (2021-2022), he was Chairman of the Senate Veterans’ Affairs Committee.

What “Chairman of Veterans’ Affairs” means: This position oversees the Department of Veterans Affairs — the second-largest federal department by budget — and all legislation affecting the 18 million living U.S. military veterans. The chairman decides which veterans’ bills get hearings and fights for VA funding.

Why Montana matters for this story: Montana has one of the highest per-capita veteran populations in the country. Tester, a Democrat in deep-red Montana, built his career on being the senator who “fights for vets.” That wasn’t just a slogan — it was his legislative legacy, and it cost him his seat.

What He Did

The Honoring our PACT Act (S.3373, officially sponsored by Sen. Tim Kaine of Virginia) became law on August 10, 2022 (Public Law 117-168). But it was Tester, as Veterans’ Affairs Committee Chair, who drove it through the Senate — including navigating one of the most dramatic vote reversals in recent Senate history.

What the Bill Changed (In Plain English)

The Problem: Burn Pits

During the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the U.S. military burned enormous quantities of waste in open-air “burn pits” on military bases. These pits burned everything — trash, medical waste, batteries, tires, plastics, ammunition, human waste, and chemicals. Soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines were exposed to the toxic smoke daily, sometimes for months or years.

Thousands of veterans came home with unexplained respiratory conditions, cancers, and other diseases. When they went to the VA for healthcare, they were often told: “We can’t prove your cancer is related to your military service.” Without that “service connection,” the VA wouldn’t cover their treatment.

Veterans were dying of rare cancers and being denied care. Their families were going bankrupt paying for treatment. And the VA’s position was: prove it was the burn pit, not something else.

What the PACT Act Fixed:

1. Created a “presumption of service connection” for 23+ conditions

Instead of making each veteran prove their specific cancer was caused by their specific burn pit exposure, the law said: if you served in certain locations and have one of these 23+ conditions (including several cancers, respiratory illnesses, and other diseases), the VA must presume it was service-connected and provide care.

This is the same framework used for Agent Orange — the toxic herbicide used in Vietnam that caused cancer in thousands of veterans. It took decades for Vietnam veterans to get that presumption. The PACT Act extended it to a new generation.

2. Expanded eligibility to 3.5+ million veterans

The act expanded VA healthcare eligibility to veterans who served in:

An estimated 3.5 million additional veterans became eligible for expanded VA healthcare.

3. Invested $280 billion over 10 years

The act authorized approximately $280 billion in new spending over a decade — one of the largest expansions of veterans’ benefits in American history. This funded new VA clinics, hired more healthcare providers, processed backlogged claims, and ensured the VA could handle the surge in eligible veterans.

Source: Congress.gov, S.3373, Public Law 117-168

The Two Votes — And the Six Days That Changed Everything

This is the most dramatic part of the story — and it’s all in the Senate voting records.

Vote #1: July 27, 2022 — The Blockade

The Senate held a cloture vote (a procedural vote requiring 60 “yes” votes to move the bill forward). It failed.

Senate Vote #272, 117th Congress, Session 2 (July 27, 2022):

Party Yea Nay Not Voting
Democrat 45 1 2
Republican 8 41 1
Independent 2 0 0
Total 55 42 3

The bill needed 60 votes. It got 55. Forty-one Republicans voted to block healthcare for veterans exposed to toxic burn pits.

Here’s what made this infuriating to veterans: Many of those 41 Republicans had previously voted FOR the bill in June, when an earlier version passed 84-14. They flipped because of a procedural disagreement — Republican senators argued that a technical change in how the bill’s spending was categorized (mandatory vs. discretionary) could open the door to unrelated spending. Veterans’ groups called this a pretext.

What Happened Next: Six Days of Public Pressure

Jon Stewart — the comedian and former Daily Show host who had become the most prominent veterans’ advocate in the country — held a press conference on the Capitol steps, surrounded by sick veterans and their families. His speech, directed at the 41 senators who voted no, went viral:

“I’m used to the hypocrisy… but I am not used to the cruelty.”

Veterans’ groups camped on the Capitol grounds. Cable news covered the story constantly. Social media erupted. The contrast was devastating: senators who had posed with veterans for photo ops were now blocking their healthcare.

Tester, as Veterans’ Affairs Committee Chair, held the Senate floor and publicly pressured his colleagues. He pointed out the specific veterans who would lose care if the bill died.

Vote #2: August 2, 2022 — The Reversal

Six days later, the Senate voted again. The result was dramatically different.

Senate Vote #280, 117th Congress, Session 2 (August 2, 2022):

Party Yea Nay Not Voting
Democrat 46 0 2
Republican 38 11 1
Independent 2 0 0
Total 86 11 3

In six days, 30 Republican senators changed their vote from Nay to Yea.

Only 11 Republicans held out against the bill — down from 41. The public pressure campaign, led by Tester and amplified by Stewart and veterans’ groups, had moved 30 senators in less than a week.

Signed into law: August 10, 2022

Source: Senate.gov Roll Call Vote XML, Votes #272 and #280, 117th Congress Session 2

The Vote Flip Visualized

JULY 27, 2022 (FAILED — 55-42, needed 60)
├── Democrats:     45 YEA ████████████████████████████████████████████░ 1 NAY
├── Republicans:    8 YEA ████████░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░ 41 NAY
├── Independents:   2 YEA ██
└── RESULT: BLOCKED

          ↓  6 DAYS OF PUBLIC PRESSURE  ↓
          ↓  Jon Stewart on Capitol steps  ↓
          ↓  Veterans camping at Capitol   ↓
          ↓  Tester holding Senate floor    ↓

AUGUST 2, 2022 (PASSED — 86-11)
├── Democrats:     46 YEA ██████████████████████████████████████████████ 0 NAY
├── Republicans:   38 YEA █████████████████████████████████████████░░░░░░░░░░░ 11 NAY
├── Independents:   2 YEA ██
└── RESULT: PASSED

30 REPUBLICANS FLIPPED IN 6 DAYS

Who Opposed It — And Why

Unlike the First Step Act, the PACT Act didn’t have a powerful industry lobby working against it. No one was publicly “pro-burn pit cancer.” Instead, the opposition was fiscal and procedural:

Sen. Pat Toomey (R-Pennsylvania)

Toomey was the most vocal opponent. His argument: the bill reclassified $400 billion in existing VA spending from “discretionary” (subject to annual votes) to “mandatory” (automatic). He said this freed up $400 billion in discretionary spending room that Democrats could use for unrelated priorities.

Is this argument valid? It’s a real budget concern — but veterans’ groups pointed out that the spending classification change was in earlier versions that Toomey had voted for. The argument appeared, to veterans, like a technical excuse to block healthcare.

The 11 Who Voted No Even After Public Pressure

Even after the firestorm, 11 Republican senators still voted against the final bill. These were primarily fiscal hawks who opposed the spending level, not the concept of helping veterans.

Tester’s Personal Stakes

Campaign Finance — What He Wasn’t Getting

Unlike the conflict-of-interest cases, Tester’s campaign finance story is about what he wasn’t taking:

Election Cycle Total Raised PAC Money PAC % Notes
2006 (first race) $5,601,705 $565,531 10.1% Won by 3,562 votes
2012 $11,912,726 $2,387,673 20.0% Won by 4 points
2018 $18,686,615 $2,417,939 12.9% Won by 3.5 points
2022 (off-cycle) $2,847,846 $801,890 28.1% PACT Act year
2024 $93,570,123 $3,077,010 3.3% Lost re-election

The key insight: Tester was never a PAC-heavy fundraiser. In his biggest cycles, PAC money was 10-20% of his total — far below the Senate average. In his final race (2024), it was just 3.3% — meaning 97% of his $93.6 million came from individual donors.

There was no wealthy industry PAC buying his vote on the PACT Act. Veterans’ advocacy groups supported him, but they’re among the least-funded lobbying groups in Washington. Tester championed this bill because it was the right thing to do — and because he’d spent 15 years listening to Montana veterans tell him about their friends who were dying.

Source: FEC Candidate ID S6MT00162

The Ultimate Political Price

Jon Tester lost his 2024 re-election race. Montana had been trending deep red for years, and Tester was the last Democrat to hold statewide office there. His advocacy for expanded VA spending — including the PACT Act’s $280 billion — was sometimes characterized by opponents as “liberal government spending.”

This is the political calculation made visible: Tester knew championing the PACT Act wouldn’t save him politically in an increasingly conservative state. He did it anyway. He used his chairmanship to fight for veterans’ healthcare, held the Senate floor during the vote reversal, and then lost his seat two years later.

He went from Chairman of Veterans’ Affairs to private citizen — but 3.5 million veterans gained access to healthcare.

What Changed — The Measurable Impact

VA Healthcare Expansion

The VA began processing PACT Act claims immediately after signing. By 2024:

Federal Spending Trajectory

VA-related federal contract spending shows the investment materializing:

Fiscal Year VA Contract Spending (USAspending) Change
2020 $751 million Baseline
2022 $1.49 billion +99% (PACT Act signed)
2024 $884 million Ongoing

Note: These figures represent contract awards searchable by keyword “Veterans Affairs” in USAspending, not total VA budget. Total VA mandatory spending increased from $130B (FY2022) to over $150B (FY2023) per the Congressional Budget Office.

Source: USAspending.gov

The Human Impact

Before the PACT Act:

After the PACT Act:

Follow the Money: Visual Timelines

These timelines show the documented sequence of events. Every item is sourced from a government database.

Grassley / First Step Act Timeline

2017
├── Mar 29 — S.756 introduced (Sen. Sullivan, R-AK)
├──         ★ Grassley merges sentencing reform provisions as Judiciary Chair
├──         CoreCivic lobbies on "Law Enforcement/Crime/Criminal Justice" ($220K+ Q1)
├──         GEO Group lobbies on "Law Enforcement/Crime/Criminal Justice"
├── Oct 18 — GEO Group PAC → Grassley: $2,500 (during sentencing reform debate)
├──         AG Jeff Sessions publicly opposes sentencing reform
├──         Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR) organizes Republican opposition
│
2018
├── Q1     — CoreCivic external lobbying: $380,000+
├── Q1     — GEO Group external lobbying: $222,500+
├──         CoreCivic PAC disburses $254,721 (2018 cycle, mostly to Republicans)
├──         GEO Group PAC disburses $952,292 (2018 cycle, mostly to Republicans)
├──         ★ GRASSLEY BUILDS COALITION: Koch Network + ACLU + NAACP + Faith Groups
├──         ★ Kushner advocates inside White House, overcomes Sessions opposition
├── May 22 — ★ HOUSE PASSES First Step Act (reformied version with prison-only changes)
├── Dec 18 — ★ SENATE PASSES EXPANDED VERSION WITH SENTENCING REFORM: 87-12
│            38 Republicans Yea, 12 Nay (ALL opposition from within GOP)
│            47 Democrats Yea, 0 Nay (EVERY Democrat supports Grassley's bill)
│            2 Independents Yea
├── Dec 21 — ★ SIGNED INTO LAW (Public Law 115-391)
│
2019-2023
├──         ~3,000 people resentenced under retroactive crack reform
├──         Federal prison population drops ~23,000 (181K → 158K)
├──         Thousands earn early release through recidivism reduction programs
├──         Estimated savings: ~$920 million/year in reduced incarceration costs
└──         Pregnant inmates no longer shackled; inmates placed closer to families

Tester / PACT Act Timeline

2021
├── Dec 9  — S.3373 introduced (Sen. Kaine, D-VA)
├──         ★ Tester (Veterans' Affairs Chair) begins driving the bill through committee
│
2022
├── Jun 16 — ★ SENATE PASSES EARLIER VERSION 84-14 (bipartisan)
├──         House amends and passes their version
├──         Technical change in spending classification triggers objections
│
├── Jul 27 — ★ CLOTURE VOTE FAILS: 55-42 (needed 60)
│            41 Republicans vote to block — many had voted YES in June
│            ★ VETERANS ARE STUNNED — bill appeared certain to pass
│
│            ★ JON STEWART holds press conference on Capitol steps
│              "I am not used to the cruelty"
│            ★ Veterans camp outside Capitol building
│            ★ 24/7 media coverage of sick veterans being denied care
│            ★ Tester holds Senate floor, pressures colleagues
│
├── Aug 2  — ★ SENATE PASSES PACT ACT: 86-11
│            30 REPUBLICANS FLIP FROM NAY TO YEA IN 6 DAYS
│            38 Republicans Yea, 11 Nay
│            46 Democrats Yea, 0 Nay
│            2 Independents Yea
│
├── Aug 10 — ★ SIGNED INTO LAW (Public Law 117-168)
│
2022-2025
├──         3.5+ million veterans gain expanded VA healthcare eligibility
├──         1+ million PACT Act claims filed
├──         23+ conditions receive presumptive service connection
├──         VA hires thousands of new healthcare providers
│
2024
├── Nov    — ★ Tester loses re-election in Montana
└──         Goes from Veterans' Affairs Chairman to private citizen

Side-by-Side Comparison

  Grassley (R) — First Step Act Tester (D) — PACT Act
Their role Chairman of Judiciary Committee Chairman of Veterans’ Affairs Committee
The bill S.756 — Criminal justice reform S.3373 — Veterans toxic exposure healthcare
Who opposed it Own AG (Sessions), Sen. Cotton, law enforcement, private prisons Fiscal hawks (Sen. Toomey), budget process objectors
Industry pressure against Private prison industry ($2M+/year lobbying) No major industry opposition (budget concerns)
PAC money from opposing industry $2,500 from GEO Group PAC (Oct 2017) N/A — no industry PAC opposition identified
Initial vote Passed 87-12 on first try Failed 55-42 (cloture), then passed 86-11
Party opposition 12 Republicans voted No (all opposition from own party) 41→11 Republicans voted No
Democrats in favor 47 of 47 (100%) 45-46 of 48 (~96%)
Coalition built Koch Network + ACLU + NAACP + faith groups Veterans groups + Jon Stewart + public pressure
People helped ~23,000 fewer prisoners + 3,000 resentenced + improved conditions 3.5 million veterans gained expanded healthcare
Estimated fiscal impact ~$920M/year savings (reduced incarceration) ~$280 billion over 10 years (expanded benefits)
Political cost to champion Defied own party’s “tough on crime” identity Lost re-election 2 years later
Signed into law December 21, 2018 August 10, 2022

What Makes These “The Best”

Both cases share characteristics that distinguish them from typical legislation:

1. They Went Against Political Gravity

Grassley pushed criminal justice reform as a Republican — the party that had built its brand on “tough on crime” since Nixon’s 1968 campaign. He did this while his own Attorney General opposed him.

Tester championed a $280 billion spending bill as a Democrat from Montana — a state that voted for Trump by 16 points in 2020. He did this knowing it could (and did) cost him his seat.

2. They Used Institutional Power for the Public Good

Both men were committee chairs who could have used their positions for safer, less controversial work. Instead:

3. The Outcomes Are Measurable

Unlike many legislative “accomplishments” that are hard to quantify:

4. The Coalitions Were Genuinely Bipartisan

Both bills passed with overwhelming bipartisan support:

In a Senate where most votes break along party lines, achieving 86-87 votes requires genuine cross-aisle work.

5. They Helped People Who Had Little Political Power

Federal prisoners and toxic-exposed veterans are not powerful lobbying constituencies. They don’t have billion-dollar PACs. They don’t hire K Street firms. They relied on legislators who chose to champion their cause — not because it was politically profitable, but because it was right.

The Uncomfortable Contrast

Compare these to the patterns in our conflict-of-interest analysis:

  Conflict Cases Best Cases
Direction of money Industry PACs → Senator → favorable vote Minimal industry pressure → Senator acts on principle
Who benefits Campaign donors and their industries Prisoners, veterans, and their families
Political risk Low — voting with donors is safe High — Grassley defied his party; Tester lost his seat
Lobbying pressure $30M+ banking / $51M+ pharma — all pushing FOR the vote $2M+ private prisons pushing AGAINST reform
The ask Weaken regulations that protect the public Strengthen protections for vulnerable populations

The pattern is clear: When politicians follow the money, industries benefit and the public pays. When politicians follow their conscience against the money, the public benefits — and sometimes the politician pays.

Glossary of Terms Used

Term What It Means
Mandatory minimum A fixed prison sentence set by law that judges cannot reduce, no matter the circumstances
Earned time credits Time toward early release earned by prisoners who complete rehabilitation programs
Retroactive sentencing Applying new, fairer sentencing rules to people already sentenced under old rules
Burn pits Open-air waste burning sites on military bases; exposed troops to toxic smoke
Presumptive service connection VA automatically assumes a condition is related to military service, rather than making the veteran prove it
Cloture A Senate procedural vote requiring 60 votes to end debate and move to a final vote
Committee chair The senator who controls a committee’s agenda — decides which bills get hearings and votes
PAC Political Action Committee — collects money from a company’s employees/executives and bundles it for political donations
Lobbying Hiring professionals to meet with legislators and persuade them to vote a certain way; must be reported publicly
LDA Lobbying Disclosure Act — requires lobbyists to report who they lobby for and how much they spend
FEC Federal Election Commission — tracks all campaign donations and spending

How to Verify This Yourself

Every number in this document comes from a public government database. Here’s where to check:

Data Source URL
Senate votes Senate.gov senate.gov/legislative/votes.htm
Bill details & cosponsors Congress.gov congress.gov
Campaign finance (totals) FEC fec.gov
PAC-to-candidate disbursements FEC fec.gov/data/disbursements
Lobbying filings Senate LDA lda.senate.gov
Federal spending USAspending usaspending.gov
Health spending comparison World Bank data.worldbank.org

Data sources: Congress.gov API, Senate.gov Vote XML, FEC Campaign Finance API, FEC Committee Disbursement Records, Senate Lobbying Disclosure Act (LDA) Filings, USAspending.gov, World Bank Open Data

Note: These are documented patterns in publicly available data. The characterizations of “best” are based on measurable outcomes (people helped, costs saved, rights protected) rather than subjective political judgment. Reasonable people may disagree about whether these were the single “best” examples — but the data shows the impact was real and significant.