It's probably the only way to get (4.00 / 2)

real change.  So long as big money is in politics, it will rule.

Unfortunatley, Obama's rejection of public financing seems to have killed the movement.  

---

by: Tom Wells @ Wed Apr 15, 2009 at 13:03:21 PM CDT

It's quite completely clear (4.00 / 1)

that no Republican -- not a single one -- will line up for "reform" that favors "Obama style" contributions.

And why indeed should they? If, demonstrably, the demographics of "Obama style" contributions favor the more technologically savvy and more affluent white collar class that votes for Obama, how is that an unbiased "reform"? And such contributions also favor unions, who, Republicans will claim, can put a great deal of pressure on their members to contribute to Democrats, likewise distorting the outcome.

Given that Obama broke his own promise to take public financing, and did so only because it served his own political campaign, what sort of credibility does he have on being an "honest broker" regarding these reforms? What credibility does any Democrat have, given their own support of Obama's choice?

And if there's one piece of legislation that simply demands bipartisan support, it should be campaign finance reform. No independent observer is going to find legislation to reform campaign finance as being fair toward both sides if, uniformly, one side is opposed to it.

---

by: frankly0 @ Wed Apr 15, 2009 at 13:34:55 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

actually (4.00 / 1)

There are Republicans on this bill. Specter in Senate and 2 in the House.

---

by: AdamGreen @ Wed Apr 15, 2009 at 13:55:19 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Hardly enough to matter and (4.00 / 1)

I don't think counting on Spector is smart.  Remember, he voted for EFCA, when it would be vetoed.

Does Pres. Obama support this?  

---

by: Tom Wells @ Wed Apr 15, 2009 at 14:42:22 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Specter (4.00 / 2)

is the main sponsor, with Durbin. He can definitely be counted -- it's his bill.

And saying "isn't enough to matter" is not productive analysis. Do you know how many co-sponsors there are currently? At introduction, 10-12. 3 Republicans. That seems like a good proportional start.

Obama was a sponsor last Congress. Durbin, who is the other lead on this, is pretty close to Obama.  

---

by: AdamGreen @ Wed Apr 15, 2009 at 23:58:15 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I hope you're right. (0.00 / 0)

I guess I'm cynical, but the effort is worth making.

---

by: Tom Wells @ Thu Apr 16, 2009 at 09:00:59 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Specter (0.00 / 0)

is the main sponsor, with Durbin. He can definitely be counted -- it's his bill.

And saying "isn't enough to matter" is not productive analysis. Do you know how many co-sponsors there are currently? At introduction, 10-12. 3 Republicans. That seems like a good proportional start.

Obama was a sponsor last Congress. Durbin, who is the other lead on this, is pretty close to Obama.  

---

by: AdamGreen @ Wed Apr 15, 2009 at 23:58:17 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

It's Amazing how (0.00 / 0)

quickly the Corporate media has been able to shift the discussion away from "Banksters", robber barons, breaking up the corporations which are "too big to fail," Pay-to-play and generally all things involving bought government.
 Now, instead of discussing corporate influence on government, the talk is shifted back to astro-turf protests and the wickedness of "big government."  I think the Tea Party can count itself as a major success, not because anyone takes them seriously, but because they've sucked all the air out of the other topics.  
You'd think something like what Colbert is talking about might get some play...  But, you know, there are corporate financed, anti-government protests to stroke.

---

by: triangunation @ Wed Apr 15, 2009 at 13:37:07 PM CDT

Absolutely true, but NOTHING... (4.00 / 1)

...will change. There is a naive assumption that goes something like "if only we got corporate $$$$ out of the system" and "received millions from small donors" the system would change. The sooner people realize that this is NOT about "the people" and has ALWAYS been about corporate/elite interests the better.

You can have a senario where citizen donations could dwarf corporate money and the direction of policy will invariably go towards the corporate side. It's ALWAYS been about "them" and will be for the forseeable future.

---

by: lams712 @ Wed Apr 15, 2009 at 13:38:41 PM CDT

hulu clip embedding annoys me, since I can't see them. (4.00 / 1)

As an ex pat not currently in a US I always get annoyed when people direct me to hulu clips, as they block non US IP addresses.  Just saying.

I'm glad it's done

---

by: gearmonkey @ Wed Apr 15, 2009 at 17:01:53 PM CDT

This segment was really not fair to Gutierrez (0.00 / 0)

Gutierrez assumed the chairmanship of the subcommittee with jurisdiction over payday lending at the beginning of this Congress.  At a hearing a couple of weeks ago on this very bill, he was pretty clear that he'd introduced the bill because he thinks there needs to be some governance of payday loans, given that increasing numbers of people lack access to traditional (and better) forms of credit.  

If you take his word that he thinks some form of governance of payday loans does need to be enacted (and, frankly, given that it doesn't appear that Colbert's people so much as spoke with the Gutierrez camp about the bill, I don't see a lot of reason not to), he couldn't do so through a 36% APR cap.  Why?  Because there would be no chance of getting it through the subcommittee, much less through both houses of Congress and signed into law.  

That doesn't mean, by any stretch of imagination, that progressives shouldn't push for a better bill (and process reforms like better campaign financing).  However, the attacks on Gutierrez as having sold out and all of that really aren't merited.

John McCain

---

by: djm84 @ Wed Apr 15, 2009 at 23:41:44 PM CDT