Last month, Senator Russ Feingold was one of two Democrats who voted against the Wall Street reform bill in the Senate because it was not strong enough (Maria Cantwell was the other). This was a principled stand for Feingold, who was one of only eight Senators to vote against the 1999 deregulation bill that helped create the current economic crisis.
While Feingold's principled stance is understandable, advocates for Wall Street reform have been asking him to engage with more specifics about his objections. The reason for this is to provide leverage to strengthen the bill during the conference committee.
Right now, about three or four Republican Senators are making specific demands to weaken the final bill that will come out of conference committee in exchange for their votes. Given that three Republicans--Scott Brown, Susan Collins, and Olympia Snowe--actually did vote for cloture the bill back in May, these are not being taken as empty threats by people working on the bill. In particular, Scott Brown's demand to carve out a huge exemption in the Merkley-Levin amendment to restore a stricter Volcker rule is a rule threat.
Feingold could counter this threat from Scott Brown and the other Republican hostage takers by making specific demands of his own in exchange for his vote. Today, he seems to have done just that. Here is part of a statement just released by Feingold, followed by analysis from Brian Beutler:
I have spoken to Senate leaders, the Obama administration, and members of the conference committee and made my concerns well known. I opposed deregulating Wall Street and eliminating the protections of the Glass-Steagall Act, a position which put me at odds with many in Washington who supported the very policies that contributed to the financial crisis, and who now support these bills that simply don't get the job done. Without including stronger reforms, we're simply whistling past the graveyard.
That's not a declarative 'no'. Indeed, along with the statement, Feingold's office added a list of provisions that weren't part of the Senate financial reform bill, but that could have tipped him into the yes column if they'd been included. I've pasted that list below. Note in particular the last one: "[The] Merkley-Levin amendment to prohibit any bank with government insured deposits from engaging in high-risk finance, like investing in hedge funds or private equity funds."
Feingold has specifically demanded that the exemption Scott Brown is seeking not be included in the final bill, or else he will vote no. Given Feingold's track record, there is every reason to believe him.
A common argument during the health reform fight was that the Progressive Caucus lacks influence to strengthen bills in the House because of their long-standing record of almost all members supporting almost all Democratic legislation no matter how weak it became. Well, this is a problem that Russ Feingold does not suffer on Wall Street reform, so it will be an interesting test of the Progressive Block theory. Everyone, including the Democratic leadership, believes that Feingold will vote no if he doesn't get his way. So, when the vote takes place tomorrow, whether the Democrats on the conference committee end up caving to Scott Brown or to Feingold will be quite illuminating.
|
STATE BLOGS
