I was honored today to join folks from DC for Democracy, the local Democracy for America affiliate, to personally deliver over 23,000 thank you notes to Senator Russ Feingold. Shortly after the the 2010 election, Jim Dean asked DFA members from all across the country to send the Senator messages of appreciation. In an email to all members, he wrote:
A chill is coming to Washington. A wave of climate change deniers were elected to office this week, and come January, we can expect a freeze in all reasonable and productive discussion about the fate of the planet.
Last year, the political discussion about climate change and carbon regulation was complicated and bogged down, but at least it was happening.
Who are the deniers?
Grist has pulled together a list of the climate deniers headed into power in the Senate. "Overall, the Senate next year will be more hostile to climate action than ever before," the site's staff says.
If these climate-denying legislators came from deeply red states, Tuesday's results might not be so shocking. But many of them represent swing states, or states that might be red in presidential contests, but that have previously elected Democrats to Congress.
Farewell, moderation
These latter states include North Dakota, whose new senator, John Hoeven, made Grist's list, and Indiana. Also on the list are Marco Rubio, from Florida, Kelly Ayotte, from New Hampshire, and Pat Toomey, from Pennsylvania.
Perhaps most disheartening is the replacement of Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI) with Senator-Elect Ron Johnson. Johnson is to the right of the independent-minded Feingold on a host of issues, but as Mother Jones' Andy Kroll writes, "What landed Johnson in headlines earlier this year was his claim that climate change wasn't created by humans but instead was the result of 'sunspot activity.'"
The new climate "science"
Sunspot activity is just one explanation that newly elected Republicans have grabbed onto to explain the very real phenomenon of climate change. Care2's Beth Buczynski has rounded up a few choice quotes from these new leaders:
"With the possible exception of Tiger Woods, nothing has had a worse year than global warming. We have discovered that a good portion of the science used to justify "climate change" was a hoax perpetrated by leftist ideologues with an agenda." -Todd Young, new congressperson from Indiana
"There isn't any real science to say we are altering the climate path of the earth." -Roy Blunt, new senator from Missouri
What does this shift mean? In short, that the United States and our environmental policies will be limping forward and falling behind the rest of the world as international communities try to deal with climate change. As Brian Merchant writes at AlterNet:
...the current crop of GOP politicians have adopted a somewhat united ideological front opposing not only climate legislation, but the general notion of climate science itself. Nowhere else in the world has a leading political party availed itself of a position so directly in opposition to science -- indeed, today's GOP is the only party in the world that incorporates climate change denial as part of its political platform.
On the domestic front, writes The Washington Independent's Andrew Restuccia, that means that even unambitious legislation, like the renewable energy standard, stands little chance of passing. As it's currently written, the renewable energy standard would require a certain percentage of the country's electricity to come from renewable sources. In reality, it would not even push clean energy production to grow faster than market forces alone would. The main purpose of passing a standard would be to signal to clean energy investors that the government supports their work.
In other words, in the current legislative climate, our leaders wouldn't even get behind legislation that is just a sign of support for clean energy and the jobs it would create.
Zombie Climategate
Instead, the House's leadership plans on spending its time staging a show trial of climate science. The chief executor of this strategy will be Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA), who is set to become chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. Change.org's Jess Leber explains:
From his new position, the former car-alarm company owner plans to raise false alarm about climate conspiracy theories. As Nikki Gloudeman wrote, just a few weeks ago Issa vowed to make investigating "Climategate"-the climate pseudo-scandal that's already died 1,000 deaths-a top oversight priority should he win the committee.
In theory, Issa would be investigating a series of emails, sent by British climate scientists. Climate skeptics argue the emails prove that scientists are falsifying evidence of climate change. Extensive investigations have already debunked those claims.
In short, environmental leader Bill McKibben had the right idea back in September. Anyone who's interested in advocating for climate change action in this country would do well to stop trying to convince Congress to do its job. Our leaders won't be listening.
The best path forward may be to start convincing the American people, in the hope that, t
by Sarah Laskow, Media Consortium blogger
A chill is coming to Washington. A wave of climate change deniers were elected to office this week, and come January, we can expect a freeze in all reasonable and productive discussion about the fate of the planet.
Last year, the political discussion about climate change and carbon regulation was complicated and bogged down, but at least it was happening.
Who are the deniers?
Grist has pulled together a list of the climate deniers headed into power in the Senate. "Overall, the Senate next year will be more hostile to climate action than ever before," the site's staff says.
If these climate-denying legislators came from deeply red states, Tuesday's results might not be so shocking. But many of them represent swing states, or states that might be red in presidential contests, but that have previously elected Democrats to Congress.
Farewell, moderation
These latter states include North Dakota, whose new senator, John Hoeven, made Grist's list, and Indiana. Also on the list are Marco Rubio, from Florida, Kelly Ayotte, from New Hampshire, and Pat Toomey, from Pennsylvania.
Perhaps most disheartening is the replacement of Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI) with Senator-Elect Ron Johnson. Johnson is to the right of the independent-minded Feingold on a host of issues, but as Mother Jones' Andy Kroll writes, "What landed Johnson in headlines earlier this year was his claim that climate change wasn't created by humans but instead was the result of 'sunspot activity.'"
The new climate "science"
Sunspot activity is just one explanation that newly elected Republicans have grabbed onto to explain the very real phenomenon of climate change. Care2's Beth Buczynski has rounded up a few choice quotes from these new leaders:
"With the possible exception of Tiger Woods, nothing has had a worse year than global warming. We have discovered that a good portion of the science used to justify "climate change" was a hoax perpetrated by leftist ideologues with an agenda." -Todd Young, new congressperson from Indiana
"There isn't any real science to say we are altering the climate path of the earth." -Roy Blunt, new senator from Missouri
What does this shift mean? In short, that the United States and our environmental policies will be limping forward and falling behind the rest of the world as international communities try to deal with climate change. As Brian Merchant writes at AlterNet:
...the current crop of GOP politicians have adopted a somewhat united ideological front opposing not only climate legislation, but the general notion of climate science itself. Nowhere else in the world has a leading political party availed itself of a position so directly in opposition to science -- indeed, today's GOP is the only party in the world that incorporates climate change denial as part of its political platform.
On the domestic front, writes The Washington Independent's Andrew Restuccia, that means that even unambitious legislation, like the renewable energy standard, stands little chance of passing. As it's currently written, the renewable energy standard would require a certain percentage of the country's electricity to come from renewable sources. In reality, it would not even push clean energy production to grow faster than market forces alone would. The main purpose of passing a standard would be to signal to clean energy investors that the government supports their work.
In other words, in the current legislative climate, our leaders wouldn't even get behind legislation that is just a sign of support for clean energy and the jobs it would create.
Zombie Climategate
Instead, the House's leadership plans on spending its time staging a show trial of climate science. The chief executor of this strategy will be Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA), who is set to become chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. Change.org's Jess Leber explains:
From his new position, the former car-alarm company owner plans to raise false alarm about climate conspiracy theories. As Nikki Gloudeman wrote, just a few weeks ago Issa vowed to make investigating "Climategate"-the climate pseudo-scandal that's already died 1,000 deaths-a top oversight priority should he win the committee.
In theory, Issa would be investigating a series of emails, sent by British climate scientists. Climate skeptics argue the emails prove that scientists are falsifying evidence of climate change. Extensive investigations have already debunked those claims.
In short, environmental leader Bill McKibben had the right idea back in September. Anyone who's interested in advocating for climate change action in this country would do well to stop trying to convince Congress to do its job. Our leaders won't be listening.
The best path forward may be to start convincing the American people, in the hope that, two years from now, they'll vote for candidates who have a clue.
This post features links to the best independent, progressive reporting about the environment by members of The Media Consortium. It is free to reprint. Visit the Mulch for a complete list of articles on environmental issues, or follow us on Twitter. And for the best progressive reporting on critical economy, health care and immigration issues, check out The Audit, The Pulse, and The Diaspora. This is a project of The Media Consortium, a network of leading independent media outlets.
wo years from now, they'll vote for candidates who have a clue.
This post features links to the best independent, progressive reporting about the environment by members of The Media Consortium. It is free to reprint. Visit the Mulch for a complete list of articles on environmental issues, or follow us on Twitter. And for the best progressive reporting on critical economy, health care and immigration issues, check out The Audit, The Pulse, and The Diaspora. This is a project of The Media Consortium, a network of leading independent media outlets.
Undue corporate influence over U.S. elections has been a serious problem in American politics for decades, but this year's Supreme Court ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission made things worse. Worst of all, we may never know the extent of the damage.
Citizens United freed corporations to spend unlimited amounts of money backing specific political candidates, and without congressional action, those expenditures can be completely anonymous. Major corporations are already capitalizing on the new legal landscape by the millions, and the public doesn't really know who is buying what influence or why.
That's why The Media Consortium will be carefully watching the effects of this ruling in the run up to this year's midterm elections. Every day through Nov. 4, we'll bring you some of the best independent reporting on the effects of corporate spending in an attempt to measure just how widespread the effect of Citizens United will be on this-and the next-election. Keep your eye on "Campaign Cash" as we follow this issue in the coming weeks. If you want to tweet about it, use the hashtag #campaign$.
The impact of Citizens United
As Harvard University Law School Professor Lawrence Lessig explains in an interview with The Nation's Christopher Hayes, the Citizens Unitedv. FEC decision represents one of many ways that corporations buy political favors.
Prior to the ruling, companies couldn't spend money to directly advocate the election of a particular political candidate during election season. They could form Political Action Committees (PACs) to support or attack specific candidates, but those PACs had to be funded by individuals who worked for the company and couldn't be funded from the corporation's treasury directly. The executives of Goldman Sachs, for instance, could band together to form GoldmanPAC and spend their money on whatever candidates they wished-and many corporate employees exercised that right and spent freely on elections through their corporate PACs.
Now corporations can spend as much as they want and actual corporate funds-not just organized individuals-can also be deployed, making massive amounts of corporate cash eligible for political purchasing.
But the scariest part of Citizens United, as Lessig emphasizes, is the money that isn't spent. That is, if a firm makes it known that they are willing spend millions of dollars to fight any politician who opposes them on a particular policy issue, representatives and senators might begin changing their voting behavior in Congress before the company actually has to put up the cash.
And ultimately, Citizens United didn't just legalize unlimited corporate expenses on elections. It also allows those expenses to be anonymous. If companies launder their political cash through a front group, that third-party spender doesn't have to disclose who its donors are.
This isn't your local Chamber of Commerce
As Harry Hanbury details for GRITtv, this laundering scheme is essentially the business model for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce-- a lobbying powerhouse in the nation's capital. Don't be fooled by its name-the U.S. Chamber has almost nothing to do with the local small business coalitions who help strengthen local economies.
As Hanbury notes, 40 percent of the U.S. Chamber's 2008 funding came from just 26 corporations. The group represents many of the nation's largest and most irresponsible corporations, from those responsible for the financial meltdown on Wall Street to BP, the company that spilled millions of barrels worth of oil in the Gulf this summer. The Chamber's branding allows them to disguise their political as a coalition of local businesses while it does dirty work for corporate titans.
When BP was publicly promising to do everything in its power to fix the massive oil disaster it created in the Gulf of Mexico, it was also funneling money to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. And what was the Chamber up to? It was lobbying furiously to protect BP from new rules that would force the company to pay for oil disaster clean-up. The Wall Street banks did the same thing as financial reform legislation moved through Congress, and companies never have to disclose these expenditures to the public.
So it's no surprise that the Chamber responded to Citizens United by immediately announcing a 40 percent boost in its political spending operations. So much corporate money then flowed into the Chamber that the group chose to boost this budget again by 50 percent, allocating $75 million for its 2010 war chest. So far, the Chamber's ads have favored Republican's 93 percent of the time. No entity spends more on politics than the Chamber-not even the political parties themselves.
Corporations top the list of big election spenders
But while the future of corporate spending in campaigns looks bleak after Citizens United, corporations are still barred from contributing directly to political campaigns. A company might take out a television ad attacking Rep. Alan Grayson (D-FL), but it can't make unlimited contributions directly to Grayson's challenger, Republican Dan Webster.
Nevertheless, corporate employees and company PACs have already been spending lavishly on elections for decades. In a feature for Mother Jones, Dave Gilson compiles the 75 biggest political spenders, both companies and trade groups, from 1989 through 2010, and breaks them down by industry. Goldman Sachs, Citigroup, JPMorgan Chase, and Morgan Stanley are all among the top 20 most extravagant political spenders-but the American Bankers Association, a trade group that all four belong to, is also in the top 10. If you're wondering how Wall Street was able to secure its massive taxpayer bailout in the face of widespread voter outrage, this is your answer.
To soften the Citizens United blow, Congress has been debating the Democracy is Strengthened by Casting Light on Spending in Elections (DISCLOSE) Act, which would require companies to disclose all of their political expenditures as well as requiring front-groups like the Chamber to list the identities and amounts of its donors. The bill, sponsored by Rep. Christopher Van Hollen (D-MD) and Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI), cleared the House this summer but was stymied by a Republican filibuster in the Senate.
Undoing the damage dealt by Citizens United through something like the DISCLOSE Act will help, but it won't make our democracy totally safe from corporate abuse. As Lessig notes, the day before the decision was handed down, U.S. election financing was already encouraging rampant corruption and in need of serious reform.
Lessig suggests banning political expenditures by corporations altogether, and placing a hard cap on the amount that individuals can contribute. By limiting individual donations to $100, the ability of corporate PACs to funnel cash into the political process would be thwarted.
This post features links to the best independent, progressive reporting about the mid-term elections and campaign financing by members of The Media Consortium. It is free to reprint. Visit The Media Consortium for more articles on these issues, or follow us on Twitter. And for the best progressive reporting on critical economy, environment, health care and immigration issues, check out The Audit, The Mulch, The Pulse, and The Diaspora. This is a project of The Media Consortium, a network of leading independent media outlets.
The more that the Democratic Party as a whole conintues to frustrate, disappoint, even outrage, the more important it is to support Russ Feingold.
Lifted from Quick Hits.
"bystander" -
Wisconsin Senator Russ Feingold needs our support right now.
For months, polling has shown Russ neck and neck with his right-wing opponent Ron Johnson and Johnson has already spent over $4 million on slash-and-burn television ads to mislead voters and scare up votes. In fact, he's been out spending Russ on T.V. by 3 to 1 and as of this week, it appears to be working. The most recent polling shows Senator Feingold down by 7%.
This is unacceptable.
Senator Russ Feingold is one of the strongest progressive fighters in the Senate. Time after time Russ has delivered for America and Wisconsin. It's up to us to make sure he has the resources to fight back and win.
Ron Johnson is a multimillionaire right-wing Republican who wants to cut Social Security, repeal the entire healthcare bill, and extend all the Bush-Cheney tax cuts for wealthy millionaires instead of helping middle class Americans. He's already committed to spending at least 15 million of his own money to win. When asked how much more of his personal fortune he's be willing to dump into his own election, his response was "all of it."
The good news is we can beat Ron Johnson and re-elect Russ Feingold with people-power.
Russ is running a real grassroots campaign. They've already contacted 228,696 Wisconsin voters, opened 22 field offices across the state, and his most recent T.V. ad is playing in heavy rotation. Russ will win not just because he has a strong record of delivering for Wisconsin, he'll win because he has the best volunteers and supporters working to get out the vote.
Let's face it; elections are going to be close all over the country this November. It's up to us to make sure we take great progressives like Russ Feingold over the top on Election Day.
Working together, we're unstoppable. That's why I know I can count on you today.
In this hellishly challenging election year, progressives have to defend our own everywhere they are in trouble. Helping great progressive challengers is always key to any smart electoral strategy, as they bring in new energy, ideas, and idealism to a broken system, but if we let our progressive champions go down in the face of a tough challenge, we are making a huge mistake. It is incredibly hard to get progressives elected in the first place, so to let them go down has a terrible impact.
Russ Feingold is a progressive champion of the first caliber. He is the ultimate anti-establishment Senator, always voting what he thinks is right no matter the political cost, and always willing to tick off anyone- including the Democratic establishment- if he thinks people are doing the wrong thing. Chris Bowers has called him his favorite Senator. He is in the toughest race of his life, fighting off a mega-millionaire businessman who is right-wing enough to think Charles Murray (the racist author of The Bell Curve) is a good guy, but savvy enough politically to be running some of the most effective campaign ads I've seen this cycle.
Feingold is doing a "cheddar bomb" today, trying to bring in 15,000 netroots donors on the same day to help fight off his opponent's $15 million in personal money he pledged to spend on this race. Please help him out, and spread the word.
Update (Adam): I've endeavored of late to learn more about the past history of some of our stronger progressives, as noted by my comments here re then-Rep. Barbara Boxer. As Joe Sudbay rightly notes, Feingold was also one of just 16 Senators to oppose the Defense of Marriage Act back on September 10, 1996. Bold progressive stuff many of us forget, but worth remembering. Please chip in.
Democrats are very close to the 60th vote on Wall Street reform. With Maria Cantwell and Susan Collins already indicating they are voting "yes," Republican Scott Brown appears to be the 60th vote. Annie Lowrey:
Speaking on a Massachusetts local television news broadcast, Sen. Scott Brown (R-Mass.) indicated that he's leaning towards voting yes on financial regulatory reform. "I'm going to be making a decision soon, but I'm liking what I see," Brown said.
This by no means rules out a Lucy and the football moment, where one of the Senators currently on record as favoring passage withdraws his or her support (this includes Democrats, too). However, if all existing yes votes hold, and assuming Robert Byrd's replacement will be available next week, two defecting Republicans (Brown and Collins) would be enough to cancel out one defecting Democrat (Russ Feingold).
On Feingold's "no" vote Speaking of Feingold, one question I have been wrestling with is if having credible progressive leverage on future Wall Street reform bills from Feingold's "no" vote is more valuable than the concession Scott Brown wrung out of the conference committee last week (replacing a $19 billion tax on banks over five years with a cancellation of TARP and increases in FDIC insurance fees to larger banks) because Feingold refused to vote yes. Given the strong political ramifications of ending TARP, it very well might be. Or, at least it isn't clear right now if Feingold's "no" vote is a net negative.
A revolt among big donors on Wall Street is hurting fundraising for the Democrats' two congressional campaign committees, with contributions from the world's financial capital down 65 percent from two years ago.
The drop in support comes from many of the same bankers, hedge fund executives and financial services chief executives who are most upset about the financial regulatory reform bill that House Democrats passed last week with almost no Republican support. The Senate expects to take up the measure this month.
There are actually multiple reasons for this decline. One reason, obviously, is Wall Street reform. Another is that Chuck Schumer is no longer running the DSCC, and he had strong connections to NYC-area Wall Street doors. A third explanation is that some of these wealthy donors are also upset over the lack of progressive progress in the Democratic agenda, and as such don't want to donate to party committees that will focus their spending on conservative Democrats. A fourth explanation is that many wealthy donors simply like to back the party that appears headed to victory, and right now Democrats are far from a lock.
The simple fact is that there are a lot of good reforms in this bill, voting to maintain the status quo won't prevent a financial meltdown either, and that no one I know in the Wall Street reform community thinks this bill ends the overall fight.
President Obama is giving a speech on the economy today in Wisconsin. Conveniently, is the home state of the lone Democratic Senator, Russ Feingold, who has vowed to block the Wall Street reform bill (Washington's Maria Cantwell is undecided). This trip is reminiscent of President Obama's visit to Ohio late in the health reform fight, a trip which played a role in persuading Representative Dennis Kucinich to vote in favor of that bill.
Don't expect any political pressure to move Feingold, however, given his long track record of taking iconoclastic positions. Feingold voted against using military force in the Balkans and Iraq, declined DSCC "soft money" in his 1998 re-election campaign, voted against 1999 financial deregulation, was lone vote against the Patriot Act in 2001, first Senator to propose a withdrawal timeline from Iraq in 2005, introduced a censure measure on Bush in 2006, voted against TARP in both October 2008 and January 2009, etc. Even if I do not approve of Feingold's actions on the Wall Street reform bill, his overall record is truly inspiring.
While the trip to Wisconsin may be just a coincidence, it could also be the start of a two week long fight over final passage of the conference committee report on the Wall Street reform bill. Continued demurring from a number of Senators (most notably Scott Brown), combined with memorial services for Senator Robert Byrd, has all but guaranteed that the Wall Street reform fight will continue over the July recess. Those are the signals coming from top Democrats, too:
As much as Senate Democrats wanted to pass their Wall Street reform bill by the end of the week, the death of Sen. Robert Byrd (D-WV) Monday morning made that almost impossible. Byrd will lie in state in the Capitol for most of tomorrow, and senators will spend much of Friday at a ceremony in West Virginia, eating up a great amount of the week's remaining Senate floor time. As early as yesterday morning, Senate Whip Dick Durbin told reporters it would be difficult to finish up the bill before July 4, and last night after the conference committee adjourned, legislators suggested very strongly that the vote in the Senate would have to wait.
The House of Representatives is expected to pass the conference report today. When Congress returns on Monday, July 12th, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid will most likely file for cloture on the conference report. This will set up a vote on either Tuesday, July 13th, or Wednesday, July 14th. This makes for an intervening period of at least 13 days when opponents of the bill will try to get three of the following five Senators to vote no on cloture: Scott Brown, Maria Cantwell, Susan Collins, Charles Grassley and Olympia Snowe. With Robert Byrd's replacement likely to be sworn in before the vote, Democrats will also need three of those five in order to reach cloture, and send the bill to President Obama's desk later in the week.
So, it's a two week fight, and the terms are best three out of five. We should be able to win this, but there is recent precedent for Democratic members of Congress getting scared by right-wing turnout at townhalls. As I said in the post just below this, it ain't over 'till it's over.
The conference committee may be over, but the resulting Wall Street reform bill still must clear passage in both branches of Congress in order to reach President Obama's desk. With the passing of Senator Robert Byrd today, this is now far from a guarantee. Here is the state of play:
In the House Because of a deal made between Blanche Lincoln and the New Dems on derivatives, the House is expected to pass the bill. In all likelihood, the rule will be voted on today, and passage will occur tomorrow.
In the Senate After the bill passes the House, it will go to the Senate. Senator Reid had been expected to file for cloture on Tuesday evening or Wednesday morning, leading to a vote on either Thursday or Friday. However, the outcome of the vote, and thus the process leading to the vote, is now in doubt. Its time for some vote counting:
Narrow margin: Back in May, cloture was achieved on the Senate bill by the narrowest of margins, 60-40.
Robert Byrd: Five weeks ago, Robert Byrd was one of the yes votes for cloture. Since he has passed away, that is one less vote for reform until West Virginia Governor Joe Manchin appoints his replacement. Such an appointment would be extremely likely to vote for reform, but is not available until the appointment is made. It now seems unlikely to me that the appointment would take office this week, as Governor Manchin would likely wait until after Robert Byrd's funeral. He also may wait until after July 3rd, a move which might prevent an election for the seat from being held in 2010.
Maria Cantwell: Maria Cantwell (D-WA) voted against cloture five weeks ago. However, she was closely engaged in the process during the conference committee, and her specific concerns about the Volcker rule were met. As such, it seems very possible that she is now a "yes" vote, although she has not issued a formal statement to that effect. If she is a yes vote, that makes 60 votes for cloture.
Russ Feingold: Russ Feingold was the other Democrat who voted against cloture five weeks ago. He was never particularly engaged in the process, and for a long time made no specific demands in return for his vote. When he did finally make some demands, it was a long, kitchen-sink type laundry list that could not be met on such short notice. Few, if any, of those demands were met (at least somewhat because Feingold did not engage the process), and as such he is likely still a "no." So, we stay at 60.
Scott Brown: When Russ Feingold did not engage the process, it gave Massachusetts Republican Scott Brown enough leverage to force an egregious carve-out for hedge funds on the Volcker rule. Despite voting for the bill in May, and despite winning that huge concession during the conference committee, Brown is now talking about voting against the bill anyway because of a $19 billion levy on banks. It looks like Scott Brown has learned quickly about how to play Lucy to the Senate Democrats Charlie Brown.
Chuck Grassley: Even if Feingold and Brown are no votes, and even if no successor to Robert Byrd is made this week, the bill could still pass with one more Republican vote. Enter Iowa Republican Chuck Grassley, who voted against cloture in May but did vote for final passage.
Richard Lugar: The only other possibility of a "no to yes" vote is from Indiana Republican Richard Lugar. It's a longshot, but not impossible.
At this time, no one is in favor of opening up the bill again, and giving into Brown's demands to win his vote. That would create a procedural nightmare, likely delay passage the bill past the fourth of July, would give Wall Street lobbyists another shot to gut everything that has already been won.
However, the count is clearly extremely close right now, and very much in doubt. Nothing is guaranteed. As such, while this was supposed to be the week when we turned our attention to the Kagen confirmation hearings in the Senate, and the Afghanistan funding fight in the House, it looks like we still have a lot of drama on Wall Street reform in the Senate.
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.
Democratic members of the Senate Judiciary Committee today urged Attorney General Eric Holder to stick to his initial determination that the alleged 9/11 plotters should be tried in civilian court, and not bow to partisan politics on what should be a legal determination.
The Wall Street Journal is absolutely right that Lindsey Graham is tossing up an embarrassing air ball. Graham's effort to get the administration to abandon legitimate federal court trials for suspected terrorists in exchange for the funding needed to close Guantanamo Bay is headed nowhere fast, predicts the Journal.
Former Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy Thompson, who served four terms as Wisconsin governor, is securing financial pledges and ramping up his outreach to longtime political aides in preparation for a possible campaign against Democratic Sen. Russ Feingold.
Thompson has alerted his Washington-based law firm of his moves and is contacting key clients about the prospect of challenging Feingold, the most tangible signals yet that he's seriously exploring a 2010 campaign.
"The governor has taken additional steps in the past week and will continue to do so over the next several weeks. If the meetings go well, you can expect to see an exploratory committee set up near the end of March," former state commerce secretary and Thompson campaign manager Bill McCoshen told POLITICO.
The thought of losing Feingold is just... scary. In addition to his well known fight against the Patriot Act, and being the first Senator to introduce legislation to withdraw troops from Iraq, Feingold was one of only two members of the Senate to vote against the 1999 financial services deregulation, the Iraq war authorization, and the 2008 bailout (Bernie Sanders was the other, and he voted against the de-regulation act while in the House). Even beyond his votes, he is a public leader for his causes, and manages organize other Senators behind them.
Russ Feingold is worth about five Senators, or more. It might be time to organize some sort of huge, $3 million + money bomb for him to ward off Thompson's entry into the campaign.
After a meeting today with Senator Feingold, Open Left reader PR writes in:
Feingold is in for P.O. through rec
That makes 34 supporters of using reconciliation to finish health reform, and 20 in favor of the public option. See the whip count here.
Further, I have received confirmation from Senator Reid's office that "all options are still on the table," including reconciliation. The aide with whom I spoke also reiterated to me that Senator Reid supports the public option. While that is a "yes" and a "maybe," given the way we are counting votes, they are still positive.
The House could just pass the Senate health care bill, and President Obama could sign it into law. Problem is, the House doesn't have 218 votes unless there is a promise to pass a cleanup fix to the Senate bill through the reconciliation process.
Part of the negotiations center on whether Reid can provide an ironclad guarantee that the Senate will not leave the House in the lurch, aides said. If the House agrees to pass the Senate bill with a companion measure - or a "cleanup" bill - to make fixes, they want to know that the Senate will indeed pass it, too.
There was some talk among Senate leadership on Thursday of putting together a letter signed by 51 Democratic senators pledging to pass a cleanup bill if the House would pass the Senate bill. But that effort fizzled when support for it didn't materialize, insiders said.
"The Senate moderates' viewpoint is, 'We passed our bill. We're not going to spend three weeks on some other bill,'" said a Democratic lobbyist who represents clients pushing for reform.
Large numbers of House think this response is unacceptable. They believe the Senate has acted on so few bills that the House has passed--jobs bill, climate bill, financial regulations, student loans, etc. As such, they feel it is very wrong for the Senate to demand that the House pass one of the few bills they did act on verbatim.
So, that is the current impasse on health care. The House might be able to pass the Senate bill with a promise of a reconciliation fix, but the Senate doesn't want to pass the reconciliation fix.
So, who are the Senators that oppose reconciliation at this point? Figuring that out, and making them change their minds, might be the best path forward on health care at this point.
I spoke to someone from Feingold's campaign about his position on reconciliation in light of the Massachusetts special election. She informed me that while Sen. Feingold is no fan of reconciliation, now that it's reconciliation or nothing (apparently), he would be willing to support reconciliation if that's what it took to get a good bill passed. It wasn't the slightest bit equivocal or hedgy; it was a straight "yes". So that's a bit of good news. Hopefully the House can get their act together.
Could the Massachusetts special election actually make things better for progressives? That would be very surprising, but it isn't out of the question.
If you think there a chance one or more Democratic Senator will filibuster the health insurance bill from the left, or if you think that the left should be blamed if the bill fails, then you need to think again. Recent actions and statements from Roland Burris, Bernie Sanders, and Russ Feingold make it clear no such left-wing filibuster will take place. As such, if the bill is defeated, it will be entirely because of right-wing opposition.
STATE BLOGS
