Scott Brown, last seen not committing to vote for the financial reform bill, last seen not voting to extend unemployment, last seen not interested in a climate bill or an immigration bill, apparently holds the key to the DISCLOSE Act, according to Senate Democrats, who plan to try to pass the campaign finance law in the chamber in July.
The commitment to bring to the floor the chamber’s version of the DISCLOSE Act, which passed the House prior to the July 4th recess, foreshadows yet another high-stakes legislative showdown between Democratic leadership and a host of moderate Republicans. And it places, once again, Sen. Scott Brown (R-Mass.) in the role of legislative kingpin.
As things stand now, vote counters in the party acknowledged that they don’t have firm commitments from 60 Senators to pass the legislation — which would force groups that spend on the election to make unprecedented levels of disclosure about their funding. The primary target remains Brown even though the Massachusetts Republican has insisted that it would be “inappropriate” to consider the bill before the November elections.
“It is fair to say that the target for vote number 60 is Scott Brown,” another senior Democratic aide told the Huffington Post. He is ‘the make or break vote on this.’ Just like you had in the House, a crucial element to the bill getting over the finish line is having the support of a Republican willing to buck the rest of his party in the form of [Rep.] Mike Castle. The bill will need a similar reformer in the Senate.”
This is funny because when I talked with Fred Wertheimer and Chris Van Hollen about this bill, and specifically asked them how they plan to pass it in the Senate, Brown’s name never came up. They mentioned Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins, which would provide the margin of victory if the Democratic caucus stayed united on a cloture vote. So the focus on Brown suggests that they don’t have the caucus united. Given that NRA exemption and the harsh reactions to it from Dianne Feinstein and Frank Lautenberg, that could well be.
So once again, northeastern Republicans rule the political world. And this legislation will be placed in the hands of someone who really doesn’t want to pass it, or who at least wants to delay its effect until after the 2010 elections. That defeats the entire purpose of the bill.
This ought to be amusing…



20 Comments


Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About FDL News Desk
The Senate operates on the same archaic rules as the Oil Clean-up in the Gulf. Nineteenth Century at best.
If it weren’t Scott Brown, the Ds would find someone else as an excuse for not being ‘progressive.’ It’s all a charade.
Any Minute, Brown is going to show his bi-partisan cred. Any Minute, really. It will happen. Also.
It’ll happen right after Lucy doesn’t snatch the football away.
I don’t understand how any one person holds the key to anything. I hear this stuff every time there’s going to be a vote. I think you’re giving one person way too much power. What’s up with that?
I just hope my fellow Massachusetts progressives are paying attention ,we need to vote this asshole out of office !
How did this guy end up wielding so much power ?
Is he really just a scapegoat or is this an effort by leadership to define this guy as an obstructionist in hopes the voters will send him packing ?
Re-Con-Cil-I-A-Tion.
They said it couldn’t work with the HCR bill, but then they wound up using it.
and look at what we got. Garbage.
Garbage in (pols elected), garbage out (legislation passed).
Unfortunately, one big reason that Scott Brown got elected to the Senate here in the Bay State by such a landslide was because of the passage of a toxic Healthcare “Reform” Bill that’s such a disaster that the anger and frustration over it was easily exploited by Scott Brown.
Scott Brown loves all the attention he is getting and it is the Dims who promote it.
I was totally against the “Nuclear Option” when Bill Frist suggested it way back when, but now, with the continual stalemate in the Senate and not about to get any better any time real soon, I say Nuke the Filibuster and go with 50 Senators plus Joe Biden and get things done.
Of course the Repubs will scream, but they suggested it first so the Dims have a “cover” and it will not make any difference anyway since they are committed to being the “party of no”
I know, I know, in an ideal world…
Is there no shame within the Democratic leadership?
Yes, and the dems are ascairt it’ll happen some more in Nov. This is their message to us, “Better not dump our useless asses, ’cause then you’ll have more boogeymen like Brown. Look, look over there! Wah!”
What a bunch of weakling little connivers.
Ha ha.
And yet Brown has somehow become the most highly regarded politician in blue-state Massachusetts.
Go figure.
I guess the bar is set pretty low.
Tea Party Patriots have a target rich environment this year.
Dems will never, ever vote as a bloc to get rid of the filibuster.
There’ll be even less enthusiasm for such a vote after November’s mid-terms.
I thought we all worked hard for a democratic Congress and Presidency….
evidence the system is broken except for the corporations and financial oligarchs who own Washington
Just a reminder: the nation as a whole was not designed to be a democracy. It was designed to have happen exactly what is happening now. The rich get to exert a greater influence on what is happening at the national level because they “know better” than the “small people.” We have an electoral college to elect the President. If we really had a democracy, Al Gore would have been President and there would not have been a rediculous scotus decision. Democracy is for local elections.
No kidding. It’s always been up to Reid, Obama et al, just they like to use the 60 vote threshhold as an excuse. All they have to do is make a motion for the Senate to operate democratically (51 votes) and have Biden approve it and then the 60 vote threshhold (and the artificial roadblocks) would go away…but that would make coming up with excuses all the more difficult for the corporatists.
The 60 vote paper filibuster is a new creation. I’d find filibusters more tolerable if they were the real kind instead of the kind where all they do is file a piece of paper to raise the vote requirements.
I agree. I’m not trying to justify what goes on because it leaves me breathless. OTOH, you can’t expect important people like senators to actually spend their valuable time with a real filibuster. It makes it easier if they can just threaten and end any problem because the length of the paper filibuster is infinite, unlike a real one. It also makes a good excuse for not doing what the majority didn’t want to do in the first place. Just more theater.