Tweet
As the DISCLOSE Act gets prevented from even consideration today, despite 57 or 58 votes for it (depending on whether Reid decides to vote No to bring it up at a later date), thoughts turn to the continuation of a busted super-majority system for one of our two legislative bodies. It’s important to note that the House of Representatives is not seen as a wildly unfair legislature by anyone in the body politic. And yet they mostly use a majority vote for their operations, as do dozens of other countries with their legislatures. There’s nothing magic about a super-majority, it has not been found to make better or wiser policy, and in the present circumstances it leads to nothing but gridlock, as the nation’s challenges lay unaddressed. Maybe the filibuster is fine if it isn’t used very much, but you cannot expect that in a partisan era. All it does it facilitate broken government.
Ryan Grim and Sam Stein wrote about momentum for the filibuster last week, as I did on Friday. This is a real movement, to use the beginning of the next Congress to change Senate rules with a majority vote. Tom Udall has been in the lead of this “Constitutional option,” which would allow the Senate to determine its own methods for organizing itself. There’s plenty of precedent for this move, and as we see today, plenty of need.
Alexi Giannoulias has become the latest Senator or Senate candidate to support the end of the filibuster.
Let me be crystal clear: should I be so fortunate as to be elected, on day one in the Senate, I will join the fight to amend the Senate rules and fix our broken filibuster system. I will vote in favor of Senator Udall’s proposed motion to consider the rules of the Senate, I will vote in favor of common-sense and fair filibuster reform, and I will work day and night to bring as many of my colleagues on board as possible.
All you have to do is look at the how close the vote counting is on the DISCLOSE act to know that the system is disgustingly broken. I think it will be a national embarrassment if DISCLOSE can’t come to floor, even with 59 votes. We MUST take corporations out of elections and reform the filibuster.
Giannoulias’ support brings the number to as many as 34 Democratic Senators, just 17 from the necessary total, in support of some change to the Senate rules. This will be a major issue to track going forward.
UPDATE: The DISCLOSE Act “failed” 57-41, with Reid voting against, so he’ll presumably bring this up again at some point. The small business lending bill is up next, with wrap-up expected tomorrow.
12 Comments
Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About FDL News Desk
And yet, we have “legislators” such as Mitch McConnell and Lindsey Graham and Judd Gregg who wish to see the “super majority” requirements codified and expanded even further.
Nothing like doing all in their power to make the government useless
Key statement…. Just look at California for a prime example of what a “Super Majority” does to government… Total failure to raise taxes on those who can afford it and cutting all the safety nets that people need especially in these times!!
Or their inability to pass a budget on time 2 years ago, which resulted in a number of community and state college lockouts, and a marked decrease in return enrollment because financial aid was cut off.
“The DISCLOSE Act “failed” 57-41, with Reid voting against, so he’ll presumably bring this up again at some point.”
Sure about that? Make a bet? The Senate seems dead set to protect corporations and extend the Bush tax cuts. They will protect “monied interests” over the Life, and liberties of the governed and the republic. Taney protected slave owners, perpetuating the ownership of humans for economic gain in clear violation of constitutional protections designed for all men? It will take more than changing just the manipulated Senate rules. It will take character and courage, clearly lacking in some members of the US Senate… Throw cowards out!!
And repalce them with…?
I’m not sure I understand. Given that (a) the repugs will likely gain a lot of seats in November and (b) a lot of blue dogs will vote with them on various subjects, will not the total of (a) + (b) equal more than 50%? And that is a good idea? If they then get control of the House they can impeach, repeal and cause all sorts of obstruction. I hope we all know what we are doing.
Please point out the last time progressives filibustered anything. Notwithstanding the fact the filibuster is guaranteed to be abolished as soon as Reps take over anyway, at least we can get something out of it. We would have had immigration reform in 2007 were it not for the filibuster.
We nobodies in the “body politic,” bluedot12 @ 6? That’s hardly the question, is it? [Here's a better one, for those willing and able to think outside the Party-approved box: Is the filibuster "fine" if it's never used by either Party - as is the case today?]
But they certainly know exactly what they’re doing – it’s called conning the rubes to win (re-)election, and then coasting ’till the next go ’round. Any sane, good faith debate about this issue would involve getting the basic facts straight about existing Senate rules, before launching into “movements” to change them; but that, too, disserves power, and is thus apparently discarded at the outset by fanatical partisans.
That this post could be written on a day like this in the House…
Why, who wouldn’t want to emulate the fine example of the United States House of Representatives on a day like this? After watching Party leadership, solidly backed by the Democratic Party caucus, use a suspension of the rules process – typically reserved for “expeditiously” moving “non-controversial” measures, like naming post offices and such – to speed into law an “emergency” increase in the deficit so that the American military/CIA/contractor lobby can escalate the violence in Afghanistan, and no one “in the body politic” will notice or care…
“Suspending (and violating) the Rules” is exactly what Party hacks like Alexi Giannoulias can’t wait to do in the Senate (or so their political consultants tell them), because they wouldn’t know a legislative body if it hit them in the face, and who needs informed, deliberative debate anyway – we learn all we need to know by mocking Sarah Palin with our pals at places like DailyKos, and then congratulating ourselves for being with it in the modern, mindless era. [Like the with it Steny Hoyer, whose House Majority Leader web page posted this "Daily Quote" at the bottom of the page outlining the damage the House was preparing to do today: “Republicans shouldn’t lay out a complete agenda, because then people would be able to scrutinize it…” - Rep. Peter King (R-NY). Oh, haw, haw, Steny boy - now that's telling 'em what's it all about...]
As a result of the irresponsible, destructive, personality-based Party warfare, that passes for democratic “self-government” in America today, at the expense of the nation (and its federal legislature), here’s the state of the “received wisdom” in the (supposedly tuned-in) blogosphere about “the filibuster” – from a classic example on Democratic Underground today, in this instance – which will remain unchanged, its propagators blissfully ignorant of the con they’re helping power to pull on the powerless, if the Democratic Party gets its way:
[Look who's talking, Alenne... Here's a little tip, in return for using you as an example: Rule 22's cloture process is optional, and when it replaces regular Senate simple-majority order, it is because the majority Party (that would be the Democrats led by Harry Reid, at the moment...) chooses to deploy it (instead of forcing or waiting out a real filibuster), by filing what's known as a cloture motion, signed by 16 majority Party Senators.]
I used to sympathize with commenters who had so obviously fallen, unknowingly, for the misdirection of powerful insiders like Harry Reid (with a huge, uncorrected assist from Ryan Grim), Tom Udall, “Senator Barb” [Mikulski...], etc., etc., but I don’t anymore, at this late stage of the con. The facts are out there. In most cases by now, if the facts are being actively ignored, there’s a less-than-good-faith reason for it.
Onward into the “partisan era,” FireDogLakers… Why would we consider changing a thing about our beloved partisan Parties. It must be the Senate that’s the problem. Yeah…, that’s the ticket. The Senate started all of this, after serving the nation well for 200 hundred years, through Civil War, and Civil Rights. NOW it can finally be told: The Senate obviously brought this nation to the desperate state it’s in – sure, sure – not the, never the Party members serving in it, who fear genuine public debate like the plague.
shouldas and couldas don’t count. I don’t choose to guarantee I lost.
Not to change the subject, but changing the subject…here’s an idea I had a while back, when I still thought the Republic could be salvaged…couldn’t get anybody to listen to me. What we need is a constitutional amendment that takes the bulk of the rule-making powers away from the congress and sets them out in the constitution, where they’re not so easy to tamper with. It would make for dull reading, but think how it would reduce their ability to make mischief. It would have some really good things in it: 1) no legislation to have more than one subject matter, 2) the title of a bill to fairly describe its contents, 3) all votes recorded, 4)speakers, majority leaders, committee chairs stripped of their extraordinary powers, 5) etc, etc.
Should of kept it to myself, huh?
it failed bc lieberman did not attend – if he had, reid and he would have voted for it (?) and it would have passed – could it not have been scheduled for a more opportune day/time when the senate dems could get 60 votes?
Not at all, Michael.
If we do ever get (make?) the opportunity to amend the Constitution to restore our Republic, good, well-seasoned ideas are exactly what we’re going to need, from people who’ve been observing and thinking about the democratic process for some time. [It's inspiring to watch everyday people carefully thinking for themselves about their government and its actions, by struggling to get at a truth that's concealed by jeering peer pressure or other misguided conventional wisdom. This "filibuster" controversy is one of those sagas where a book could be written about the campaign of misinformation/disinformation that has issued from insiders, with access to the (publicly-unshared) truth. In response, given just a few facts, many Americans, wholly unfamiliar with Senate or legislative procedure, seem to instinctively reject or question that misinformation and the agenda behind it, even as they continue to be cynically manipulated with emotional appeals by those in the know, and would be hard-pressed to explain exactly why they're resisting as they (I think and hope) are.]
Some of the most important reforms, to my mind, whether by Constitutional amendment (taking the power to change certain House and Senate rules away from those bodies, and so on), or otherwise, would be those intended to firewall the core, irreplaceable democratic processes and functions of our federal legislature from abuse, abandonment, or manipulation by corrupt political Party caucuses or their leaders. Reforms that I’ve been assuming could be achieved by way of weakening the political Parties in Congress, through the (hoped-for, future) independence of Members of Congress. But it sounds like your approach might be a superior (and perhaps faster) one, with some of the same basic objectives. I like the sound of this:
You’re focusing, in my opinion, on the important stuff – the “dull” but crucial daily details of how legislation is formed by the democratic process. I’d include in the needed reforms things like Open Meeting Laws where Congress is now regularly avoiding public scrutiny of its discussions, serious lobbyist reform (if we could only see with our own eyes, who was, and wasn’t, invited into Congressional offices on a daily basis…), and campaign-financing reform (which I guess goes without saying; something much more sweeping than the Fair Elections Now Act, which remains stalled in Congress).
I’ll give a plug here for the existing Senate rules: As I’ve noted before (thanks to Senator Byrd making a point of this), many of those rules have remained largely unchanged since the Senate was formed, and there is an understandable and salutory reluctance to act to hastily change proven methods in response to the ill-considered political rages of the moment.
In the Senate today (unlike the House), it’s not the rules or most precedents themselves that are the problem, as far as I can see, but rather the undemocratic, debate-shunning modern practices of convenience that have taken hold, mostly at the behest of increasingly-powerful political Parties, and because of the reality of the corrupting influence of campaign fundraising. Practices (not formally adopted as Senate rules) like:
To hit most of the low points.
All of those modern Senate practices, and the Speaker-empowering rule changes that have degraded the modern House to such a degree, have definitely impaired public and media understanding of the worth and value of our federal legislature, and of its irreplaceable self-governing purpose and design. When the “body politic,” after more than a year of on-again, off-again debate and political exploitation of the issue, still doesn’t understand, or deliberately misconstrues without consequence, existing Senate rules about the filibuster and related procedure, why in the world should we credit that same “body politic’s” (presumably at least as ill-informed) alleged opinion about the “fairness” of the debate-starved legislative process in the House of Representatives?
We can support and provide cover for the political Parties in their endless quest for power, or we can focus on preserving and improving our invaluable federal institutions of democratic self-government themselves, and on candidates for public office willing to actually do the work of self-government in our House and Senate, regardless of corrupt and undemocratic Party pressures. Top-down Party consolidation of power in our Legislative Branch of government is a clear and present danger to Constitutional self-government, in my view. And I don’t know of any way to “bargain” with Power to loosen its grip, unless and until we have an organized, focused “unbalanced force” prepared to act against it.