Though a weaker version than the Paul-Grayson bill that passed the House, the amendment calls for a thorough audit of the Federal Reserve from December, 2007 until the bill is signed into law. This period covers many of the Fed’s questionable activities during the bailouts that have so far been shielded from scrutiny.

I believe the success of the measure can be directly traced to the bipartisan coalition that came together to support Audit the Fed. As I told Ben Smith, with FDL, Dean Baker, Jamie Galbraith, Andy Stern and Richard Trumka on one side, and Grover Norquist, John Tate, Freedomworks and Americans For Tax Reform on the other there was no room for anyone to play the Joe Lieberman role. Nobody could pretend to be “principled” in opposition and take refuge in partisan politics — it would be clear that they were just covering up for the banks.

The bottom line: the Fed never loses. Ever. It’s remarkable that this amendment, even in its current form, passed. It still has to get through conference, however. Chris Dodd, Richard Shelby and Barney Frank are the likely conferees.

Tremendous credit goes to Alan Grayson. It was Grayson who decided to take up Ron Paul’s bill and bring Democratic support for it. When Grayson had a tough time getting Dems to cosponsor anything with Michelle Bachman, FDL whipped liberal validators which allowed Grayson to say “don’t worry about Michelle Bachman, Jamie Galbraith says its a good thing.”

At the time, the banks were focused on their bonuses. Under the radar, Grayson quietly got the number of cosponsors up to 330, which forced Barney Frank to deal with it on the Financial Services Committee. There was a last minute attempt to derail it with the Watt Amendment, and FDL again brought last-minute assistance to Grayson in the form of a letter of support signed by Richard Trumka and Andy Stern among others.

In a political environment where the banks can easily pull the strings of a Congress they have largely bought and paid for, I have to say the passage of this amendment surprises even me. Judd Gregg was making noises about unseemly populism, and Kay Hagan, Richard Burr and Claire McCaskill all said they would oppose it. None did in the end.

Thanks to Michael Ostrolenk of the Liberty Coalition and all of those on both sides of the aisle who had the courage to come together to work on this, even though it meant taking arrows in the back from mindless tribalists. It worked. We beat the banks.

Score one for the people.

As their whip efforts narrow to just a handful of Members, House Democratic leaders are facing an unlikely problem vote: Rep. Loretta Sanchez.

Sanchez was nowhere to be found on Saturday — she was in Florida on a fundraising jaunt, two Democratic sources said — and while leaders expected her to return for the Sunday vote on final passage, they weren’t assured. What’s more, leaders now list the Orange County Democrat as a “no” vote.

[]

Sanchez this week told the Orange County Register that she needs to be satisfied that the health care overhaul is affordable. “The Senate bill is a bad bill,” she told the paper.

Politically, the vote should be a relatively easy lift for Sanchez. The seven-term lawmaker has been re-elected with at least 60 percent of the vote since 2000, winning by a decisive 69 percent in 2008. President Barack Obama carried the district by 60 percent.

Sanchez voted “yes” last time.  She faces a well-funded GOP challenger, Van Tran, in the 2010 election. Although Obama carried her district by 60%, Schwarzenegger won it in 2006 as did Bush in 2004.  It has a growing Vietnamese community, which Tran hopes to capitalize on.  “They come out and vote in large numbers, and they’re 2-to-1 Republican,” he told the Associated Press.

This makes Nancy Pelosi’s job considerably harder.  Sanchez’s jump could be a sign that there are members who have been quiet about their positions and hoping they’d never have to take the vote.  But with the fear of tough elections ahead looming large, more could follow her lead.  I know there’s a tendency to look at these votes as carved in stone once members commit publicly, but I fully remember what happened to Ciro Rodriguez during the Cap and Trade vote:

During the vote, Washington Rep. Jay Inslee, one of the taller members of the House, guarded the doors on the floor leading out to the Speaker’s Lobby, warning members not to leave the floor in case anyone needed to switch his or her vote. But that didn’t stop some Democrats, like Colorado Rep. John Salazar, from voting no early and sneaking out to avoid getting pressured by party leaders.

Leadership aides say Texas Rep. Ciro Rodriguez promised Pelosi he’d vote yes, but voted no and sprinted from the chamber. California Rep. Xavier Becerra tried unsuccessfully to flag him on his cell phone — and Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-N.Y.) bounded into the ornate Speaker’s Lobby off the floor shouting, “Rodriguez! Rodriguez!” as puzzled reporters looked on.

Of course Lloyd Doggett, who made an impassioned speech swearing to vote against the bill that very morning, ultimately voted yes.  So that works both ways.

Nye moves out of the “undecided” category, and Loretta Sanchez makes her first appearance on the chart.  That bumps the total to 209 no, 204 yes.

Mitchell will face the winner of a hotly contested GOP primary in his district. One of the candidates is Dave Schweikert, the GOP nominee who lost to Mitchell in 2008, 54-44. Mitchell took the seat from J.D. Hayworth in 2006. The district has an R+5 PVI, and, all things being equal, Democratic leadership would probably rather Mitchell not walk the plank on this one.

Mitchell was previously in the “undecided” category. That puts the vote at 202-209 (208-214 with leaners).

The current breakdown: