Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Legal Commentary Blogs -> TalkLeft

Legal Commentary

: TalkLeft

Political Bargaining And The Filibuster

By Big Tent Democrat

Senator Russ Feingold has refused to sign on to the FinReg conference compromise and Susan Collins has pulled the ball away yet again. Maria Cantwell, who voted against FinReg before, has not stated her position yet.

I want to take a look at Feingold's position for a moment and consider whether he is engaged in political bargaining and whether his use of the filibuster procedure is a good idea. (For background, see my previous writing on political bargaining.) Feingold said:

As I have indicated for some time now, my test for the financial regulatory reform bill is whether it will prevent another crisis. The conference committee’s proposal fails that test and for that reason I will not vote to advance it. During debate on the bill, I supported several efforts to break up ‘too big to fail’ Wall Street banks and restore the proven safeguards established after the Great Depression separating Main Street banks from big Wall Street firms, among other issues. Unfortunately, these crucial reforms were rejected. While there are some positive provisions in the final measure, the lack of strong reforms is clear confirmation that Wall Street lobbyists and their allies in Washington continue to wield significant influence on the process.

Is this bargaining or a position? If it is bargaining, it is late in the day for this. What does Feingold want and what would be the process for getting it in? Let's discuss this on the flip.

I admire Russ Feingold. He is a man of principle. But I am not sure he is the model political bargainer. Then again, Feingold may have known all along that he would not support the FinReg bill that would emerge for the reasons he has stated.

If he is in fact still bargaining, what is the process for enacting the changes he seeks? Presumably, like the health bill, Senate leader Harry Reid can offer a manager's amendment to replace the conference bill, so long as the House is on board.

But what votes do you lose if you assuage Feingold? Collins and Scott Brown (who was given key concessions for no good reason since he is still a No vote, talk about bad bargaining by Dems) are still Nos who might flip, in theory, if they are given more concessions.

Cantwell seems to be in the strongest position to extract some minor concessions, but I am not sure what she is aiming for.

Now to discuss principles - the filibuster. While everyone seems to hate it (I am not in that camp), it is still on the books, and every single Senator of both parties use it when they want.

For the purposes of political bargaining, I think it is perfectly appropriate to use it. To stake out a point of principle, I do not think it is appropriate. YMMV.

But perhaps Feingold thinks that taking a pass at FinReg down the line is the better way to go. That there will only be one chance at reform, and that down the line a better window will open. That seems quite unlikely to me. But maybe Feingold knows something I don't.

Personally, I think these tactics made more sense during the health bill debate, where there was more time and more options. As a question of progressive bargaining, I think Feingold is taking a stand at the wrong time and in the wrong circumstances. There seems to me to be no way out here.

Unless Feingold thinks this is a bad bill. But he does not say that. He says it is not good enough. Maybe, but this really is the end of the line. Unlike the health bill, where there was clearly more maneuvering room and the virtual certainty of a bill that would achieve some progressive goals (while not sacrificing other progressive ones.)

Time will tell, but I can not stand with Feingold on this one.

Speaking for me only

Full post as published by TalkLeft on June 29, 2010 (boomark / email).