As Employee Free Choice Debate Heats Up, Votes May Not be on Dems' Side
If you thought there was already a war of words over the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA) -- the labor movement's No. 1 priority and business' bete noire on the Hill -- just wait until the bill actually gets its official introduction tomorrow.
We can expect dramatic rhetoric, and amped-up campaign donations, from interest groups on both sides as the battle comes down to a handful of swing votes in the Senate. One connected Democrat in the upper chamber, Claire McCaskill (MO), said yesterday that her party may not have the votes to break a GOP filibuster of Employee Free Choice ... but is she right on?
It appears that she is. Here's a rundown of which senators are on the fence on the eve of the bill's introduction:
Blanche Lincoln (D-AR). This conservative-leaning Dem is up for re-election in 2010, and she has signaled since December that she might not back EFCA this year, although she voted to break a GOP filibuster when it came up in 2007. The Arkansas News reported last week that Lincoln's campaign staff was telling business donors "not to worry" about her vote on the bill.
Arlen Specter (R-PA). Perhaps the most closely watched vote on Employee Free Choice, he is reportedly facing a strong challenge from conservative former Rep. Pat Toomey, who has been rapping Specter's past support for EFCA for months now. Will Toomey's entry into the race be the EFCA "epiphany" that GOP leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) recently wished on Specter? Labor advocates have to hope not.
Mary Landrieu (D-LA). After co-sponsoring Employee Free Choice and voting with her party to break a filibuster in 2007, Landrieu is now up in the air on this year's vote, according to the Shreveport Times in her state.
Mark Pryor (D-AR). In its report on Lincoln, the Arkansas News also quotes Pryor as declining to become a co-sponsor of the bill this year and pinning his hopes on a compromise between business and labor. For now, Pryor remains decidedly in the fence-sitters' camp.
Other notable Senate centrists, such as Evan Bayh (D-IN) and Ben Nelson (D-NE), have not made any remarks of late that would cast doubt on their stance on EFCA. But until Al Franken is seated as Minnesota's next senator, Democrats would need to enlist Specter as well as another GOPer in order to break any filibuster of Employee Free Choice ... which looks like a well-nigh impossible task at this point.
Josh
Elana
Matt
Eric
Specter is damned if he does and damned if he doesn't.
March 9, 2009 1:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Specter will probably vote for EFCA. He has a very small chance of sneaking through a GOP primary then sure, but if he votes against it, he's got a zero percent chance in the general. That said, expect him to switch teams if he votes for it.
March 9, 2009 1:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
The odds of Specter switching parties are slim and none. And slim just walked out the door.
March 9, 2009 1:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's been suggested before, but he could always switch parties. I harbor no illusions about the man and his principles, but it's obvious that the Republicans don't want him any more and I wouldn't mind having him as a Democrat.
March 9, 2009 1:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
"I harbor no illusions about the man and his principles"
What principles?
March 27, 2009 1:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
At some point, we have to make them actually filibuster. Schedule the legislation that will get past cloture and get it passed. Then bring up the bills we are close to 60 on and work down the line. But don't fold. The American public voted for specific policy changes. Those standing in the way of a simple majority decision, following reasonable debate and efforts to accomodate dissent, should be put in the spotlight of public opinion
March 9, 2009 1:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is just another absurd illustration of the mainstreaming of the filibuster. These conservative Ds should feel free to oppose EFCA on final passage, but opposing cloture should be considered a much more draconian step.
March 9, 2009 1:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Elena: what, exactly, is going on in Arkansas, that has both the good Senators quaking in their boots?
Is this another "chicken lobby" situation; and if so, who precisely would be behind this effort to keep Arkansas virulently anti-Union? Anyone?
March 9, 2009 1:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
One (two?) word: Wal-Mart.
March 9, 2009 1:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
(1) Barry, Arkansas is a state with weak unions, which explains why both (very right-wing) Senators are not feeling much fear about opposing labor.
(2) Why in the world would Landrieu support EFCA in the year in which she faced re-election but not now? I'm confused.
March 9, 2009 1:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think landrieu is confused as well.
March 10, 2009 9:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
The Minnesota Senate Race - A marathon where the finish line keeps moving?
March 9, 2009 2:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well Reid usually knows if he has the votes or not and the Unions seem to have some secret GOP votes up their sleeve, so it could be interesting. I mean they're not waiting for Franken, which is curious if the vote is expected to be razor thin.
March 9, 2009 2:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Claire McCaskill also offered upon an alternative to the EFCA in her appearance yesterday on This Week. She suggested amending the law so that secret ballots are required for both certification and decertification. Certainly not my preferred solution, but it makes a decent response to the right-wing's faux outrage at the loss of secret ballots.
March 9, 2009 2:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
My preferred amendment, if we have to do so, would be to keep the mandatory election but make it immediate (no more than 3 days) upon presentation of the petition. Then argue in force that we've heard from the American people about the importance of elections, but the six-week delay is an anachronism from the communications system of the 1930s.
I'd also amend it to force the DOL to recognize any form of currently-used federally recognized signature (including electronic signatures such as those used in tax software and credit card identity verification procedures) as legitimate under the petition or card-signing process. That would allow unions to electronically organize groups of workers, both large and small.
March 27, 2009 11:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
That makes sense to me.
March 27, 2009 12:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Make them filibuster, and the unions need to get aggressive with the blue dogs, promise to primary them if they don't come through for labor.
March 9, 2009 2:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dems need to lay down the law. Vote your conscience (or, more accurately your campaign contributors), on final passage, but but do NOT join the Repugnuts in the filibuster.
This should be the minimal standard of party discipline -- and not just on EFCA but every key piece of legislation before Congress.
March 9, 2009 3:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
As many times as Specter has shafted the Democrats why would they want him?
This man will work hard to create an the illusion that he is a purely objective individual when it comes to protecting the individual/collective freedoms of the American people. But illusion is all that it is.
He's worked just as hard as anyone to protect the telecom industry for its roll in the illegal spying on Americans.
March 27, 2009 1:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
I love, love, love that photo you guys put up of DiFi! She looks in need of an exorcism...
March 27, 2009 1:53 PM | Reply | Permalink