TPMDC
Collins Pulls Back Support For Wall Street Bill Over Bank Tax
Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME)
Share
Send to a friend!
Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) joined Sen. Scott Brown (R-MA) this evening, putting herself back into the undecided column on Wall Street reform legislation, after House and Senate negotiators added new fees on banks to the final bill late last week.
"It was not part of either the House or Senate bill and was added in the wee hours of the morning. So I'm taking a look at the specifics of that and other provisions as well," Collins told reporters this evening outside the Senate chamber.
If both she and Brown oppose financial reform over bank fees, it could stall or even kill the legislation. Democrats would have to sweep the remaining swing votes--Sens. Olympia Snowe (R-ME), Chuck Grassley (R-IA), and Maria Cantwell (D-WA)--to pass the legislation. They want to pass the bill this week, but the death of Sen. Robert Byrd has thrown into doubt whether they'll have the votes lined up before the fourth of July recess.
Comments (33) | Join the Conversation!
Leave a comment
Follow us!
Most Popular
TPM Stories Now Surging on Digg.com
TPM Top News
© 2010 TPM Media LLC. All Rights Reserved.
converse
June 28, 2010 9:28 PM
Put the fees in and it's an "unnecessary tax;" take them out and it's "deficit spending." These assholes are never happy.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mona
June 28, 2010 10:52 PM in reply to converse
The sad thing is that there are enough lemmings out there ready to vote for them. To hell with the what is best for the country. All industries have proven they cannot be trusted to self-regulate because they use the fact there is no law against whatever they do to justify whatever greedy thing they do.
The Republicans use every trick in the book to obstruct legislation that is needed, even legislation they would normally support, and then demean the President and other Democrats by saying, "see there is no leadership on the other side. They can't get anything passed."
All Democrats and any voters that don't want a repeat of the Bush years should remember why they voted for Obama and the Democrats in the first place. You may not be getting everything you want right now but it is a heck of a lot better than the other option. For sure you won't get anything if the Republicans pick up more seats. If you work hard to give the Democrats more seats, especially in the Senate, then you can work to persuade the party leadership to add to what they already have passed. Wake up.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
CranialRectalLoopback
June 28, 2010 10:22 PM
Did you expect something different? This obama clown can't even play tic-tac-toe let alone chess of any dimension.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
pol
June 28, 2010 10:26 PM in reply to CranialRectalLoopback
What's this have to do with President Obama???
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jdb316
June 28, 2010 10:32 PM in reply to pol
Because, with his influence, the bill got watered down to get "moderate" Republicans on board (the whole bipartisanship thing, you know). And now he's alienated the liberals in the Senate while still not getting any Republicans on board. So what was the point? At least if he had stuck with a really hard hitting bill and it had gone down, he would have had something to hammer Republicans over. Now his own base won't even support him.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Nutter
June 28, 2010 10:40 PM in reply to jdb316
Oh fuck off! When did you guys honestly support him? I don't see you slamming people like Fiengold. Why do you think we have to appease so many Republicans? It is because the "base" gave plenty of indications that they abandoned him from the start even when ever last vote counts and guess what? They did.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
dtOZONE
June 29, 2010 12:19 AM in reply to jdb316
Feingold never supported any bill at any point. He didn't even release a list of his demands until a week ago. Other liberals are not abandoning him in the Senate, they're still supporting the bill (Brown, Whitehouse, Sanders).
It's pretty clear Feingold has been bought by the banks and they're financing his reelection.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Nutter
June 28, 2010 10:50 PM in reply to CranialRectalLoopback
And if I might inquire what people like you accomplished?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
agio
June 29, 2010 10:23 AM in reply to Nutter
Well, they can make a lot of angry pixels appear on the Internets.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Walter Mitty
June 28, 2010 10:33 PM
Grassley and Snowe will pull their support as well. They never stand alone.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Mateo123
June 28, 2010 10:42 PM
Why is this surprising?
Seriously, why is anyone surprised? The freaking house. That is all this is about. You can argue about the GOP all you want but adding a tax to a bill during conference is just plain stupid.
This should not surprise anyone. No one who is remotely close to being conservative is going to support a tax in this environment -- much less one proposed through conference committee.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lcdrrek
June 28, 2010 10:49 PM
Imagine that!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Progressive Party
June 28, 2010 11:10 PM
Cantwell is a dem ....
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
GreenLaker
June 28, 2010 11:10 PM
Ummm... Maria Cantwell is listed as a Republican in this article (?).
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
cmpnwtr
June 28, 2010 11:54 PM
Once again Russ Feingold proves himself to the sabotaging, back-stabbing prima donna that he is. Totally ineffectual, totally in love with himself. If these narcissists are going to ask for our vote at least they should accomplish something. In the name of his virginal purity Russ Feingold is doing the bidding of those parasitic bankers he claims to want to reform.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Yash
June 29, 2010 12:04 AM in reply to cmpnwtr
Piss off. As always, everyone who's riding Obama's dick wants to lynch someone who's actually legislating on principle and not politics. Republicans get away with their constant game of keepaway because Democrats are fighting the wrong foes.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Viva!America!
June 29, 2010 12:16 AM in reply to Yash
"Republicans get away with their constant game of keepaway because Democrats are fighting the wrong foes."
And that Democrat right now is Feingold.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
melior
June 29, 2010 12:31 AM
It never ceases to nauseate me how true progressive fighters like Russ Feingold always get the blame for not backing down like they're told.
Here's a clue for RW with the inane "Model UN" comment that Josh simpers along with, "Too true": Save your ire for Susan Collins, Rahm Emmanuel, Chris Dodd, and the other banking industry whores. Russ Feingold is not the problem here. Russ Feingold is a hero. More like him please.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
dtOZONE
June 29, 2010 12:40 AM in reply to melior
Oh please. If Russ Feingold opposes this legislation, he should vote no on final passage. He should NOT join a Republican-led filibuster. If we want to hold Ben Nelson, Blanche Lincoln and Joe Lieberman to that standard, then Feingold should be too, otherwise shut the fuck up the next time Lieberman filibusters something.
Russ feingold is no hero, because of him, your "banking industry whores" will be more influential and the bill will get weakened and progressives will have no one to blame but themselves, thought like always, they'll try to blame everyone else.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
melior
June 29, 2010 12:48 AM in reply to dtOZONE
Because of him? Really? One of the three Dems who opposed Geithner's appointment? You can pin that turd on a lot of Admin and Congressional Dems, but it don't fit there.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
dtOZONE
June 29, 2010 12:58 AM in reply to melior
Yes because of him. The most radical regulations and reform of the financial industry in 80 years, DESPITE Geithner and the ilk, and it isn't enough for Feingold (and no one is sure why).
And now, because of him, congressional leaders have to go to the Republicans and make deals to pass the bill or kill it altogether.
Yes, because of Feingold.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jdb316
June 29, 2010 9:02 AM in reply to dtOZONE
Feingold knows that the Democrats have a simple majority on board. His only power in this case comes from the ability to filibuster and keep the bill from even getting to a vote. Same goes for everyone opposing the bill from the right.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jsdc007
June 29, 2010 10:43 AM in reply to dtOZONE
Amen, brother or sister or fellow human! You say it like it is!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
texasspudro
June 29, 2010 1:59 AM
I don't see why everyone is freaking out. We only need 60 for the filibuster. If Brown and Collins make good on their threats at the first vote, we can do the same things we did to get the bill passed in the Senate the first time. "Republicans are holding up reforms to hold Wall Street accountable, because it asks Wall Street to pay for the bill." The people of Massachusetts and Maine need to and will hold them accountable if we apply sustained pressure. So get on the horn and give their offices a call and lets get this shit passed. Same goes for Feingold and Cantwell. They don't have to support the final vote but they can vote for cloture.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mcc
June 29, 2010 4:32 AM
I just find the contrast interesting. Collins is "taking a look at" the bill based on a separable provision she opposes. She has signaled a demand (removing the bank tax/fees/whatever) which would not be a poison bill, which she may predicate her support for the bill on. If she pushes for her demand, she's likely to get it. Now maybe this is just a feint, and she's planning to oppose the bill in the end based on some bullshit excuse no matter what the Democrats do? But she hasn't taken that step yet. For now she's keeping the option open to be persuaded later.
Compare with Feingold. He's outright simply stated he's voting against the bill. He makes a list of vague demands giving reasons why he's voting against the bill, at least one of which (limiting the size of financial institutions) would be an extremely significant change which would be incredibly difficult and probably impossible to get into the bill without losing other critical votes in the process. He's not really doing much to keep options here. If anything he seems to be putting up as many barriers as possible to the Democratic leadership trying to negotiate with him. And so (unless there's some serious backchannel communications going on here which we don't get external evidence of) they probably won't.
By pushing in this way, Feingold is totally failing to actually get us any closer to getting lefty ideas like a size cap on banks into law. In fact if anything he's likely weakening the bill from the perspective of his "principles", by increasing the dependence the Democratic leadership has on Susan Collins. It seems pretty clear that if Susan Collins offers her vote in exchange for something the Democratic leadership opposes but which is within their power to give, and Russ Feingold offers his vote in exchange for something the Democratic leadership supports but doesn't have the ability to offer, then the leadership is probably going to go with Susan Collins because she's the one that can actually get them a vote.
If you ever find yourself wondering why Susan Collins gets a say in the outcome of bills but not Russ Feingold, this is probably why.
(Kinda fascinating in the meanwhile that Bernie Sanders is actually showing himself to be a startlingly competent negotiator!)
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ru4862
June 29, 2010 8:36 AM
Why is everyone beating up on Russ Feingold? He just wants to make Financial reform stronger, but pres. Obama and the corporate dems continue sell out the American people by siding with Wall Scums and repukes.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
SqueakyRat
June 29, 2010 11:05 AM in reply to ru4862
Well, 'cause now he's making it weaker.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
June 29, 2010 11:08 AM in reply to ru4862
Because his chance "to make it stronger" is over. His choice now, right now, right at this moment, is between imperfect" and the status quo which is much, much worse than the imperfect thing he's opposing. Motives are irrelevant. Actions count. And right now, he's acting like one of McConnell's GOP Wall Street rent boys.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
dtOZONE
June 29, 2010 11:25 AM in reply to ru4862
If he wanted to make financial reform stronger, the time to have done that is a month ago. He's trying to kill the bill entirely, probably because he's looking for help from banksters in his Senate race he's going to lose.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
KeithL
June 29, 2010 12:13 PM in reply to dtOZONE
Lots of clutched pearls and fainting couches here today. In fact, ANY time an actual liberal makes a stand, he is attacked by the rabid minks of conventional wisdom.
I, personally, wish he would change his vote and allow this seriously weakened, but still better than nothing bill be voted on. He should allow cloture and vote against it, for the reasons he has stated.
But the fact-free vitriol is getting a bit thick. He DID TRY, for MONTHS to strengthen the bill in committees. He's never made a secret of his objections or his goals. If he says he will not support a particular bill, that's entirely his call.
He may have some ideas of how this bill will eventually be specifically written, with the help of lobbyists, and he is unwilling to put his vote onto it. He certainly has the same right as any other Senator to object and to vote no.
I consider Russ Feingold to be one of the 5 best Senators we've got. Childish rage won't change that opinion, but it sure does get tiresome.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
June 29, 2010 12:20 PM in reply to KeithL
I agree that Feingold's childish rage that he didn't get his way is tiresome.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
KeithL
June 29, 2010 2:47 PM in reply to The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
Uh Hyuck! That's a good one, Steve! So why do I feel tired again?
BTW, The New York Times had an article on Sunday which may help some of you understand what may be bothering our friend Russ:
Well before Congress reached agreement on the details of its financial overhaul legislation, industry lobbyists and consumer advocates started preparing for the next battle: influencing the creation of several hundred new rules and regulations.
The bill, [...] is basically a 2,000-page missive to federal agencies, instructing regulators to address subjects ranging from derivatives trading to document retention. But it is notably short on specifics, giving regulators significant power to determine its impact — and giving partisans on both sides a second chance to influence the outcome.
On both sides? Amusing!
But Brett P. Barragate, […] estimated that Congress had fixed in place no more than 25 percent of the details of that vast expansion. “Congress is doing this in broad strokes,” said Scott Talbott, a lobbyist for the Financial Services Roundtable. “Where the rubber meets the road is the regulatory process.”
We have ALL seen this show before. Once the bill is signed, with great fanfare, the shades are drawn and most Americans never know how the story ended.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
SqueakyRat
June 29, 2010 11:07 AM
Did she include an 800 number for banking industry contributors to call?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?