Update: Finance Reform in the Senate

The day’s voting on serious financial reform issues brought mixed results.

In a strange twist, the Sanders Fed audit amendment, which had dominated Senate drama for the day was suddenly delayed by a Republican refusal to allow the vote. Why? Because one of their most endangered incumbents, Bob Bennett, wasn’t in town, and they wanted to be sure he would get in on this popular vote. Seems like they could have figured that one out before they scheduled the vote? It will likely be taken up Tuesday, and will likely pass.

In the meanwhile, the Senate moved ahead on several other amendments, including another high priority amendment for progressives, the Brown/Kaufman SAFE Banking Act, that would have strictly limited bank size and risk. The amendment failed 33-61. TPM reported earlier today that Democratic leadership is considering consolidating some tougher, strengthening amendments, including "limiting the size of major financial institutions and restoring firewalls that used to exist between banks and other financial institutions." There might be another iteration of the SAFE concept still alive, but as of now that’s unclear.

In addition to these votes, the Senate passed a Cantwell amendment to provide the CFTC with clear antimarket manipulation authority and a Grassley/Cardin amendment giving whistleblower protections to employees of ratings agencies with voice votes. This morning, they passed a Tester/Hutchison amendment to direct the FDIC to implement risk-based assessments when deciding how much a bank should pay in premiums, alliveating an undue burden on smaller, community banks. That passed 98-0. And they roundly defeated, 38-61, a Shelby amendment that would have gutted consumer financial protections in the base bill. For tea-leaves readers, Snowe and Grassley voted with majority, potentially a clue to the ultimate fate of the whole bill… [emphasis added]

Inserted from <Daily Kos>

The bad news was, of course, the defeat of Brown/Kaufman.  With that margin, at least fifteen Democrats voted against it.  I have no doubt that some of them did so, because it would be a poison pill that would cost Republican votes needed to pass the overall bill.  I disagree with that attitude, because heading into an election with the ammunition that the GOP had sided with the Banksters against the people, makes a stronger statement than passing a weakened bill with GOP support.  I also have no doubt that other voted against it, because they are Bankster bought.

In the absence of Brown/Kaufman, restoring Glass-Steagall is imperative.