Now, they had the GOP votes to override a filibuster and pass it in the House, which is why the end result is pretty useless, but the point is that since the Dems have an even larger margin of GOP votes to pass the bankruptcy bill, it is obvious that far from working hard to pass that bill, the Dems leadership like Daschle are doing very little to pass it and are even derailing it through inaction.
In the last few weeks, Daschle has helped killed broader stimulus tax cuts while forcing through an extension of unemployment benefits, killed the Pickering nomination by barring a floor vote, deleted ANWR drilling from an energy bill over the objections of the committee designing the bill, and seems ready to push through campaign finance and election reform legislation. Given that Daschle doesn't even have a solid majority of votes -- a vote on the floor for Pickering would have passed with votes from Zell Miller, Hollings and Breaux, I wonder what magic people imagine a "real progressive" could accomplish?
The problems with the Dems is that they don't have a progressive majority of votes. Bankruptcy has been the poster child among folks on this list for almost two years proving the perfidy of the Dems, yet it is still not law, largely because of decisions by Dem leaders like Daschle.
So if Dems are so completely in the pockets of big business, how do folks explain Daschle's repeated killing of the pro-rich "stimulus" bills and the continued non-passage of the bankruptcy law?
-- Nathan Newman
Campaign Finance Bill Wins Final Approval in Congress New York Times | 3/21/02 | ALISON MITCHELL
Posted on 3/21/02 2:36 AM Pacific by kattracks
ASHINGTON, March 20 - The Senate gave final approval today to an overhaul of the nation's campaign finance law, and President Bush said he would sign it, putting the political system at the cusp of the broadest change in a generation.
The 60-to-40 Senate vote showed that the effort to limit money in politics had gained support since last year, and the large margin came despite years of bitter combat over the issue.
Opponents vowed to shift their battle to the courts. "Today is not the end," said Senator Mitch McConnell, the Kentucky Republican who has led the fight against the legislation, saying it infringes on free speech rights. "There is litigation ahead."
He added that "I am consoled by the obvious fact that the courts do not defer to Congress on matters of the Constitution," and pledged that he would soon name an "exciting legal team" stretching across the political spectrum to help him mount his challenge.
Shortly after the Senate voted, Mr. Bush ended any last ambiguity about where he stood on the bill that had been the signature issue of his main Republican primary opponent, Senator John McCain of Arizona.
"The reforms passed today, while flawed in some areas, still improve the current system over all, and I will sign them into law," Mr. Bush said in a statement tonight. He added that the law presented some "legitimate Constitutional questions" but did not comment on the legal challenge threatened by opponents.
The bill will take effect after the November Congressional elections. It would ban the large unlimited contributions to national political parties that are known as soft money and rein in campaign advertisements by outside groups advocating the election or defeat of specific candidates.
The day's action capped a long effort to change the campaign finance system. Senator McCain and Senator Russell D. Feingold, Democrat of Wisconsin, first introduced their legislation to limit money in politics in 1995. But time and again the bid to ban soft money died in Senate filibusters or else stalled in the House, facing fierce resistance from Republican leaders.
The political dynamics began to change after Mr. McCain put the battle against special interests at the center of his surprisingly strong presidential run and as more Democrats were elected to the Senate in 2000, bringing more votes for the bill.
But the measure gained critical support in recent months, when the collapse of the Enron Corporation put a spotlight on political giving by corporate interests and helped propel it through the House last month, 240 to 189.
The end of the legislative saga was assured today when the Senate voted 68 to 32 to stop debate on the bill, showing that Mr. McCain and Mr. Feingold had more than the requisite 60 votes to cut off a filibuster. Even some opponents of the bill believed it was time to move on and voted to shut off debate.
And when the final vote came, it showed that two new senators were backing the bill: Ernest F. Hollings, Democrat of South Carolina, and John W. Warner, Republican of Virginia. Senator Ted Stevens, Republican of Alaska, who had supported it last year, voted against it.
In all, 11 Republicans and one independent joined 48 Democrats to support the bill. Two Democrats and 38 Republicans voted against it.
For a few final hours, the two sides fenced over whether the large soft money donations that reached a record of nearly $500 million in the 2000 election tarnished the political system or were a protected right of participation.
"This great center of democracy is truly tainted by money," Senator Feingold said. "Particularly after Sept. 11, all of us in this chamber hope the public will look to the Capitol and to the Senate with reverence and pride, not with derision. Our task here today is to restore some of that pride."
Senator Phil Gramm, Republican of Texas, countered by waving a small, red-bound volume of the Constitution and declaring the bill an abridgment of free speech rights and the right to petition the government.
"We are not taking away political influence at all," Mr. Gramm said. "We are redistributing political influence. Who are we taking it away from? We are taking it away from people who are willing and able to use their money to enhance their free speech guaranteed by the Constitution."
The bill is the most ambitious campaign finance measure to pass Congress since Mr. Bush's father vetoed a broader measure in 1992 that included spending limits and would have subsidized campaigns with public financing.
If upheld by the courts, the new legislation will make the most far-ranging changes since 1974 in how the political parties and outside groups participate in campaigns.
That was when Congress enacted a comprehensive set of contribution and spending limits in response to the Watergate scandal that drove President Richard M. Nixon from office. Two years later the Supreme Court struck down most of the limits on spending as an infringement on free speech but upheld limits on contributions.
At the heart of the bill is the ban on soft money. Such contributions, first allowed by a ruling of the Federal Election Commission in 1978, escalated steadily in the 1990's.
The legislation also places new restrictions on campaign advertisements by groups advocating the election or defeat of specific candidates within 60 days of a general election and 30 days of a primary.
In exchange for the soft money ban, the bill loosens for the first time since 1974 the caps on more strictly regulated contributions known as hard money. The limits on how much an individual can give to a federal candidate would rise to $2,000 an election, from $1,000 now, with subsequent increases for inflation.
The aggregate limit on how much an individual could give to all federal candidates and political parties would rise to $95,000 each two-year election cycle, from $25,000 a year. And state and local parties would be allowed to accept limited soft money donations of up to $10,000 a year per individual for get-out-the-vote drives and voter registration.
Changes in the campaign law affect lawmakers personally, and emotions ran high today. At a victory news conference with an array of supporters, Mr. McCain, usually either ebullient or combative, seemed uncharacteristically subdued.
"It's not often that I'm rendered speechless," he said, "and I'm sure that the affliction will not remain with me very long."
In the Senate chamber, Mr. Gramm momentarily choked up as he thanked Mr. McConnell for being willing to fight so steadfastly against the measure and be "constantly vilified every day in the media because of a position you take."
To the end, senators disagreed sharply about how the measure would change the political system. Mr. McConnell said large donors would simply shift from giving soft money contributions to political parties and give to less accountable outside interest groups that face less stringent disclosure requirements. "We are all now complicit in a dramatic transfer of power," he said.
Senator Tom Daschle, the majority leader from South Dakota, said that those who argued that change would make the system worse beg the question, "Is what we have good enough?"
In a reference to Enron, he said, "Is it good enough that half the government has to recuse itself from an investigation of a failed company because it spread so much money to so many people? Is it good enough that in every election the amount of money spent goes up and the number of people voting goes down?"
Supporters and opponents of the bill said there were many reasons why it finally made it to the president after years of gridlock, starting with the fact that the soft money ban was less controversial than earlier, more sweeping calls for public financing and spending limits. "The reformers kept stripping it back," said Mr. McConnell.
The election of 2000 also had its effect, with Mr. McCain's presidential run giving the issue new resonance and the Democrats' gain of five Senate seats adding to the ranks of the bill's supporters. After years of killing the bill in Republican filibusters, the Senate approved it last year 59 to 41.
The effort to pass it in the House initially collapsed in a bitter procedural dispute, and its supporters had to mount a petition drive to resuscitate the legislation.
When the Enron scandal put a focus on campaign contributions, the supporters got their last needed signatures to force the measure to a vote. And Mr. Bush's refusal to fight the bill made it easier for several dozen Republicans to defy their leaders and vote for the bill. It passed the House last month 240 to 189.
Then the fact that the Democrats controlled the Senate became pivotal. Mr. Daschle insisted on bringing the House version of the bill directly to the Senate floor so it could bypass a House-Senate conference committee and be sent directly to Mr. Bush.