Arlen Specter: Wall Street Reform’s Clincher?

Lauren Victoria Burke/WDCPIX.COM

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.


Could Pennsylvania Senator Arlen Specter, in what’s likely to be one of the last major votes of his 30-year career, cast the decisive vote on Congress’ long-awaited Wall Street reform bill? As Senate Democrats jostle behind the scenes to avert an embarrassing, late-round defeat of their legislation, the stage is set for one last highlight for the outgoing veteran-Republican-turned-Democrat.

Two final votes stand between Congress and passage of the Dodd-Frank bill. On the House side, Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.), who deftly ushered the bill through the bipartisan conference process, looks to have the votes needed to pass the 2,000-plus-page reform bill. (The House’s version of financial reform passed by 21 votes in December.) The Senate’s picture, however, is far less certain.

Right now, Senate Democrats and their staffs are tight-lipped about the pending Dodd-Frank vote as they try to secure the support of at least 60 senators. A vote was slated for this week, but now the Senate is reportedly delaying its vote on the bill by a week or so due to doubts about whether the 60-vote supermajority is in place.

While the death of Sen. Robert Byrd (D-WV) complicates the situation for Democrats, much of the uncertainty is owed to Sen. Scott Brown (R-Mass.). In late May, Brown joined three other Republicans to vote for the Senate’s version of financial reform. But now he’s threatening to defect and join the rest of the GOP rank-and-file in blocking the bill.

It began a couple weeks ago when, amidst the conference hearings, the junior Massachusetts senator began pushing for a loophole in a provision that would ban banks from investing in riskier companies like hedge funds and private equity funds. Financial giants in Brown’s home state, like investment funds Fidelity and State Street, didn’t like that prohibition, and presumably told Brown so much. In turn, Brown pressed Sen. Chris Dodd (D-Conn.), the Senate’s top negotiator, to water down the ban. Knowing Brown’s vote was in play, Dodd obliged: The Dodd-Frank bill now allows banks to invest up to 3 percent of their capital in these funds, a exemption that more or less swallows the rule, experts and pundits say.

Even after winning his exemption, though, Brown is continung to play hard to get. Now he’s complaining about a $19 billion tax on banks to pay for the implementation of the new reforms, a stipulation added to the bill by Frank on the final night of the conference negotiations. That tax irked Brown, whose vote was considered won. “I’ve said repeatedly that I cannot support any bill that raises taxes,” Brown was quoted as saying on Saturday.

That leaves Senate Democrats in a bind. They need another “yes” to replace Scott Brown and pass Dodd-Frank. It’s all but impossible they’ll lure into their camp a new Republican who’d opposed the bill in May, and the two Democrats who opposed the bill in May—Sens. Russ Feingold (D-Wisc.) and Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.)—have yet to change their minds. Indeed, Feingold said yesterday, “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.”

Only two Democrats did not vote on the bill in May: the late Robert Byrd of West Virginia and Arlen Specter. Provided Democrats Harry Reid and Chris Dodd hold onto the other three GOP votes—Sen. Charles Grassley (R-Iowa) and Maine senators Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe—Specter could be the clincher in sending Dodd-Frank to President Obama’s desk.

Judging by Specter’s record, his support is unclear. As a Republican, he voted in 1999 for one of the most consequential—and arguably damaging—financial bills in recent history, the deregulation-heavy Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act. Then again, he voted for the $700 billion bailout in October 2008, a bill many Republicans rejected. And he voted for the Credit CARD Act last spring, a popular bill that cracked down on abusive practices by credit card companies. (Specter’s office didn’t respond to multiple requests for comment on Monday.)

Specter’s handful of contributions to the current bill suggest he’ll vote “yes.” He joined with pro-reform Democrats like Ted Kaufman (D-Del.) and Pat Leahy (D-Vt.) to offer several amendments to the bill bulking up protections for investor and financial-crime whistleblowers. This suggests that Specter is a lock for Democrats when the Dodd-Frank vote takes place.

By switching parties earlier last year, Specter hoped the Democratic Party could do for him what the GOP couldn’t: pave the way for reelection. The party failed. In the end, it looks like Specter’s the one who’ll be helping his new party to victory.

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate