« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
Masked Senator Strikes Again
Apparently the Senate is an irony-free zone, because once again, a senator has placed a secret hold on legislation that increases government transparency.
In this case, the bill that's been blocked would require Senate candidates to file their campaign finance reports electronically. Right now, they only file paper versions, which are much more difficult to search through. House candidates file electronically.
When Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) moved to approve the bill by unanimous consent yesterday, "a Republican Senator anonymously objected, stalling the bill indefinitely," according to Roll Call (sub. req.).
The good people at the Sunlight Foundation are working to find out who the culprit is. You can lend them a hand by giving your senator a call.
Comments (19)
veritas wrote on April 18, 2007 1:51 PM:I'm going to place a bet that it is...Senator Stevens from Alaska. Just because he's so far off the reservation anyway...
DF wrote on April 18, 2007 1:53 PM:Off the subject, but a great preview of tomorrow’s testimony.
http://www.salon.com/ent/video_dog/latenight/2006/02/09/gonzales/index.html
Anonymous wrote on April 18, 2007 1:54 PM:Save yourself a lot of trouble and just call Stevens' office. He did it last year.
Anonymous wrote on April 18, 2007 2:25 PM:I'd like to know why the Democrats didn't pull this stunt when they were in the minority. It seems the minority party has more power than we were told then.
georgia wrote on April 18, 2007 2:25 PM:I believe Tom Coburn just admitted to it
Kathy wrote on April 18, 2007 2:25 PM:I'd like to know why the Democrats didn't pull this stunt when they were in the minority. It seems the minority party has more power than we were told then.
Kathy wrote on April 18, 2007 2:26 PM:I'd like to know why the Democrats didn't pull this stunt when they were in the minority. It seems the minority party has more power than we were told then.
Anonymous wrote on April 18, 2007 2:27 PM:I say it's one of my senators - bMitch McConnell or Dumb Bunning.
Captain USA wrote on April 18, 2007 2:33 PM:Secret holds must have been more fun before there was an army of obsessed poli-nerd bloggers who would instantly expose you.
otob wrote on April 18, 2007 2:52 PM:our government is so dumb. i take partial responsibility.
jacqueline grant wrote on April 18, 2007 3:10 PM:I called Arlen Spectors office and they said it's not him.
Richard L. Adlof wrote on April 18, 2007 3:20 PM:The anonymous hold irks me in the backside of my shorts . . . This is ludicrous. The anonymous hold only supposes that the Senator will filibuster the bill during a debate so it gets tabled. The Senate needs to place the bill before the whole Senate for debate – Let the idiot spout until he/she/it drops then vote on it.
Senators need to have the fortitude to publicly own their positions . . . That’s what we pay them for . . . Expressing their opinions . . . Heck, that is what the filibuster is farging for!
Paul wrote on April 18, 2007 3:39 PM:Really????? You mean that ANY Senator can hold up ANY pending legislation INDEFINITELY at any time ANONYMOUSLY???? That's rediculous. Why can't they then simply do a roll call, and get votes one by one so that we can find out who the weasel is? After causing all this trouble, it would be pretty embarrasing for the guilty party to have to stand up and say "I don't believe in transparency"....
Yellow Dog wrote on April 18, 2007 4:50 PM:Paul: The Secret Hold, once the signal of an upcoming filibuster but now just an extortion tactic, is part and parcel of the Senate's deeply imbedded anti-democratic (small d) procedures.
The U.S. Senate is just as tyrannical an oligarchy as the Roman one Sen. Byrd so worships.
Remember: the Founding Fathers designed the Senate to be a ruling-class check on the too-democratic House (two per state regardless of population, appointed not elected, six years instead of two, etc.)
The anti-democratic nature of the Senate is a big reason the Electoral College so skews elections. I say get rid of them both.
Dan wrote on April 18, 2007 6:44 PM:It's Senator Byrd.
Conrad wrote on April 18, 2007 7:50 PM:Yawn. People seem very ill-informed about the workings of their own government, yet quite ready to go on a rampage whenever fired up by an inflammatory article, why is that?
The house, senate, and any government body has a set of rules that it abides by - procedures for getting legislation on the agenda, for sending it through committees, for debating it, for voting on it, and so forth. When someone moves to do something "by unanimous consent", they're basically saying screw all the rules, forget all the procedures, let's just do this thing right now. And yes, that can be done if there is "unanimous consent" to suspend all the rules, i.e. if every single member of the body agrees.
So in this case Feinstein tried to push something through without going through channels and without following the rules, and someone objected, and now folks are all whining about the anonymous objector. Why not whine about Feinstein for not putting it through the proper process? That would actually make more sense. But it's likely that her goal was to generate a headline rather than to actually get something done.
Robert Hopt wrote on April 18, 2007 11:50 PM:Conrad,
MAC wrote on April 19, 2007 12:39 PM:I ask why the Republican senator who blocked Feinstein's move failed to do it with her/his name on the record.
Procedural tradition aside- Is it not eminently small-d democratic that Senate members should file their campaign finance reports in as public a manner as possible?
My other question is, why would any senator block this? It's not as if this Senate is concerned about wasting our money or adding bureaucracy... though 'tis obviously concerned about the transparent form of it.
It was Stevens. Check it out here http://porkbusters.org/secrethold.php.
Ramki wrote on April 19, 2007 6:24 PM:I am going out on a limb here - my bet is on Senator (AND RNC Chair) Martinez. His other job makes it important that he blocks this.