Tell Congress: Televise Wall Street Reform Conference Committee!

The Senate passed their version of Financial Services Reform last night by a vote of 59-39. Hours earlier, they invoked cloture by the slimmest of margins: 60-40.

Now the bill advances to a conference committee with the House, where a handful of Senators and Representatives get to hammer out the differences and come up with one final bill. This final bill must pass both chambers again before Obama can sign it into law.

David Dayen of FDL has a great run-down of the differences between the two bills:

• The Volcker rule. Contrary to some media reports, there is a “Volcker rule” in the Senate bill; it essentially authorizes a study and tells the regulators to come up with something on it. This is but one of the 28 “studies” in the bill. The House bill passed before there was such a thing as the “Volcker rule” in the lexicon, so that’ll probably be the best we can get here. But we should at least get that.

• The Fed. The House bill has a full annual audit of the Federal Reserve; the Senate bill has a one-time audit of emergency lending facilities. In addition, the Senate bill allows a much bigger role for the Fed than the House version; in fact, the Fed gained more power while the Senate bill was on the floor. Some of that could be reeled in if the House language is adopted.

• Derivatives. Everyone expects the 716 provision, which forces the mega-banks to spin off their swaps trading desks, to be excised in conference. But Michael Greenberger believes something like it will be retained. The House’s derivatives piece is a mess and nearly useless, but Barney Frank has admitted a mistake on that front, and wants to preserve strong rules against derivatives, like in the Senate bill.

There’s also the matter of Maria Cantwell’s main complaint, that the mandate of all trades going through clearinghouses is unenforceable. Obama Administration officials appear to think this is a misreading of the legislation, and that Cantwell’s fix could have unintended consequences. So it looks unlikely that this loophole will be closed, if the major players in conference don’t think it’s a loophole.

• The CFPA. The House bill has an independent Consumer Financial Protection Agency with a compromised, exemption-riddled mandate. The Senate bill has a CFPA inside the Federal Reserve but without as many exemptions. Both bills include some pre-emption of state consumer financial protection laws, though the Senate bill preserves a role for the state Attorneys General in enforcement. A mix of both of these would be preferable. The Senate motion to instruct conferees will urge adoption of the auto dealer exemption from the CFPA, which is in the House bill, but given the Administration’s position there is almost no chance that conference will adopt that.

• Capital requirements. The House bill, in its strongest plank, has a hard 15:1 leverage cap for financial institutions. The Senate bill leaves capital requirements and leverage up to the regulators, although the Collins amendment does force bigger banks to have stronger requirements. The more distinct and specific the language is, the better. And the bank lobbyists will work hard to get the opposite, pure discretionary language.

• Credit rating agencies. There were two competing options for the rating agencies: end the conflict of interest by giving government more of a role, or end the rating agency process altogether. The Senate kind of opted for BOTH approaches, with the Franken amendment empowering an SEC bureau to assign initial ratings to qualified agencies, and the LeMieux amendment eliminating the qualified “seal of approval” for the rating agencies. Franken insists they’re compatible. The House has language similar to the LeMieux amendment. If possible, the Franken amendment should be retained.

• Mortgage underwriting. Both bills actually have some pretty good new standards for mortgage lending, banning the premiums for pushing borrowers into riskier loans, and forcing some ability to pay. This is likely to stay in the bill.

• Interchange fees. One of the toughest measures in the Senate bill changes the swipe fees charged to local merchants when their customers use debit cards. The bank lobbyists will have their knives out for this one.

In my opinion, the two most important pieces to preserve are the 15x leverage cap, which ensure that companies will not borrow more than 15x their worth, and the derivative regulations. The companies that got into the most trouble in 2008 were those who borrowed more than 30x their worth and came crashing down when it turned out that their investments were worthless. And the derivatives market must be brought under control. There is no reason to have a largely unregulated market that is worth $600 trillion, ten times the GDP of the entire world.

How can we prevent these provisions from being gutted now that the bills are off the floor?

Well...

Should the final act of the financial reform fight be televised? If it is, it would make any efforts--whether Republican or Democrat-led--to weaken the final product a heavier lift. And so there will be significant pressure to cut the final deal in as much darkness as possible. But if that's the route legislators decide to go they'll have to walk back from earlier nods toward the importance of transparency

Several weeks ago, House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank dared Senate Republicans to oppose Wall Street reform, and warned that, after the Senate passed its legislation, any further efforts to weaken the final product would have to be public: a formal conference committee to iron out the differences between the House and Senate bills, even a C-SPAN camera so the whole world could see where each party stood.

Well, last night, the Senate passed its bill, and on Monday the Senate will take formal steps to begin the conference committee process. And in conversation, key Republicans and Democrats last night say they think inviting the cameras along would be just fine.

If the conference committee is televised, it will become much more difficult for members of Congress to strip out the strongest parts of the bill. The amendment process on the Senate floor strengthened the bill overall once Senators were on camera and told to "put up or shut up" regarding their tough-talk against Wall Street. Furthermore, with a televised conference committee, progressives can better target troublesome members when they work to weaken the bill.

If you'd like to see the conference committee conducted in the open, please call your Senator or Representative. This is especially important if your member is the chair or ranking member of the relevant committees and subcommittees:

Barney Frank (MA)
Spencer Bauchus (AL)
Paul E. Kanjorski (PA)
Scott Garrett (NJ)
Maxine Waters (CA)
Shelley Moore Capito (WV)

Christopher Dodd (CT)
Richard Shelby (AL)
Blanche Lincoln (AR)
Saxby Chambliss (GA)

If your member is on the Senate Banking Committee or the House Financial Services Committee, please give them a call!

The Senate will be acting on this issue on Monday. Action must be taken as soon as possible.

Thanks for your help!

Tell Congress: Televise Wall Street Reform Conference Committee!

The Abuse Amendment

Something funny I came across while reviewing the proposed amendments to the Financial Reform bill:

SA 3933. Mr. CORKER submitted an amendment...to the bill S. 3217...; which was
ordered to lie on the table; as follows:

On page 1291, line 15 strike ``, DECEPTIVE, OR ABUSIVE'' and insert ``OR DECEPTIVE''.
On page 1291, line 20, strike ``, deceptive, or abusive'' and insert ``or deceptive''.
On page 1292, line 1, strike ``, deceptive, or abusive'' and insert ``or deceptive''.
On page 1293, strike lines 3 through 20.
On page 1293, line 21, strike ``(e)'' and insert ``(d)''.

The part of the bill that would be changed by this amendment is Section 1031: Prohibiting Unfair, Deceptive, or Abusive Acts or Practices. The amendment strikes the use of the word "abusive" from this section and removes the subsection that bans financial institutions from '"interfer[ing] with the ability of a consumer to understand a term or condition of a consumer financial product or service" or "tak[ing] unreasonable advantage of a lack of understanding on the part of the consumer of the material risks, costs, or conditions of the product or service."

I have no idea why Bob Corker wants to specifically allow abusive practices to continue, but it strikes me as particularly funny that his amendment is designed to strike the ban on banks and credit card companies abusing their customers.

The Abuse Amendment

236 Days

In the coming days, Congress will finally pass the long-debated financial services reform bill, S3217. The Republican leadership in Congress is warning Democrats about the peril of moving "too quickly" on the legislation, and are toying with the notion of further delaying action on the bill. In April, the Republicans insisted on holding cloture votes over the question of even bringing the bill up for debate--and they defeated cloture. Twice. Eventually, the Republicans folded and allowed the Senate to debate the consideration of the bill.

Republicans are now threatening to delay the bill further, possibly requiring the Democrats to file for cloture on many of the proposed amendments.

In the House, bills are sometimes brought to the floor under an "Open Rule". This allows any germane amendment to be brought up for a vote. With a quorum present, amendments can be easily knocked out via voice-vote or with quick, 15 minute votes by electronic device.

Because of the cloture rules, however, the Senate can't do this. The Majority Leader (often in conjunction with the Minority Leader) calls the shots and can only allow a fraction of the proposed amendments to have their time on the floor. Normally, when an amendment is brought up, a unanimous consent agreement waves the normal rules and establishes new rules for a short debate and a vote. If there is an objection to this agreement, however, cloture must be invoked for the amendment to be debated. This involves a three-day wait before the cloture vote, and then a 30 hour debate after cloture is agreed upon.

This would be for each individual amendment.

There are currently 189 proposed amendments to the Financial Reform bill.

If each were brought to the floor, and only one Senator objected to each of them, it would take 236 days for the Senate to get through them all.

This is why the Senate can't have nice things. This is why it's said that each Senator carries with them a nuclear bomb.

Ironically enough, the evil, majoritarian House of Representatives can actually have a greater number of amendments considered and therefore have a more inclusive debate over the legislation than the infamously deliberative Senate. Because of the asinine cloture rules, the Senate can only address a handful of amendments on a given bill, while the House can easily address dozens.

It's no wonder that people are clamoring for Senate reform. While thousands of bills are proposed every legislative session, only a small fraction of them can ever be brought to the Senate floor. Time on the floor is the most valuable commodity available, but it can be wasted for days at a time due to objections by one Senator.

This is the same reason why the Democrats can't bring up the dozens and dozens of unconfirmed nominations to various executive branch positions. The Democrats have the votes to confirm the Deputy Undersecretary for Multifamily Housing, but as long as one Senator threatens to require cloture, it would take over a day to get through each nominee. It would take over three months to get through all the delayed nominees.

Something has to give. Either the rules for cloture must be reformed (say, limiting it to only the final passage of legislation, not amendments and executive business) or the filibuster--and thus cloture--must be eliminated.

We need a new, streamlined Senate to handle the 21st Century needs of the country. With a bigger nation--and a bigger government--the Senate needs to have the tools necessary to deal with the issues of the day. That fact is not open for debate.

236 Days

Republicans to Accept Bribes to Oppose Wall Street Reform

As you've probably heard, the Republican Senate Caucus is going to the mat to block Wall Street Reform from being passed:

The fate of financial reform in the Senate remains very much in flux tonight, with Democrats facing the stark reality that Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell has once again managed to unite his caucus in opposition to the Dems' top legislative initiaive. But Democrats remain determined to bring their bill up for a key test vote as early as Monday, and have statements from a number of Republican senators to point to as evidence that they will prevail sooner rather than later.

This seems like a popular issue. Politicians get to demonize Wall Street, tell their constituents all sorts of stories about Wall Street excess, tell them how irresponsible bankers flushed away millions of jobs and trillions of dollars and caused the greatest economic downturn in over 75 years...It seems like a win-win issue for any politicians who jumps on the regulatory bandwagon! Why in the world would anyone side with Wall Street for such a fight?

Maybe...

About 25 Wall Street executives, many of them hedge fund managers, sat down for a private meeting Thursday afternoon with two of the most powerful Republican lawmakers in Congress: Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, and John Cornyn, the senior senator from Texas who runs the National Republican Senatorial Committee, one of the primary fundraising arms of the Republican Party.

...

[The Republican Leaders] also said that they have a shot at taking control of the House by adding 40 additional seats to their current total. In New York State alone, the senators predicted a six-seat pickup.

But in order to assure those gains, and add even more, McConnell and Cornyn made it clear they need Wall Street's help.

Again with the bribes. Republicans meet with bankers, and tell them that it would be a shame if Wall Street Reform were to pass. If only there was some way for these hedge-fund managers to show that they are serious about supporting the Republicans in the upcoming election.

The Democrats are, rightfully, pointing out this conflict:

Since Republicans appear to be conducting backroom negotiations with these same people who took our economy to the brink of collapse, the public deserves to know what secret deals and carve-outs Republicans are offering Wall Street executives in exchange for their support.

For some reason, though, they are reluctant to use the correct terminology here: When an elected official takes money in exchange for a favor, it's called a bribe.

Democrats aren't immune to this, either. Harry Reid and Chris Dodd have collected plenty of cash from Wall Street types over the years. Payments like that can't not have an effect on the legislation that they are now pushing through. Perhaps we need some rules in place to bar people from serving on or chairing committees that oversee the businesses of their biggest contributors.

Or, you know, maybe we should institute sensible campaign finance reform that ends this system of quid-pro-quo.

Republicans to Accept Bribes to Oppose Wall Street Reform

What's the Matter with Senate Republicans?

Some Democrats in Congress are a stickler for bipartisanship. Rather than having the courage of their convictions, they seek the "political cover" that only bipartisanship can provide. Like I said yesterday, when a bill is truly bipartisan, no one can be blamed if the new policy fails. Politicians find that their careers are longer when they are know for nothing in particular. Faceless members of Congress tend to last longer than those who create a ruckus (and enemies). In the interest of keeping their jobs, most practice a "go-with-the-flow" mentality. Whether you're in the majority or minority, that means not rocking the boat by challenging the status quo.

It's no surprise then that when Democrats propose big policy overhauls--such as the Affordable Care Act, Financial Reform, or the START treaty--they seek Republicans support to help provide political cover just in case the Democrats find their new policy to be unpopular. When everyone is responsible, no one is.

Some Democrats, such as Robert Wexler, Nancy Pelosi, or Al Franken, believe that it doesn't matter what kind of backing their supported policy has--as long as it's enough to get it passed. If a new policy is good for the nation, it doesn't matter whether it has 109 Democrats and 109 Republicans supporting it or just 218 Democrats. At the end of the day, all that matters is that it's passed.

Chris Dodd, Max Baucus, and Barack Obama aren't like that. They pride themselves on getting bipartisan support for their proposals. We saw that last summer, when Max Baucus held long meetings with Republicans on the Senate Finance Committee regarding the Democrats' number one domestic priority:

Mr. Obama, in his news conference last week, praised the three Republicans in the Senate group — Michael B. Enzi of Wyoming, Charles E. Grassley of Iowa and Ms. Snowe. Mr. Grassley, the senior Republican on the Finance Committee, and Mr. Baucus share a history of deal-making, and group members said they share a sense of trust despite the partisan acrimony that pervades the Capitol.

Mr. Enzi, who sits on both the Finance Committee and the health committee, has a long record on health issues but found Democrats on the health panel unwilling to compromise.

And Ms. Snowe, one of two centrist Republicans, often teams with Democrats as she did on the economic stimulus plan this year.

After the group insisted it needed more time, the majority leader, Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, conceded that a floor vote would have to wait until after the summer recess. “If this is the only bill with bipartisan support,” Ms. Snowe said, “that will really resonate. It could be the linchpin for broad bipartisan agreement.”

In the end, only Senator Snowe voted the measure out of committee, but she quickly reversed herself and voted against every other iteration of the bill.

Baucus justified giving up his bipartisan dream because Grassley couldn't bring along extra Republicans to support the very watered-down measure. Even when he gave the Republican caucus half a loaf, they still batted it away. Grassley's word held no sway, and soon he abandoned the legislation he helped craft:

A few months ago, Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa positioned himself to be the key GOP player in negotiations to advance President Obama’s top domestic priority — overhauling the nation’s health care system.

As ranking minority member on the Senate Finance Committee, Grassley has been a leading voice in the committee’s bipartisan “Gang of Six” that had been struggling to hammer out a bill before Congress recessed for August.

But Grassley’s evolution — from legislator once complimented by Obama for his willingness to work across the aisle to one of the president’s chief critics on health care — is a sign that the chances for passing a bipartisan health care bill have all but disintegrated. And as Grassley has pivoted from defending bipartisan work on a Senate bill to criticizing a competing House bill, he has increasingly sown confusion over just where he stands in negotiations to overhaul health care.

Senator Dodd has been following a similar pattern recently regarding financial reform. The House has already passed a moderately strong financial reform bill. Dodd has crafted a bill of his own and, ignoring the lessons learned during the health care fight, and did everything he could to get Republican support:

Dodd and Corker had spent weeks trying to hammer out an agreement on financial regulations, including new consumer protections for financial products.

"We have made significant progress and resolved many of the items, but a few outstanding issues remain," Dodd said in a statement.

President Barack Obama supports a standalone Consumer Financial Protection Agency (CFPA). But the proposal ran into stiff resistance in the Senate and fervent opposition from financial industry lobbyists and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

In addition to consumer protections, Corker said another key sticking point remains regulation of financial derivatives.

Dodd said that he continues to pursue a bipartisan "consensus" package, but he believes pushing forward to committee debate is "the best course of action to achieve that end."

“I have been fortunate to have a strong partner in Sen. Corker, and my new proposal will reflect his input and the good work done by many of our colleagues as well," Dodd said. “Our talks will continue, and it is still our hope to come to agreement on a strong bill all of the Senate can be proud to support very soon."

Dodd worked over Senator Bob Corker, making concessions in the futile attempt to get his support. While Corker says he was close to supporting the bill, Dodd walked away from negotiations because Corker was unable to bring a single other Republicans on board. Corker could not promise Dodd that his weaker legislation would receive any Republican votes. Corker even attacked the Republican caucus for not supporting his efforts at crafting a bipartisan bill:

"We had an opportunity to pass out a bill out of our committee in a bipartisan way, and then stand on the Senate floor and hold hands and say that we would keep amendments that were unnecessary and improper from coming onto this bill," Corker said. "Instead of that, it's been decided that we are going to try to negotiate now ...

"I think it's going to be far more difficult now that this has passed out of committee ... I think we have made a very, very large mistake, and I regret that."

Banking committee Chairman Christopher Dodd (D-Conn.) told HuffPost that "what [Corker] said was his Republican leadership abandoned him."

"They decided they wanted to say 'No' again," Dodd said. "So we went ahead ... If you don't even want to offer yours, I couldn't -- if anyone wanted to offer amendments, I would have been there. They made a decision not to. That was their call. Not mine. And listen, I understand why they wanted to do it."

This is beginning to be a familiar tale: Democrats want to compromise, but they are unable to find a single Republican to take that up on their offer. And if there is one Republican interested, they are never able to bring along a large portion of their caucus.

This pattern can even be found in foreign affairs:

Despite this treaty having extensive bi-partisan support among senior foreign policy officials – such as George Schultz, Henry Kissinger, Richard Lugar (R-IN), Colin Powell –ratification is far from assured. There are real questions over whether the Senate GOP will seek to obstruct the ratification of the treaty. Treaties require a two-thirds majority, therefore eight or nine Republican votes are needed to ratify this treaty. If the Senate GOP wants to kill it they can. Therefore if ratification becomes a fight – it will not be a fight between Republicans and Obama, it will be a fight within the Republican caucus – between moderates and the far right.

In a sign of how extreme the GOP Senate leadership has become, Bloomberg reported, following word the treaty was done, that “Senate Republicans would object to linkages similar to the one in the 1991 treaty.” In other words, what was acceptable to Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush, would not be acceptable to Senator Jon Kyl (R-AZ).

Even Dick Lugar, the most senior Republican in the Senate, can't bring support on board for a treaty that seems entirely reasonable.

I think this shows exactly how strong a hold the far-right has on the Republican party. Rather than evaluate legislation on its merits, it's being judged based on its sponsors. While bipartisanship for bipartisanship's sake can be a damaging thing, blind partisanship can be just as bad, if not worse. Policy between the two parties are to be expected and can be a great thing, but reflexive revulsion to anything your political opponents propose, no matter how mainstream the idea, is ultimately damaging to the country. If anything that is proposed by the Democrats has 41 members of the Senate instantly opposed to it, it's very difficult to get anything done.

Of course, this strategy can seriously backfire on the clueless Republicans when the Democrats practically beg them to let them compromise:

Barack Obama badly wanted Republican votes for his plan. Could we have leveraged his desire to align the plan more closely with conservative views? To finance it without redistributive taxes on productive enterprise – without weighing so heavily on small business – without expanding Medicaid? Too late now. They are all the law.

No illusions please: This bill will not be repealed. Even if Republicans scored a 1994 style landslide in November, how many votes could we muster to re-open the “doughnut hole” and charge seniors more for prescription drugs? How many votes to re-allow insurers to rescind policies when they discover a pre-existing condition? How many votes to banish 25 year olds from their parents’ insurance coverage? And even if the votes were there – would President Obama sign such a repeal?

We followed the most radical voices in the party and the movement, and they led us to abject and irreversible defeat.

This can be damaging for the Republicans for two reasons:

1) The law is the law. The Affordable Care Act, and soon financial services reform, will not be repealed. Republicans let the possibility of a weaker bill slip through their fingers.

2) If the new laws becomes popular, they will never be able to take credit. The voters will know exactly who to reward (or blame).

If the Democrats can learn their lesson that negotiating with this batch of Republicans is a futile exercise that will never yield meaningful results, they stand to reap great rewards. They should learn their lesson well...because it's obvious that the Republicans never will.

What's the Matter with Senate Republicans?

Is Sen. Corker Afraid of Spurring Filibuster Reform?

According to Republican leaders, the best course of action for stopping the Democratic agenda and regaining power for themselves is to "just say no" to whatever the Democrats propose. Don't negotiate, don't bargain, don't contribute--just stand in the way and always vote "no".

Given that the Democrats had a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate when they passed Health Care Reform, however, there was nothing the Republicans could do to stop the bill. But as conservative David Frum said earlier this week, the Republicans could have negotiated with the Democrats during their darkest hour--right after Scott Brown's victory in Massachusetts--and gotten at least half a loaf out of a bill that was probably going to pass anyway. If legislation is going to become law no matter what you do, why not get everything you can out of it, even if you are the minority party? The Rahm Emmanuels of the world would have jumped at the chance to push through a much smaller reform package if they could get Republican support. If the Republicans cared at all about policy (and--given that the issue seems to be becoming electoral winner for the Dems--politics), they could have stopped the CommieNazi legislation by replacing it with something so minuscule that even Tom Coburn could vote for.

Fortunately for the nation, the Republicans dropped the ball. Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats were able to push through comprehensive Health Care Reform.

Now the Senate is considering comprehensive Financial Services Reform. Hopeful that the Republicans would abandon their failed "Just Say No" approach to governing, Banking Committee Chair Chris Dodd reached out to Ranking Member Richard Shelby and then Senator Bob Corker in the hopes that they could work together to create a piece of legislation that would get the approval of both Democrats and a majority of Republicans.

The negotiations fell apart. For all their on-screen comity, Dodd and Shelby rarely see eye-to-eye. First-term Senator Corker, however, was eager to negotiate with Dodd, but he was unable to guarantee Dodd the votes of any other Republican members of Congress--a prerequisite for Dodd to give up key pieces of the legislation.

The Senate Banking Committee this week passed Dodd's Financial Reform bill on a 13-10 party-line vote. The bill will be hitting the Senate floor next week. And Bob Corker is sounding the alarm.

He isn't going on about socialism, tyranny, or liberty. He isn't warning the majority party that they are overreaching and will feel the wrath of the voters. For a change, he is warning the Republicans that they better get in line:

"I find it very difficult to see a scenario where financial regulation doesn't pass the Senate," Corker told reporters after a speech at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

"This is so unlike the health care debate," said Corker, noting that some of his Republican colleagues have made misjudgments on that point over the last month. "I don't think people realize that this is an issue that almost every American wants to see passed. There'll be a lot of pressure on every senator and every House member to pass financial regulation."

Corker is worried that if the 41 Senate Republicans hang together and vote against cloture, they will hear from their constituents who will not be happy to see their Representatives siding with Wall Street and the Bankers, against the Democrats and the folks of Main Street. According to Pew:

59% of voters felt Congress and the administration should support financial reform now, over other priorities.

This is the perfect time for the Dems to press their advantage. This is an issue where they have a clear opinion advantage. They are coming off a great victory in Health Care Reform. They can explain this issue in easy-to-understand language (ie: "The Bankers caused the financial crisis, now we need more regulation to keep them in line"). If the Republicans filibuster this reform package, the Dems should go on an all-out offensive and go to the mat for this bill.

And that's exactly what Corker is afraid of. He's worried that the Republican leadership doesn't see this coming. Chris Dodd said of the Republican leadership:

"They decided they wanted to say 'No' again," Dodd said. "So we went ahead ... If you don't even want to offer yours, I couldn't -- if anyone wanted to offer amendments, I would have been there. They made a decision not to. That was their call. Not mine. And listen, I understand why they wanted to do it."

But could Corker also be worried that this issue may lead to the death of the filibuster?

The top three Senators in the Democratic Leadership--Harry Reid, Dick Durbin, and Chuck Schumer--all favor filibuster reform. The odds are good that the first order of business in the 112th Congress will be to eliminate the filibuster. But Financial Services Reform could be to the Democrats was Bush's Judges were to the Republicans; it could be a great reason to bring out the "Nuclear Option" and threaten to do away with the filibuster for good.

I believe that is what Bob Corker is really afraid of. He's not afraid of damaging the Republican image--after all, it's nearly impossible for the Republicans in Congress to be seen is a worse light. Instead, he could be afraid of the Democrats pushing the advantage and taking away the Republicans' favorite procedural roadblock.

On the one hand, I would like to see Financial Services Reform pass without a problem. On the other, it would be nice to see all 41 Republicans filibuster such a popular piece of legislation and hand the Democrats the perfect excuse for nuking the filibuster once and for all.

Is Sen. Corker Afraid of Spurring Filibuster Reform?