Russ Feingold has a new post up justifying his position and flinging invective at "actors" he doesn't have the courage to name who lack his moral purity. Here's the problem: You won't find the word "filibuster," "cloture," or "procedure" in there at all.
I respect Feingold's arguments about critical reforms that won't make it into the bill -- it is far, far from the progressive ideal. I disagree with his argument that this bill isn't worth passing and represents a victory for Wall Street -- it contains a passel of key reforms, many of them underestimated, that would make our financial system much safer and cost Wall Street banks billions in lost profit. Even if you don't agree with me that the bill will make bailouts very unlikely and bring derivatives out of the shadows, the legislation is worth passing simply for the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which has the power to improve the living standards of citizens across the country, especially the working poor.
Even so, Feingold has every right to oppose the bill. But he doesn't have the right to obstruct it. Democratic leaders are not asking him to vote for a bill that he doesn't support; they're asking him to allow a vote on it. By using procedure to prevent a vote he can't win, he's reinforcing the dysfunctional norm that every piece of major legislation requires a supermajority in the Senate. That's not just bad for financial reform; it's bad for the country.
-- Tim Fernholz
