Skip to main content

View Diary: HR 1606 pulled until next week (56 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  HR 4900 could have been on the President's desk.. (0+ / 0-)

    .. this month if you guys had gotten behind it.  

    There is no requirement that 4900 go to committee.  Indeed, this Congress is quite expert at bypassing committee.  The Rules Committee could have let 4900 go to the floor, 1606 go to the floor, or both go to the floor.  Because it did not think that it could ram through 1606 alone, it punted this to another day.  And protection for bloggers was delayed again.

    •  Well, except (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Adam B, Alice Marshall

      That 1606 already had a majority support in the house. Not to mention - if the calls for 1606 to go through committee were legitimate, just because this congress is good at bypassing the process - that doesn't necessarily mean its the appropriate path. Are you really advocating a floor vote on a complex bill that not only re-establishes a regulation but fundamentally changes BCRA and FECA with no time for Members to weigh in on it?

      In any case - the shame is that in the fight for the perfect - the good became the casualty. Even if you don't think 1606 could have made it through the Senate (debatable, of course - with both Leaders on the bill) - just passing the House would have stopped the rulemaking and given us plenty of time to work together to pass the CDT proposal.

      •  Well . . . (0+ / 0-)

        Congressmen Bass and Allen sought to have HR 4900 considered in committee at the same time that HR 1606 was considered.  But the backers of 1606 seem to want to avoid broad protection for bloggers at all costs, so the House Administration Committee declined to permit 4900 to be considered.  So although I agree with you that full consideration of bills is desirable, the 1606 backers prevented such consideration.

        •  Now this just isn't far, John (0+ / 0-)

          1606 = majority vote in the House in December. Both Senate leaders on as co-sponsors (which, of course, happened after we first spoke about its chances in the Senate). Introduced a year ago. A conservative Republican in the House, a liberal Dem in the Senate. A unanimous vote in committee. Passing the House means a stop to the rulemaking while the Senate considers.

          None of these are BAD things.

          4900 = no committee votes. no floor votes. no mark up. no Senate version. Introduced a couple weeks ago. By two supporters of increased campaign regulations.

          So forgive us for not taking the opportunity to shut up - instead choosing to be a little more cautious around folks (not CDT) that haven't proven terribly trustworthy on freedom issues.

          Here's the question I have: do you, or did you believe that passage of 1606 would, in fact, jeopardize your comprehensive solution? Because the only reason I can even contemplate that scenario is if folks only promised to support it if 1606 were kiled.

          •  A belated reply ... (0+ / 0-)

            ... as I am on the road and have been largely off the net since Friday...

            Here's the question I have: do you, or did you believe that passage of 1606 would, in fact, jeopardize your comprehensive solution? Because the only reason I can even contemplate that scenario is if folks only promised to support it if 1606 were kiled.

            Yes, I do.  The blogosphere seems to only want 1606, and I think there is little to no chance that 4900 would get any momentum behind it if 1606 passes.  In this Congress, little passes without very strong momentum.  And further, if 1606 passes, there is not a bat's chance in hell that 4900 would pass in time to protect bloggers for the 2006 election.  [And to be clear, I believe that the reform community is committed to the protections for individuals in 4900 no matter what -- as far as I can tell, absolutely no one ever wanted individuals to be burdened by the rules, and I think we are all struggling to find the best way to protect them.]

            I do agree that in retrospect it would have been far better to get 4900 teed up in Congress months ago.... we delayed for a particular reason that ultimately did not pan out....

            And I certainly was not meaning to suggest that you shut up.  You are a very thoughtful voice in this conversation.

            John

            •  sorry, the 'shut up' line (0+ / 0-)

              Was simply an attempt at a smile referencing good President Chirac.

              So here's a proposal - wide out in the open: if we get 1606 through - I'll be just as loud and involved in the process to get 4900 through the traps as I have been up to now.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site