From a House Democratic staffer:
Why did we lose so many votes on cloture on such an awful, venal piece of legislation?
It's really a structural matter in terms of who Democrats end up soliciting for campaign donations. Most Dems have a pretty solid labor-environmental-trial lawyer base that they then try to build out from to amass a large enough war chest to scare off challengers.
Groups that lack steady conflict with the labor-enviro-lawyer triumvirate offer the most attractive targets. That's why Dems end up cozied up to the technology and financial services industry--few labor issues since they're mostly not unionized/union organizer's targets, few environmental issues b/c they don't pump soot into the air, and relatively less contact with the trial lobby.
Since campaign contributions play a significant role and Dems have demonstrably fewer targets, especially on K Street, many Dems end up VERY close to the industries that pushed hardest for the bill--namely the American Banker's Association and the credit card companies, although the credit card companies lean further right in their allocation of PAC dollars.
This becomes amplified for vulnerable Democrats who often flock to groups like the New Democrats or Blue Dogs in order to establish their bona fides with the business community in order to secure their seats. Some of these so-called conservative, pro-business Dems are honestly out of step with the party but many are just struggling to field a credible re-elect effort in difficult districts.
Given its growing strength vis-a-vis other organizations, it never hurts to have a few pro-Chamber votes if to do nothing more than lessen their enthusiasm for supporting a Republican who will vote with them 100% of the time.
Lastly, once they got to 60 votes, I'm sure that opened the floodgates. Knowing that something will pass, likely won't be understood by the general public, and will matter a great deal to those with ready donations will do a great deal to motivate Reps and Senators to sign on board with bad policy.
Unfortunately and inevitably, consumers end up worst off when this dynamic plays itself out, mainly because they lack the organization and clout that labor, environmental groups, and trial lawyers possess. The Consumer's Union usually ferrets out bad policy, but they lack the means to scare Reps and Senators away from voting against them because they're largely unorganized.
If we take any lesson from the bankruptcy bill and Bush's slavish support of corporate interest groups, it's that we as progressives need to find a way to think of ways to give consumers' issues teeth. Then maybe bills like this won't even make it to the floor. If there's no penalty for voting for a pro-Chamber bill, Dems have an easier time peeling off and supporting bad legislation. If you need proof, just watch how many House members vote yes on the bill when it comes up. I bet it's at least 320+.
Vote for it, and your donations from the financial services sector continue to pour in, helping you stay in power. And this isn't the sort of high-profile issue that could ultimately cost you votes (and
definitely not one that could spur attacks from a Republican opponent).
Vote against a bankruptcy bill destined to pass anyway (remember, the GOP has its majorities) and you get very little political benefit while losing one of your main sources of election cash. The less cash-on-hand you have heading into the election season, the more likely you are to face a well-funded opponent. So why would a House Democrat vote against the bill? They won't. And while some of you may blame them anyway, that won't jibe with the reality on the ground.
Of course, that's the House, where the GOP can do what it pleases. But what about the Senate, where a filibuster could've derailed the bill?
As Democrats in the minority, we have to chose our battles, and do so judiciously. Social Security and judges are higher profile and offer bigger political rewards than the bankruptcy bill did. I don't blame Reid for refusing to enforce caucus discipline.
But this is clearly Exhibit A of the corrosive effect of money in our political system -- a bill supported by nary a voter, yet pushed through by a powerful, rich industry. The credit card companies have had their risk reduced by a significant amount. Yet they will not lower rates to reflect their reduced risk. They will not be prevented from giving credit to those who can least afford it (like poor college students). They will do nothing except reap huge dividends on their capitol hill investments.
This doesn't take Lieberman or Biden off the hook, but really, the issue is a lot more complicated than it looks.
Update: Many in the comments are saying, "I disagree!" when really, they mean, "This sucks!" And yeah, it does suck. It's why Dean's run was so inspiring -- he was beholden to the people, not corporate influence. And long-term, it's where we all hope the party will be.
BOTH parties would be better off if we could reduce the influence of corporate lobbyists on our government, and I'm sure that's something with which our friends on the right blogosphere would agree.
This money situation is corrosive for the people of this country, it's corrosive for the Democratic Party, and it's corrosive to the entire integrity of the (small "d") democratic process.
But to fix the problem you have to understand it. Most of these Democrats aren't selling out because they believe in the bankruptcy bill (unlike the GOP who is pushing it). They are using that bill to help ensure their political survival. And survival costs money.