Edwards voted for the Bankruptcy Reform act of 2001. Kerry didn't

[Renew Deal]

Edwards voted for an act that will leave American families with piles of debt. He did this to benefit his pals in NC banks. The banks didn't let this go unrewarded.

Here is the act:
http://carper.senate.gov/acrobat%20files/FS030501.pdf

Here is how Tom Paine explains it:

<snip>
"In 2001, Congress pondered the so-called bankruptcy reform act. The bill—much desired by credit card companies—made it easier for these corporations to collect debt from people declaring bankruptcy. It was particularly tough on laid-off workers, older Americans and single parents, but cut affluent debtors slack and allowed them to keep their multi-million dollar homes. Edwards voted for the bill; Kerry did not."
<snip>
http://www.tompaine.com/feature2.cfm/ID/9794

Edwards gave the banks what they wanted (cash) and they gave Edwards what he wanted (cash).

The securities industry is his third highest contributor. The Banks are his 12th.

http://www.opensecrets.org/presidential/indus.asp?ID=N00002283&Cycle=All

This is just more proof that John Edwards is in the pocket of Business. Don't let that smile fool you.

[AP]

1. Kerry sits on the two most powerful committees in the Senate

every business in America is regulated by one of the two.

Regardless of whether Kerry is in the pocket of big business, big business has every reason to buy favors with him, and they do.

Whether Edwards's vote on a bill that DIDN"T BECOME LAW BECAUSE OF WHAT'S IN IT is evidence of the fact that a guy who went into politics in order to bring a stop the racist, big-business friendly Helms machine, and who doesn't take any DC lobbyist or PAC money at all, and doesn't even return the calls of the NC bank lobbyists is in the pockets of big business is your call.

But I think it's a very uninformed call to make.

And if you think Bush is going to want to be contrasting himself to Kerry's business love-fest rather than Edwards's entire persona...well, that's pretty funny.

And if you want to discuss this bill, consider this:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic...
mbali's post 17:
mbali  (598 posts)
Sun Jan-11-04 10:32 AM
Response to Reply #8
17. This was far more complicated - and less damning - than made to appear ...
Edited on Sun Jan-11-04 10:41 AM by mbali

Edwards voted for the Senate version of the bill, but there's more to the story.
Edwards joined most Democrats, including Kerry, Schumer, Wellstone, etc. in attaching an amendment, authored by Wellstone himself, that made the Senate version much harsher on the banking industry and easier on individual debtors. At that point, it became a judgment call whether to vote for the bill or against it since voting for it, with the amendment, would force the bill to conference and increase the likelihood that it would die in conference or that conference would produce a version more favorable to individuals than it otherwise would have been. The odds of this were excellent since Leahy, Kennedy, Feingold, Schumer, Durbin were among the Democratic conferees. The banking industry and corporate interests hated this version, by the way.
And, yes, Kerry, Wellstone and 14 other Democrats voted against final passage. But all of the other Democrats, including Clinton, Cleland and Edwards, voted for final passage, largely because they knew that the version the Dems had forced would probably eventually scuttle the bill. And it has. The bill died at the end of the 107th Congress.
It's important to know all of the facts before condemning anyone for one particular vote. Senate procedure and strategy is extremely complicated and just looking at a yea or nay does not always tell the story. That's why it is sometimes misleading to try to characterize anyone's motives or views just by looking at one vote.

[Renew Deal]

2. Edwards doesn't take money from any pacs except his own.

That's where the lawyers and companies such as Goldman Sachs really like his pocket.

http://www.opensecrets.org/presidential/leadpac_contrib.asp?id=N00002283&cycle=2002

[AP]

3. Missing piece of this argument: where'd New American Optimist money go?

Did it go to Edwards's presidential campaign, or did it go to other campaigns which accept PAC money?

And where'd New American Optimist money come from? Individuals or other PAC's?

And if you want to talk about who is loved by Wall St investment banks, you're not going to find much evidence to support your argument in the Edwards FEC reports.

[blm]

4. Bleachers is not a Kerry supporter.

Maybe just trying to stir things up by using Kerry as part of his argument against Edwards.

Just to set the record straight.

[goobergunch]

9. That's not what killed the bill.

There was a provision in the final conference agreement relating to abortion that House social conservatives opposed. Combined with the votes of House Democrats, it was enough to kill the bill.

[AP]

12. Several things killed the bill. The bill didn't give MBNA

everything they wanted. They think they can do better.

People in congress didn't want to anger their constituents by passing this bill just before 2002 elections.

And they also sense they can get something really helpful in Bush's second term, after which people can hate Bush all they want, and then elect Bill Frist president, who won't be tainted by this bill.

The bottom line is that if people are using this one bill -- which isn't even law -- as some kind of evidence that Edwards doesn't stand for everything he CLEARLY stands for, then Edwards is the best candidate running.

[mzmolly]

5. Actually this bothers me.

Thank you for sharing this information.

[SEAburb]

6. Is this how Edwards looks out for the little guy?

Edwards rhetoric doesn't match his deeds.

[AP]

7. How does it not?

[SangamonTaylor]

8. this is how Edwards looks out for his constituents

Banking is a huge industry in NC and he'd be doing his state a disservice if he didn't support the bill. Remember, as a Senator he is the elected representative of his state and he must act in the best interests of his state.

[Renew Deal]

10. So he sells out to the banks for votes?

That's what I call leadership. :eyes:

[AP]

11. The Democrats loaded the bill with things to ensure Republicans

wouldn't pass it. They're waiting to see if Bush gets elected to see if they can get something better.

Edwards was one of the Dems who loaded it so that it wouldn't pass. And he took away from Republicans the possibility of running commercials in NC -- a state ONLY EDWARDS could seriously win -- which say that he voted against NC jobs.

He's looking out for his constituents by making sure he has a good chance of winning NC.

And you have to pay 5 minutes atttention to the guy to know that he's going to protect people who work for a living from being wage slaves overburdened with credit card and other debt.

DUh.

[SEAburb]

14. are you saying Edwards was playing politics with his vote?

Is that what he did with his IWR vote too?

[tishaLA]

16. No. He stands behind the IWR vote

I think that's why he was looking toward Lieberman supporters for financial help last night in NY. Besides that, he also agrees with Lieberman on gay marriage (but Lieberman at least knows what DoMA says).

[TexasSissy]

13. You picked out 1 thing in that article, when the art. isabout how they ALL

have voted non-democratically at times, esp. Kerry.

The article points out the non-democratic votes of Edwards, Kerry, Gephardt, and talks about Dean's non-Democratic positions and tax cuts for the wealthy in Vermont.

It's not a true picture to pick out one small item in a litany of items to supposedly paint a picture.

[shivaji]

15. I respect Edwards even more because of his support to this bill

which was very important to ALL of us who have to pay higher
interest rates on our credit card bills.

[SEAburb]

17. Banks created the problem with easy access to credit cards

Passing them out to college students isn't a sound business practice. Banks had the ability to tackle the problem on their own, without political intervention.