John Edwards populist rhetoric belied by his vote in Senate.

[flpoljunkie]

Only one Senator running for President voted against the bankruptcy bill, H. 333, a giveaway to the banks and credit card companies. That candidate was NOT John Edwards.

(Richard Gephardt could not even be bothered to vote on either the original House bill or as later amended by the Senate, where it passed by a vote of 82 to 16. Rep. Dennis Kucinich voted against H.333. Kucinich's votes mirror his rhetoric.)

Only Senator John Kerry had the courage and integrity to stand up against the special interests and vote against this egregious giveaway.

John Edwards says he took no PAC money in his campaign for the Senate in 1996. This begs the question as to why he would put the interests of the banks in his state before the "regular" people he now champions, many who declare bankruptcy through no fault of their own--catastrophic medical bills, etc.

Link to Senate rollcall vote on H.333
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=1&vote=00236

H.333 was passed in the Senate, on 7/17/01/ and as amended, passed again in the House in November 2001. It was then stalled by those who did not like the provisions regarding protection from bankruptcy for convicted abortion protestors.

On March 17, 2003, the House passed H.R.975, the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act. A companion bill introduced in the Senate went nowhere--with a Presidential election coming up.

[KissMyAsscroft]

1. That Bill is unforgivable...

Its amazing how little attention it receives.

[bearfartinthewoods]

53. there must be more to it..Edwards has voted AGAINST bush more often

than any other senator. i bet someone who knows about this bill will come up with more info.

[cryofan]

2. was the bill really that bad? -eom

[salin]

22. Yep. The gop has been trying to get it through since at least 1998

Pres. Clinton stood them down... I believe twice.

The bill was pushed by those tied to the credit card industry and does nothing to curb the practices of predatory lending. It is a one-sided remedy that does nothing to deal with the part of the equation that comes from the industry itself - pushing credit cards to those who in the past would never qualify. It works from the premise that while individuals should have a higher standard of personal responsibility, that corporations with risky business practices should be absolved of any responsibility.

The bill would have passed just before the 2002 break (for the midterm elections) but Sen. Schumer fought to keep in a provision in the senate version of the bill that had some unpalatable terms for abortion foes (forget the provisions - but I think it had to do with being able to recoup sizeable fines from abortion clinic protestors who violate specific laws - I don't recall the details someone else would have to fill them in.) This poison pill killed the bill. If it were to be pushed through again - it would pass. Schumer only had the power to keep the language in - because the dems had the majority in the senate - and thus had leverage in the conference committee. Having no such leverage... if they choose to push this again (and they will) it will pass.

[anti-bush]

24. Yes, but

There was a provision that was added to limit the amount of credit that credit card companies could extend to people under 21 that was supported by Edwards and others, but was eventually removed by the GOP. There was an effort to curb predatory lending practices.

[salin]

27. very minimal and inserted as a bargaining chip

like Anwr was used by the GOP on the energy bill.

[Bombtrack]

3. is this an original thought or did it come from someplace else?

I think that Edwards and Kerry's supporters both have pretty darn good taste and should continue to not bash each others candidates

[HFishbine]

5. Conveying accurate information deoesn't = bashing

Hands over ears. "La, la, la, la, la."

[chimpymustgo]

6. Bombtrack, I gotta say amen. Kerry supporters have been great.

I sure hope the great relationship we have had will not be imperiled by the race heating up.

I hope Edwards and Kerry both do well in Iowa.

[HFishbine]

14. This isn't cheerleader camp for goodness sakes

"Hey, you were great!"

"You too, you're so nice."

**HUGS**

[flpoljunkie]

7. I have written many times about the bankruptcy bill. This comes from me!

This is an important issue--and a defining vote. It is one of the primary reasons I support John Kerry. His record is consistent with his rhetoric.

[chimpymustgo]

8. Can you tell us more about the bill? I don't know why Edwards

voted for it. Please share what you know.

[anti-bush]

11. He voted for it

Because the bill was introduced to prevent corporations from declaring bankruptcy to avoid paying moneys they owed.

Look at the Halliburton subsidiary Brown & Root declaring bankruptcy in their attempt to not pay asbestos settlements, while cleaning up on Iraqi oil contracts.

[HFishbine]

16. WOW! This Post Gets the Linda Blair Award

For best spin. Congratulations!

[mbali]

17. This was far more complicated - and less damning - than made to appear ...

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.

[chimpymustgo]

20. Thank you so much for clarifying that, mbali.

And especially reminding about the machinations of the Senate. No one knows better than Kerry how a vote can be much more complicated than a simple yea or nea.

[anti-bush]

23. perfectly stated

you obviously know more about this particular bill than I do. This seems like another out of context damning of a bill which is littered with so many provisions that in the end, everybody can find a portion of the bill they dislike.

[AP]

36. Good post. Thanks for that.

Do you have a cite for this? I'm sure one would come in handy latter.

[loftycity]

4. When did they do this?

When did this happen? I haven't read it anywhere?
Could someone give me a small update.
No wonder the finacial corps are funding * this year.

[anti-bush]

10. It was Seante Bill 420

Which differed slightly from H.333 (House Bill) . The bill passed 85-15 and was a bi-partisan bill.

Link

"Vote to pass a bill that would make it easier for courts to change debtors from Chapter 7 bankruptcy, which allows most debts to be dismissed, to Chapter 13, which requires a repayment plan."

Forcing corporations to pay debts? Sounds like Edwards is consistent on this.

"...the bill would set a limit of $125,000 on the amount a debtor could claim for their residence exemption in a bankruptcy settlement, prohibit the declaring of bankruptcy by lenders who have violated fair lending laws if their borrowers have filed claims against them, and prohibits children's names from being included in bankruptcy filings."


A limit on exemptions, and prohibit bankruptcy by lenders who violated fair lending laws. What's so wrong about this?

"In addition, the bill would prevent people from using bankruptcy to avoid paying court-ordered judgments for crimes that include blocking access to abortion clinics or churches."

Shocking! You can't use bankruptcy to avoid payments from unlwafully preventing access to churches and abortion clinics. People would be forced to be accountable.

[HFishbine]

19. Corporations!?!?!

This bill affects individuals, was lobbyied for by the banking and credit industries, and has ZERO implication for corporations (other than how deep thay can dig their claws into a person if you owen them money.)

[flpoljunkie]

25. Bill was reintroduced in the Senate in 2003. It went nowhere with upcoming

Presidential election season. Banks and credit card companies have given millions to both parties to get a bankruptcy bill which favors them.

Consumer groups have uniformly condemned all the recent versions, as have almost all progressive publications.

[JaneQPublic]

9. Edwards is a great guy and a credit to the party, but...

...his talk about being the candidate for the little guy isn't reflected well in his campaign finance figures.

According to this graph of FEC data, among all the Democratic candidates, Edwards garners the smallest percent of contributions under $200:
http://www.opensecrets.org/presidential/donordems.asp?format=&sortby=S

And by far, the industry best represented by Edwards' campaign contributions is Lawyers and Law Firms at $7.4 million (in distant second place is Retired at $438,715):
http://www.opensecrets.org/presidential/indus.asp?id=N00002283&cycle=2004

[Eloriel]

32. I don't fault him at all

for collecting money primarily from lawyers. He's a trial lawyer himself. I'm not one who does any lawyer-bashing, at all. if we are a "nation of laws, not men," then we need lawyers (and judges) to help sort it all out.

Eloriel

[AP]

37. Edwards's donors are third poorest and give greates percentage of their...

...income.

Edwards has nothing to be embarrassed about.

[mouse7]

12. Kerry supporters, you are un-freakin'-believable

Would you guys PLEASE offer something positive to the discussion?

Clark yesterday, Edwards today... Is Kerry so poor a candidte that you have NOTHING POSITIVE TO SAY?

[flpoljunkie]

18. Voting against bad bankrptcy bill is something very positive in my book...

When crunch time came, Kerry voted for the people and against the powerful special interests--isn't that positively positive?

[mouse7]

33. Then say THAT!

Why is the thread title an attack on Edwards?

Why didn't you start a thread that said "Kerry voted against Bankruptcy bill." Why didn't you explain why that makes Kerry a better candidate, instead of wasting a whole thread damning Edwards?

[poskonig]

13. The Kerry supporters have been doing a good job.....

except when they are attacking my candidate, of course! :+

[chimpymustgo]

15. Tune into C-SPAN now 1:30 EST. Edwards on.

He's good. He's a man of the people!

[citizen snips]

46. Edwards is the man of the people.

This is why the John Edwards got the endosement of the Des Moines Register.

http://www.johnedwards2004.com/page.asp?id=526

[ShimokitaJer]

21. Look what happens as soon as Edwards gets a little Iowa momentum

The Kerry crew turn their attention briefly from flaming Dean to lob a few grenades Edwards' way. Not satisfied with the repeated posts that Kerry received the "first" newspaper endorsement in Iowa, the news that Edwards received the "largest" newspaper endorsement must have come as quite a shock, placing Edwards on the "must attack" list.

Sure, guys, keep telling us how civil you are to the other candidates.

[flpoljunkie]

26. He gets a little scrutiny.

Especially when John Edwards, you will recall, was earlier this year purported to be one of the DLC candidates, along with Joe Lieberman.

Will return later.

[anti-bush]

29. Edwards has been scrutinized

There's just nothing there to attack, really.

He went through this when he ran for his senate seat in a republican state against a Jessie Helms protege.

There are plenty of votes in the Senate that can be negatively viewed, whether made by Edwards, Kerry, Gephardt, Lieberman, or Kucinich. But I can stand up and say that Edwards voted against George Bush more than any other candidate, and I will take that record against any of the other candidates running for president.

[citizen snips]

30. Yes.

But there is something there to attack and that is Edwards new news paper endorsement in Iowa. This endorsement makes Kerry old news.

[anti-bush]

31. Oh yeah

I forgot. LOL

[mouse7]

35. There's no excuse for attacking Edwards. Edwards attacked NOBODY.

The Kerry supporters display more and more reasons I would want nothing to do with a Kerry campaign. Edwards has attacked nobody. Edwards finally has one piece of good news, and you guys immediately start lobbing artillery shells.

I would NEVER work with people that believe in those sorts of tactics.

[AP]

39. Edwards ran against NAFTA in '98, which he pointed out in last debate.

This is why, as Dan Schorr noted on NPR last year, DLC doesn't have him on top of their list.

[citizen snips]

28. You hit the nail on the head.

The Kerry crew is defiantly jealous of this endorsement that is why they are attacking Edwards at this time.

[AP]

38. His compeitiors liked him until he got close to 15%

Under 15%, they're courting his voters.

Over 15%, he's threatening.

No surprise this post came from the person just ahead of him (Kerry) whom he's threatening to push below 15%.

[AP]

34. Banking is huge industry in NC.

Edwards has made no excuses for the fact that he puts the interests of his working constituents first. He'd do the same as president.

Back when there was press on whether he was going to run for senate, there was an article which interviewed a banking industry lobbyist. The guy said that Edwards isn't returning his calls at all these days. He said he rarely returned them before, but now he never returns them.

Although I didn't like that bill one bit, I understand the vote.

I guess we should be happy that the bill isn't law.

[salin]

40. Would he have the guts to stand it down

via veto as did Bill Clinton... twice? This bill would hurt his constituents and might help the banking industry go back to the lending guidelines they used to follow (back before the presumption was that the role of government was to absorb the costs of business overhead/risk) in terms of offering credit - whereby helping his constituents who work in banks.

Btw - sometimes senators will buck special interests in their states. I was pleasantly surprised when Senator Bayh bucked Lilly - who is a HUGE employer - on the medicare prescription med bill.

[AP]

42. I might have gotten it wrong. I wrote this before reading mbali's post.

What's your response to post 17?

[salin]

44. Not sure

I tend to have a very good memory on specific news items (inherited from my late father).... I do not remember the particular of the amendment suggested... but do remember the schumer inserted language that had a poison pill for abortion protestors. If this was part of the amendment supported - then I would 'get it' - as it was the way to kill the bill. If this is the case... I would view it as a politically strategic vote.

However I am not sure that it is... and given that Wellstone was involved (at least initially - as I read it) in the draft, but ends up voting against it... suggests that it isn't quite has hard hitting as the poster might imply - note I say "suggest" rather than means, because beyond the Schumer language I don't remember the particulars.

My points raised here are two fold: above someone asks if the bankruptcy bill was bad. I posted there to say - yes, it is bad.

Then I added to yours not to say right or wrong, but that on really bad bills... some folks (even my not-so-beloved Senator Bayh) will vote for the greater good even if it works against the interests of a major employer in the state. The point being - that a) having a big employer in the state does not always lead to b) concede because of the employer (be it for perception of jobs, or for support for future campaigns.)

This would not be an issue that I would take to the level of determining my vote. But I would be careful not to downplay the issue (or any senator's vote on it) as not seriously important.... because it (the issue and probably in even worse form now that the GOP controls both houses) will come back... and the dems will need the will to stand it down - AGAIN. Especially in this economy when the credit companies are stepping up their gimmicks and predatory practices... when many folks have been pushed to bankruptcy due to prolonged job loss due to the economy.

[AP]

45. I guess you have to also ask yourself

why, if Edwards really wants to help the credit card industry, is he one of the candidates talking the loudest about preditory lending and about his desire to help Americans amass wealth rather than pass it on to private companies and to the government.

It's probably looking into mbali's version of events.

[salin]

50. would need to see

either the amendment or reference to the amendment to make that conclusion. Have watched too many folks I respect, hedge on issues in the end for a slew of different reasons (sometimes political bargaining, sometimes a knowledge that a bill will fail but the symbolic vote is important electionwise, etc.) I would need more information to determine what the situation is in this case. The fact that Wellstone was cited as an initial author - but voted against it, suggests it wasn't cut and dry. Would need to read direct information about it before declaring a 'pass' or a 'concern.'

As I said - my point is not to raise this to the point of a showdown (this is why I would or wouldn't support.) I just think that we need to be careful not to discard/dismiss legislation that could come back to haunt us - without direct information... let's say it was a largely symbolic (but safe due to the Schumer langauge) amendment... that is gives political cover but they knew it wouldn't pass. If that is the case ... the GOP brings it back in that form without the Schumer language and uses the PR that the current senators voted for it - to ramrod it through with Media heralding of the GOPs great legislative success... And once again we further screw those living financially on the margin.

[mbali]

55. Unfortunately,

the knee jerk reaction to one vote - based upon a complete lack of understanding about the piece of legislation, how it was crafted and why various Democrats voted the way they did - demonstrates one of the reasons that we Democrats are stuck in the wilderness. The idea that anyone would use one vote - especially on an issue as complicated as this one - doesn't bode well for the party's prospects this year. I'll bet that most of the people who are piling onto Edwards here haven't even read the legislation, don't know anything about the Senate procedure that was involved and don't have a clue about anything that went into the Democrats' strategy on the issue. Yet they are condemning Edwards - a man who has done more for the party and this country than most of us could ever claim - for voting the way he did.

Lord save us from all of these "experts" - if they have their way, they'll drag us right down to defeat.

[citizen snips]

57. Try telling that to the Kerry fans.

n/t.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

41. Good for Kerry, Bad on Edwards

I won't even speculate as to the various wheeling and dealing went into the various versions of the House and Senate - the combined powers of the financial industry have been trying to bring back indentured servitude for years and they called in ever favor imaginable to get this done.

Edwards, how could you?

[arewethereyet]

43. the bill was not that bad and made better than it started by him etal

If thats the best you're got, no problem.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

52. not that bad???

not that bad???

[arewethereyet]

56. have you been burned by bankruptcy ? cost me $6500

its WAY too easy to do and the consequences slight.

and this was by a member of my wife's family. not like I'm some fat cat shylock out to screw people.

and since I borrowed that $6500 out of my equity line, I get reminded of it every month and that total goes up every month and will for years.

so, no, I have no problem tightening up the bankruptcy laws at all.

[Eric J in MN]

47. List of Senators who voted No.

NAYs ---16
Boxer (D-CA)
Brownback (R-KS)
Corzine (D-NJ)
Dayton (D-MN)
Dodd (D-CT)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feingold (D-WI)
Harkin (D-IA)
Hutchison (R-TX)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Kerry (D-MA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Reed (D-RI)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Sarbanes (D-MD)
Wellstone (D-MN)
--------------------
That was in the good old days when Minnesota had 2 Democratic Senators.

Cangratulations to all the Senators above.

[Zomby Woof]

48. For more on why that bill failed...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/articles/02/08/17_bankrupt.html

[sleipnir]

49. Here, Here, I've been saying this all along..

Edwards is really a wolf in sheep's clothing (though to be honest, so are two other prominant Dem. primary contenders who will remain nameless to avoid futher flaming.) His votes tell the true story about the man and it's not jiving with his campaign persona. Don't worry, Edwards won't last past NH / IA, so the whole point is kinda moot.

[citizen snips]

51. I don't think so.

Edwards new endorsement shows that he is not out of the race.

[quaker bill]

54. A sorry piece of conservative personal responsibility BS

It was intended to improve the rights of banks and credit card companies in personal bankruptcy proceedings.

This sorry piece of legislation was championed by none other than Rep. Bill McCollum, my ex-representative, far right wing, neo-con, term limits, iran-contra, Ollie North lovin', Clinton Impeachment Manager, house banking comittee, bought and sold, bozo.

I am sorry to hear that Edwards voted for it.