The Brown-Kaufman SAFE Banking amendment (S.3241) has become the single most important amendment to the financial reform bill to end bailouts. It is the most transformative bill because it addresses the problem that too big to fail banks are too big to regulate properly and are able to capture votes in Congress like nobody’s business. (UPDATE: Our data crunching shows that Senators who are currently opposed to breaking up the banks receive twice as much in campaign contributions from the finance sector than those who are for “SAFE Banking.”)
It is going to be voted on by the Senate soon, possibly by the end of this week. We’re making tons of progress — MoveOn is on board, New York Times is supporting it, the Senate’s #2 Democrat, Dick Durbin, is supportive — and we have a real chance here to limit the size of the biggest banks so they don’t distort our politics and put out economy at risk any longer.
But here’s the problem. We don’t know where to focus our our calls to Congress to secure the last few votes we need to get the amendment passed. We’re totally outgunned here by the moneyed special interests that oppose fixing too big to fail, but we have the momentum and we are closer than ever to pulling it off.
Here’s what we need to do.
- Go to this link and enter your zip code to get the phone numbers for your two senators.
- Make a quick call to each asking if they support the Brown-Kaufman SAFE Banking Act. Tell them they should.
- If they don’t give you a straight answer, do a quick Google search (for example: “too big to fail” John Kerry) and see if you can find any public statements indicating where they stand on the issue.
- Record your findings in the comments section of this blog post and we’ll update a running tally of what we know about where each senators stands.
We need at least one person from each state to do this. This is the single most important thing you can do right now to help the effort to break up the big banks. If you know anyone in another state who supports breaking up the banks please email this blog post to them so they can help out too. Thank You!! (UPDATE: We helped deliver 50,000 of the petitions for breaking up the banks featured in this picture and article and now Reid is a leaning yes!)
Supportive
Ted Kaufamn [D, DE]
Sherrod Brown [D, OH]
Bob Casey [D, PA] and this
Tom Harkin [D, IA]
Jeff Merkley [D, OR]
Bernie Sanders [I, VT]
Sheldon Whitehouse [D, RI]
Dick Durbin [D, IL]
Roland Burris [D, IL]
Byron Dorgan [D, ND]
Al Franken [D, MN]
Russ Feingold [D, WI] and this
Harry Reid [D, NV]
Jim Webb [D, VA]
Mark Pryor [D, AR]
Chuck Schumer [D, NY]
John Kerry [D, MA]
Lean “Yes”
Pat Leahy [D, VT]
Patty Murray [D, WA] (and this) and this
Ben Cardin [D, MD]
Jim Bunning [R, KY]
Ron Wyden [D, OR]
Debbie Stabenow [D, MI] and this
Robert Byrd [D, WV]
Barbara Mikulski [D, MD] and this and this
Robert Menendez [D, NJ] and this
Tom Coburn [R, OK]
Maria Cantwell [D, WA] and this and this
Undecided
John Kerry [D, MA] and this
Scott Brown [R, MA]
Jack Reed [D, RI]
Barbara Boxer [D, CA] and this
Dianne Feinstein [D, CA] and this
Lindsey Graham [R, SC]
John Cornyn [R, TX] (also this) and this
Jack Reed [D, RI]
Richard Chambliss [R, GA]
Tom Udall [D, NM]
Jeff Bingaman [D, NM]
Carl Levin [D, MI] and this
Frank Lautenberg [D, NJ]
Johnny Isakson [R, GA]
Daniel Akaka [D, HI] and this
Daniel Inouye [D, HI] and this
Jon Tester [D, MT]
Max Baucus [D, MT]
Patty Murray [D, WA]
Benjamin Cardin [D, MD]
Joseph Lieberman [I, CT]
Chris Dodd [D, CT]
George Voinovich [R, OH]
Roger Wicker [R, MS]
Kay Hutchison [R, TX]
Susan Collins [R, ME]
Olympia Snowe [R, ME]
Herbert Kohl [D, WI]
Kirsten Gillibrand [D, NY]
Blanche Lincoln [D, AR]
Opposed
Kent Conrad [D, ND]
Bill Nelson [D, FL]
Mark Begich [D, AK]
Mark Warner [D, VA]
Judd Gregg [R, NH]
Chuck Grassley [R, IA]
Mike Enzi [R, WY]
Jeff Sessions [R, AL]
Mike Crapo [R, ID]
John Ensign [R, NV]
Lamar Alexander [R, TN]
Thad Cochran [R, MS]
Archein
I just called Sens. Brown and Kerry. Both said they were still reviewing the amendment and had not released any statements on it. Both undecided.
Sen. Kerry office still saying no official position, they expect the measure to come to the floor possibly as early as today or soon afterwards, staffer reports many constituents have called to request Sen. Kerry’s support for the measure.
I called Jack Reed (D-RI). Staffer said he didn’t know yet, took my contact info.
Talked to Leahy’s office (D-VT) at 4:35 PM. He has not “formally stated” that he supports the bill, but he supports breaking up the banks and there were strong indications from the call that he would support it.
Talked to Gillibrand’s office 4:40. Asked about Brown/Kaufman, person who answered phone wasn’t sure, transferred to voicemail of policy aide, left message.
I called my Senators in Maryland. I asked to speak to someone who could tell me the Senator’s position on the pending financial reform legislation and specifically on the Brown-Kaufman amendment. I made it clear I supported strong legislation (including the amendment – went down the 3 points etc)
Senator Milkulski’s staffer said she doesn’t have a position on Brown-Kaufman but took my name and passed on my concerns.
Senator Cardin’s staffer told me he support the banking reform but doesn’t have a position on Brown-Kaufman. They took my name and will send me an email response (presumably when he takes a position).
Talked to Shumer’s office (D-NY) at 4:51 PM. He is “still looking at it and trying to decide where he stands on it.”
Talked to staffers in both Boxer and Feinstein’s DC office. Both said “Not yet taken a position.” Neither gave any hint as to which way their senator was leaning.
Called Boxer and Feinstein. Got the same response as Bruce H. – in fact the people who answered seemed insincere and I think they will continue to pay lip service to callers. I hope they really pay attention to the number of folks calling them about this!
Called Boxer and Feinstein as well. Feinstein’s rep. said he cannot comment but that she supports “reforms.” Boxer’s office was a message. Gave both of them my two cents supporting the SAFE banking amendment.
Finally got ahold of Sen. Murray’s office just before 5pm EST. The staffer demured, saying he hasn’t had a chance to speak with her about where she stands on the amendment, though he did mention they’re getting lots of calls from folks in support of it (and not many from those opposed).
I have Patty Murray in the “leaning yes” column because she supported the Sanders test amendment on breaking up the banks last week.
Keep up the pressure!
Dorgan is a yes. (via AFR)
AFR also says Al Franken is a yes.
[...] Industry On May 6, 2010, In The Public, By Tiffiniy Cheng ShareWe’re conducting a whip count on the SAFE Banking Act amendment to the financial reform bill right now, which would force a handful of the biggest banks to shrink [...]
[...] Tiffiniy Cheng has a “whip count” and suggestions regarding how to sharpen everyone’s focus on key [...]
From Mike R. via email: “called chambliss and isakson today….well, when i say ‘called chambliss…’ etc i mean i spoke to their office. weren’t really commital one way or another, but listened to me give my stump speech for 10 mins…
”
Got a positive but highly evasive answer from Reid’s deputy communications director. No reply to my followup, though he called the proposal “intriguing” in nyt piece.
Spoke w/staffer in Sen. Levin’s (D-MI) office. Levin “hasn’t issued a statement” yet but is “getting a lot of calls” on SAFE.
Senator Jeff Bingaman’s office said that he understood the issue with size and was looking into the many amendments that deal with size and he is not sure which one he will be voting on, depends on the final bill.
Senator Udall’s staff did not know about the bill and did not know the Senator’s position.
The offices of Senator Menedez says that he hasnot yet formally decided to support Brown Kaufman but “probably will.” Senator Lautenberg’s office says he has no position on the eameendment at this time.
Sweet. Heard back from Feingold’s office. He says he’ll support it.
awesome! great job Ilan!
I just called Akaka and Inouye. Their aids tried to change the issue to consumer protection and I told them that’s a red herrintg unless they intend to cap credit card fees and interest. I want them to break up the big banks.
thanks for this — so, should we mark them as undecided.
Rich, thanks again.
Still collecting info – having trouble getting through to my Senators’ offices, which I hope is a sign of many people calling.
Meanwhile, over at NakedCapitalism there’s a new guest post by George Washington urging people to pick up the phone and build public pressure on what appears to be a newly receptive Senate. Post is at:
http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2010/05/guest-post-the-tide-is-turning-call-your-senator-now.html
Tiffany, please put the BILL NUMBER as an update to this post. I phoned Murray’s office, but could not be certain that the legislative aid and I were talking about the identical bill.
I was told this bill is in committee; without a Bill Number, I can’t be certain that the aide and I were on the same page.
Thx in advance.
sure, it is S. 3241 and will update. thanks for saying that. so, are they leaning on ending too big to fail? would be good to hear what they have to say to gauge…
Senator Testor had no position but his staffer asked me what I wanted him to pass on to the senator regarding it.
Senator Baucus had the same response but both offices said they were getting a lot of calls in support of SAFE
Schumer’s aide in NYC office just told me he’s leaning against the Safe Banking Amendment.
I told her I support it and I vote and to please make that known to the Senator.
Called my two senators from MD, Cardin and Mikulski. Each said they had no public position yet. I passed on my very strong support for the amendment.
Senator Kohl’s aid said that he has no “public” position on the proposed legislation. When I asked if he had a private position on the act, the aid reiterated that he does not have a “public” position. I expressed my hope that he would support the legislation.
Schumer’s aide in NYC office just told me he’s leaning against it, surprise surprise.
I’ve been calling Sen. Dodd for a few weeks and he still hasn’t taken a position. I just called Sen. Lieberman, and his staff said he’s still reviewing the amendment so he’s undecided.
I would like to ask all new yorkers to hammer Schumer HARD over this amendment. I’m calling now.
thank you, collin.
I called boxer (left a message), and feinstein, talked to Laura, an aide. Feinstein still has no position to share. I told her to support Glass-Steagall (Cantwell-Mccain amendment) and SAFE Banking act. She said “she will pass my comments along”… I also told her to pass along the quote from Einstein about the definition of insanity of trying to same thing over and over again hoping to get different results e.g. bailout, etc. She retorted in a smug, arrogant tone “well sir, I will pass along your comments”
Called Sen. Brown’s fellow senator, George Voinovich today. The staffer says “he doesn’t make statements on specific issues”. What a chickensh*t – I’m so glad he’s retiring. However, to quote Simon Johnson’s story of 4/24, “Senator George Voinovich is retiring and rumored to be flexible on financial reform issues.” We’ll see…
that’s a really good point on Voinovich.. thank you!!! maybe, he’s one to push…
Just got off the phone with Senator Levin and Senator Stabenows offices. Both are issuing No Statement/No Position lines. I strongly encouraged them to support and spoke of the corrupting influence of the banksters money. Is my voice as important as the leadership PAC’s benefactors?
No quarter for those that side with the TBTF banks.
Both my ILLinois senators support. So, I called Reid & Dodd. Left a message on Reid’s voice mail & never got through to Dodd.
Mark — thank you! Reid is supporting — HPo breaks it.
Left messages and talked to aides for Dodd, Reid and Warner. Dodd’s staffer said she “didn’t know what order Sen Reid was putting out the amendments in”; Reid’s staffer was non-committal as was Warner’s. All 3 listened to my concerns and said they’d pass them on. They asked for my zip as well — maybe need more constituent calls?
When I called Sen. Jim Webb’s office, I was told by the staffer that “the senator is reviewing the Brown-Kaufman Amendment with his staff” and will announce his position when this review is “completed.” I strongly urged Sen. Webb to support, even though his colleague, Mark Warner, is opposed (and the bankers’ pocket, it seems). Staffer said he’d “pass along” this message.
For the record, I also called Warner’s office to protest his “No” stance–and said I’d remember this next time I he comes up for a vote. Staffer said he’d “pass along” the message.
this is so perfect. thank you James!
AFR says Webb is in!
Webb and Pryor are two new co-sponsors (via AFR)
I called Senator Wicker’s (R-Mississippi) office. He said they haven’t made a decision. I asked that Senator Wicker support this bill. They took the info.
Due to Baseline Scenario’s endorsement, I called Cornyn’s and Hutchison’s office about 2 weeks ago, urging cessation of the then-filibuster, and the Senator’s support for Brown-Kaufman SAFE banking amendment.
Since then I’ve been pushing on a string, trying to hold back the tides, and peeing into the wind.
Wendell, it’s not useless.
When I called Cantwell’s office last week on this issue, the aide didn’t connect it with Brown-Kaufman. Today, when I phoned (and yes, even had a bill number this time), the aide said, “Oh? You mean Brown-Kaufman…”
In other words, this is far higher on their radar than it was even one week ago. That’s critical.
frustrating, it’s time to vote. thanks for doing that, wendell.
I just called Senator Cochran’s office referred me to Donald. He said Cochran does not support financial reform. Donald was arrogant, dismissive and condecending. “Have you actually read the bill?” “The bill does not do what it says it will do.” I asked how could that be. Well it happens all the time…. ARGH! I was NOT impressed and he left me feeling very angry.
wow, what a quote. we should let people know about this, adding to my huffpo blog, unless you beat me to it (i hope you do).http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tiffiniy-cheng/those-opposed-to-breaking_b_565981.html
Bills often are so complex that the difference between a ‘shall’ and a ‘may’ is the difference between a judge being able to order action. Or not.
So technically, the senate aide is correct.
However, with so many eyes on this legislation, and with public interest lobbyists keeping both eyes on this bill, the senate aide seems to have blown you off in a rather stupid, clumsy fashion.
You don’t have to know every ‘i’ and ‘t’ of a bill if good non-profits and advocacy groups are doing the due-diligence (which is Tiffany’s role, as I see it here).
Tiffany does the due diligence, but she can’t call every senator. That’s our job as citizens.
But no senate aide should be insulting you in that way; technically, they’re correct. In a perfect world, it would mean they have to defend their employer (Sen Cochran) against a lot of frustrated citizens, so they’re losing their cool. To be that arrogant when working for a senator is not very smart.
not very smart at all, but seems like shall and may is yet to be determined, and we need to get to the step where we make sure it happens, that’s like saying no before you even see it. thank you that really thoughtful reply, i do totally agree with you.
AFR email says Jim Webb is supporting.
Cantwell ‘considering’ but not yet ready to make a statement. Sigh…
I called both Sens. Murray and Cantwell (WA) to register support for the Brown/Kauffman amendment through two tired-sounding staff members. Both staffers said that they had not discussed the positions taken by either senator. Nor would they comment on the amount of calls that they have received regarding this amendment, only that they receive a lot of calls on every issue.
I also called both Sen. Boxer and Sen. Feinstein’s L.A. office and expressed my strong support – both said they would make a note of it but that they were still considering it – both non-committal.
Just called Maine Senators Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe. The staffers I spoke to for both Senators said they were undecided.
Both initially stalled on voting for the procedural motion to proceed to financial reform legislation.
April 28 comment form Collins website:
I am hopeful that the following measures will be included in any final financial regulatory reform bill:
• Increase capital requirements as firms grow to provide a disincentive to their becoming “too big to fail;”
• Make clear to executives that if they mismanage a firm into insolvency, they will lose their jobs;
• Ensure that creditors face the same risk of loss they would in a bankruptcy court;
• Ensure that those who originate mortgages share the risk to reduce the incentive to write poorly underwritten loans;
• Create a council of regulators charged with identifying firms, products, or practices that pose a systemic risk to significant economic sectors;
• Impose greater transparency and more effective regulation of derivatives and other complex financial instruments; and
• Provide protections for consumers.”
April 26 comment from Snowe:
“I support strong reform legislation so that financial institutions can never again bring our economy to the brink of collapse. Yet, regrettably, the scales of this current bill are tipped to protect Wall Street at the potential expense of Main Street, as the legislation establishes a $50 billion ‘bail-out’ fund that perversely could encourage banks to resume risky behavior rather than eliminate ‘too big to fail’, and contains measures that could unintentionally hinder the legitimate and necessary flow of credit to many of America’s small businesses. As bipartisan progress continues to be made on these and other outstanding issues, demonstrating a willingness to work together, there was no reason to have this premature and divisive vote that would only lead to an inferior bill. The fact is, once the Senate enters the amendment process where the majority has the votes to block any amendments, there is no indication we would achieve any significant improvements, just as we saw during the health reform debate.
“I am encouraged by reports that many of the provisions addressing the risky method of derivatives trading, which Democrat Senator Lincoln and I have been championing and passed on a bipartisan basis last week by the Senate Agriculture Committee, will be incorporated into the financial reform bill, although not until after today’s vote. Yet this advancement begs the question: if there is an agreement on derivatives, why couldn’t we also reach consensus on the other key issues that have been the focus of bipartisan negotiations before calling today’s vote, including removal of the $50 billion ‘bailout’ fund that the President and the Treasury Secretary have not even advocated — as well as critical changes to protect small businesses?
“Last week, I met personally with Secretary Geithner and he appeared receptive to addressing my concerns regarding the potential deleterious effect of the proposed new consumer lending bureau on specialized lending to small businesses and particularly vital, seasonal businesses – such as lobstermen and innkeepers – whose loans may be on terms that allow larger payments when they are operating and small payments in the off-season. But if the Majority were truly interested in crafting the best policy by incorporating bipartisan ideas into the financial reform bill, they would not have proceeded to this premature and politically motivated vote. As progress continues to be made, we should be taking the additional time to work out the differences on the few issues where disagreements remain, so that we revise the current bill to protect Main Street and not Wall Street.”
Amazing news. Pryor and Webb are new cosponsors!
Also, I called Mark Warner’s office. He said he had NOT officially decided, and welcomed views. So its worth calling his office as well, too.
http://whatismarkwarnerthinking.com/
I just called sen Schummer and the woman said he didn’t have a position. I said I had heard that another aide had said he was leaning against it, could she comment on that. SHe said the senator had no announced position. I said that she could remind the senator that though the banks give a lot of money to him, it’s people like me that vote and that this is an issue that will affects votes for him. She said she would pass it along
Called Senator Casey’s office. He is undecided on this and the Sanders amendment to audit the fed. Same with Senator Feinstein (though the staffer said he is getting a lot of calls in support of both amendments)
WI Sen. Herb Kohl’s office says he’s undecided on Brown-Kauffman.
Callled Gillibrand. Receptionist stated that G. while “supportive of reform has not taken a position on individual pieces of legislation”.
Registered concern that constituents need to know of the Senator’s positions before the votes-not after the fact.
Long wait. Classical music on hold. (Not sure what that means!)
Schumer phone system cut me off twice, no message possible.
Hope that’s a good sign.
Wow, didn’t realize Casey is a cosponsor. The staffer must be retarded.
hah, you got me on that too for a second. that’s amazing…
Just reached Schumer. According to receptionist: Schumer will SUPPORT Brown-Kaufman amendment.
Wow! We need to confirm this. This is extraordinary if true!
I called Schumer’s office to confirm, but they were closed for the night. This would be huge. We’d have the full Senate Dem leadership on board. Fingers crossed.
That’s what she said, quite unambiguously.
I should say that I remain skeptical. Just heard an interesting interview with Robert Weissman of Public Citizen (on Doug Henwood’s show) who mentioned a lobbyist memo referring to a possible loss in the Senate but expressed confidence that the problems (as they saw them) would get resolved in conference. Specific made was made of Barney Frank who was describe as “an adult” in their eyes.
That’s where the action will move to, according to Weissman.
I wouldn’t be surprised if Schumer is banking on the same thing-which is to say he’ll respond to constituent pressure while reassuring the bankers that in the long run they don’t have anything to worry about.
Hope I’m wrong about this of course.
Tom Coburn just spoke on the senate floor and talked about how the only way to end too-big-to-fail is to bring down the size of these TBTF institutions so that their failures can occur without jeopardizing the system.
There’s hope that Jim Bunning’s not the only Republican who will support Brown-Kaufman!
Spoke with Sen. LIncoln’s staffer who works on with financial reform. Says she’s stall talking with the sponsors and deciding about Brown-Kaufman (did say she’d co-sponsored Sander’s amendment to audit the Fed though). =)
awesome! Val, you’re great.