August 26, 2009
-
News: Were Congressional Members Paid To Vote No?
It feels as though the battle over the Credit Cardholders Bill of Rights Act ended ages ago, but how quickly the dust settles over victory. Oddly, such a fierce battle came to an overwhelming victory when a whopping 357 "yes" votes passed the law through Congress. Why then how would the 70 congressional members who voted against the credit card reform law justify their case? The New York MarketWatch highlights a report by MAPLight.org which sheds some light on the subject when it reported that various banking groups contributed over $271,000 into the campaigns of many of the 70 members who voted against the credit card reform act. MAPLight is a public database that makes campaign donations within a close timeframe of legislative votes transparent to all interested parties. It is a known practice that contributors expect and receive favorable votes from lawmakers. MAPLight makes this information available to Americans so that they can better hold their lawmakers accountable.
Of those Representatives that voted no against the credit card reform law, all were Republicans and most received donations within days just prior to and after the vote. Furthermore, all the contributors were staunch opponents of the credit card bill which included the American Bankers Association, the Credit Union National Association, US Bancorp, CitiGroup, Independent Community Bankers of America and several independent donors. It is also important to note that most of these same contributors also donated funds to the campaigns of many of the Representatives that voted in favor of the bill.
One exception was U.S. Representative Barney Frank, Chairman of the House Financial Services Committee. Representative Frank received a total of $8,750 from eight different contributors within the two weeks prior to the vote. Frank voted in favor of the credit card reform bill. With both sides of the issue accepting large amounts of campaign donations from opponents, the report doesn't really shed as much light on the subject as one might initially think. The question then remains, why did they do it.