For those unfamiliar with the U.S. political system, the senate passing an amendment is not the same as something becoming law. The amendment is part of a larger bill, the bill needs to be approved by both houses of Congress, and then the president needs to sign it. Many times legislators will put a popular amendment on an unpopular bill in order to get votes for the larger bill. Also many times the reverse is true: an unpopular amendment is stuck on a popular bill in hopes it can ride through.
So there are a zillion different games playing out here. Until the reporting requirement is actually repealed, it could all end up smoke and mirrors.
Because of the complexities involved, I'm really interested in the 17 senators that wanted to keep such a monstrosity. 90%+ of the business community is up in arms and a full sixth of the senate sees some reason that this is not worth voting for? To me this is the most interesting part of the story -- and the part not covered by the article. Some quotes from the dissenters would have been great.
So there are a zillion different games playing out here. Until the reporting requirement is actually repealed, it could all end up smoke and mirrors.
Because of the complexities involved, I'm really interested in the 17 senators that wanted to keep such a monstrosity. 90%+ of the business community is up in arms and a full sixth of the senate sees some reason that this is not worth voting for? To me this is the most interesting part of the story -- and the part not covered by the article. Some quotes from the dissenters would have been great.