Several days ago, we linked to a post on the Center for American Progress blog that raised an important question for the 18 senators that voted for a 1991 amendment offered by former Senator Alfonse D'Amato (R-NY) to limit the interest rate credit companies can charge to 14 percent only to vote against an amendment offered by Senator Mark Dayton (D-MN) to the current bankruptcy bill that would have limited that rate to 30 percent.

Thinkprogress asked:

Why would 18 Senators, including co-sponsors of the original measure, vote for a tougher pro-consumer measure in 1991, and then vote against a weaker measure in 2005? Could it be that the more than $2 million these Senators took from the credit card/banking industry in the interim made them change their mind?

We offer the following list of those senators in case our readers wish to get an answer for themselves:

Sen. Max Baucus (D-MT)
1991-1996 contributions from commercial banks: $88,900
1997-2002 contributions from commercial banks: $170,777

Sen. Joe Biden (D-DE)
1991-1996 contributions from commercial banks: $73,575
1997-2002 contributions from commercial banks: $33,675

Sen. Thad Cochran (R-MO)
1991-1996 Commercial Banks: $24,750
1997-2002 Commercial Banks: $40,100

Sen. Pete Domenici (R-NM)
Spoke in favor of D'Amato Amendment during floor debate
1991-1996 Commercial Banks: $89,120
1997-2002 Commercial Banks: $66,290

Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA)
1997-2002 Commercial Banks: $123,300

Sen. John Kerry (D-MA)
1997-2002 Commercial Banks: $183,102

Sen. Trent Lott (R-MS)
1991-1996 Commercial Banks: $70,575
1997-2002 Commercial Banks: $80,800

Sen. John McCain (R-AZ)
1997-2002 Commercial Banks: $235,228

Sen. Paul Sarbanes (D-MD)
1991-1996 Commercial Banks: $84,800
1997-2002 Commercial Banks: $55,800

Sen. Richard Shelby (R-AL)
1991-1996 Commercial Banks: $246,533
1997-2002 Commercial Banks: $215,600

Sen. Arlen Specter(R-PA)
Co-sponsored the 1991 D'Amato amendment
1997-2002 Commercial Banks: $105,225

Sen. John Warner (R-VA)
1997-2002 Commercial Banks: $43,800

Other Senators who voted for the D'Amato amendment, but against the Dayton bill (data on contributions from commercial banks unavailable):

Sen. Ted Stevens (R-AK)
Co-sponsored the 1991 D'Amato amendment

Sen. Conrad Burns (R-MT)

Sen. Herb Kohl(D-WI)

Sen. Pat Leahy(D-VT)

Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV)

Sen. Larry Craig (R-ID)

Hundreds of bankruptcy experts, including bankruptcy judges from across the country, are warning that the House bill is severely flawed and may have disastrous unintended consequences.

The bottom line: "The nation's bankruptcy laws must strike a balance that is both fundamentally fair and practically sound for all parties involved...Unfortunately, the [Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection] Act is neither and, worse still, the act fails to fulfill its oft-stated purpose of eliminating abuse."

From the front page of The L.A. Times:

[W]eeks before Congress is likely to approve the long-sought overhaul [of bankruptcy laws], bankruptcy judges across the country warn that the measure would undermine the very section of the law under which debtors are now repaying more than $3 billion annually to their creditors.

...

The result, the judges said, would be the collapse of more repayment plans, forcing debtors out of bankruptcy court protection. Creditors then could try to force debtors to pay the full amount owed — not the reduced amount a judge had ordered — by moving to repossess their belongings or bringing legal actions. Many people would have to pay creditors far into the future, the critics said, and thus be unable to restart their economic lives, a long-held aim of bankruptcy.

Here's how bankruptcy judge Keith Lundin of Tennessee sums it up:

"The advocates [of the bankruptcy bill] aren't trying to fix the bankruptcy law; they're trying to mess it up so much that nobody can use it."

The credit card industry responded to the story with its usual tact and aplomb:

"[Bankruptcy judges] are part of the … problem," declared Jeff Tassey, a Washington lobbyist who heads the coalition of credit card companies, banks and others that has spearheaded the overhaul drive.

"They're not real judges, not Article 3 judges," Tassey said. He was referring to Article 3 of the U.S. Constitution, under which judges in the regular federal court system are appointed for life. Bankruptcy judges are appointed under Article 1 to 14-year renewable terms.

This post on the Center for American Progress's blog poses a question. Feel free to ask your Senators.

PLAUSIBLE DENIABILITY

As usual, the credit card companies want it both ways.

Like their supporters in Congress, credit card companies like to point out that consumers are not forced to sign up for credit cards—they sign contracts of their own free will. It is only fair, goes this argument, to hold consumers to the deals they make by forcing them to repay their debts.

This “free contract” argument is seductive and dishonest. Why? Because while credit card companies insist that consumers “meet their obligations,” they steadfastly refuse to tell us just what those obligations are.

Exhibit A: disclosure of information. For years, consumer groups and bankruptcy experts have asked credit card companies to help consumers understand what they’re getting into. For example, advocates have suggested adding a line on statements which reads “If you make the minimum monthly payment on your balance, you will take X years and X months to pay off this bill and you will pay X dollars in interest.”

Creditors have this information—and it would cost them virtually nothing to reveal it—but they don’t want to tell. In fact, when California passed a law requiring such disclosure, creditors took the state to court and got the law overturned.

Supporters of bankruptcy “reform” (like Bill Nelson, D-FL, and Blanche Lincoln, D-AR) have been telling constituents that the new bill does include consumer-friendly disclosure requirements. They’re wrong. There are some new provisions, but none of them add up to real consumer protection. For example:

(1) Some statements will have to include examples showing how long it would take to pay off a balance making minimum payments. But the examples will be based on balances of $300 and $1000. Unfortunately, these examples are more likely to be misleading than helpful, because the average family with any credit card debt has about $8000 in debt.

(2) Creditors may have to provide a new telephone number debtors can call to find out how long it will take to pay off their balance. But callers will probably have to provide complex information (like amortization rates) that does not appear on their card statements in order to get meaningful estimates.

In other words, the new provisions allow credit card companies to write plenty of self-congratulatory press releases. But the provisions will not protect you and me.

I wonder, why don’t creditors want us to know what we’re buying? Are they that ashamed of their products?

A MUST READ: Read this essay in today's New York Times Magazine. Wow.