“Legislative blackmail”

Playing political games with legislation to attach unpopular and unrelated items onto bills that are otherwise highly attractive (or politically dangerous to object to) is a bipartisan game, and none-the-less obnoxious for all that. It’s quid pro quo at its most glaring, and even when it’s used for something I approve of, I find myself irked by it.

So kudos for those in the Senate who stood up to Alaska’s Ted Stevens and stood by their fillibuster guns, blocking Stevens’ latest installment on trying to open up ANWR for drilling by attaching the permission to a “must-pass” bill that included funding the Defense Department and benefits for Hurricane Katrina victims and support for poor families buying heating oil (that those three are on the same bill is also annoying, but …).

he Senate blocked oil drilling in an Alaska wildlife refuge Wednesday, rejecting a measure that had been put into a must-pass defense spending bill in an attempt to garner wider support.

Drilling supporters fell four votes short of getting the required 60 votes to avoid a threatened filibuster of the defense spending legislation. Senate leaders were expected to withdraw the legislation so it could be reworked without the refuge language. The vote was 56-44.

Even if I thought ANWR drilling was the greatest thing since sliced bread (it’s not), I’d be torqued by this kind of shenanigan. I’m pleased that it didn’t pay off … this time.

If ANWR drilling is such a clearly critical item for national security, then bring it up for a direct vote, and let those who oppose it take the political fallout from that. If it can only be passed by making it part of a “must-pass” bill, then clearly there’s little consensus that it’s that critical.