But I’m not sure that the presidency has a whole lot of involvement with this issue. It seems to me like more of a decision made by the House, acting on what they think are the wishes of their constituents. (Or so they say.)
Sure, Bush signed the bill making it law, but it was attached to a bill he couldn’t not sign — the Safe Ports Act. (That’s right, Bill Frist and Jon Kyl tacked UIGEA on to a homeland security bill to get it passed — on midnight before the 2006 midterm elections, no less.) But UIGEA itself was approved unanimously in the Senate and by 99 percent in the House, with only two reps voting against. It’s true that this was when the majority of both of those branches were Republicans — but, you know, there were plenty of Dems in that mix, too.
The whole situation is strange, and an indicator of the massive shift in American politics that’s occured over the past decade or so. UIGEA’s brand of government interference was just the sort of thing that Republicans used to rail against, and accuse Democrats of doing. But these days, the tables have turned, with the Republicans seeming all too happy to pass these kinds of restrictive laws, and Democrats now talking about keeping government out of personal affairs. (If you know anything about the philosophy of Republican leader Grover Norquist, you can see the irony here.)
So, even though we have a different Congress now (and are about to have an even different, presumably even more Democratic one), it’s still probably going to be a slow road. Barney Frank’s anti-UIGEA law, HR 5767, only has four sponsors at this point. So yes, my poll was very optimistic. But it’s encouraging to watch Frank start a movement here, one that we hope will catch on soon. If not this year, perhaps next!