Bill is right about the role of "narrow but important" constituencies, and right to use the CRA as a case in point. During drafting of the Financial Services Modernization Act (the Gramm-Leach-Bliley bill), the Hill saw heavy lobbying on this act. The banks see CRA as extortion by community groups such as ACORN. The community groups see CRA as essential to promoting lending in low-income areas. Towards the end, the stakes got so high (read: fear that Gramm was going to impose real limits on the CRA) that Jesse Jackson started showing up and twisting arms in person.
> >But politicians spend a lot of energy working on issues that no one has > >ever lost an election on. To take one tiny example, both Bush and Gore > >made a loud point about their support for the Community Reinvestment > >Act. Who votes on that? > > A _lot_ more people than vote on adoption laws. In particular there are a lot of >Hispanic community development organizations that can deliver a lot of votes for whom >this was a touchstone issue. Look deep enough at any issue that gets a lot of >attention and you will find either a broad interest in the issue or a narrow but >important constituency. Otherwise the issue would be ignored. > - - Bill >
