Peter Chandler, chair of the Maine Democrats' Victory Campaign, is sending out emails that are putting a creative spin on Tom Allen's role in the Fannie Mae/ Freddie Mac fiasco.

In typical Maine Democratic Party style, Chandler is playing a shell game: he's calling Susan Collins a liar based on a statement he made up. Chandler and the Allen campaign are claiming Senator Collins criticized Allen for a vote against a bill - HR 1461. Clever attempt, but Chandler is not telling the truth. Collins has, instead, been critical of Allen's attempts to block amendments to the bill.

Here's the story of Tom Allen, Freddie Mac, and Fannie Mae:

Tom Allen supported- and voted for- H.R. 1461 - the Federal Housing Finance Reform Act of 2005- in its original form. Tom Allen blames Senate Republicans and the Administration for its failure, but here's what he doesn't tell us:

The White House opposed the bill in its original form, because it was too weak: insufficient capital requirements contained in the bill had the potential to create significant systemic risk to the US financial markets.

Amendments were then offered to address the regulatory strength and capital requirements that made the original bill too weak.

But Tom Allen voted against the two amendments:

• The Royce Amendment to H.R. 1461, vote #543, Oct. 26, 2005:
  "to give the newly created regulator (FHFA) greater authority to impose capital strictures on GSEs."
• The Leach Amendment to H.R. 1461, vote #542, Oct. 26, 2005:
  "to authorize the regulator to require one or both of the enterprises to dispose or acquire assets or liabilities if the regulator deems those assets or liabilities to be a potential systemic risk to the housing market, the capital markets, or the financial system."

Why did he vote against firmer capital requirements?

Why did he vote against stricter regulation?

Fannie and Freddie supported the original -unamended - bill, so Tom Allen was on their side with that vote. Funny thing is, he was also on their side when he opposed stricter regulation.

Tom Allen says that the Amendments he voted against were no good, citing substantial House opposition.

What he doesn’t say, however, is that both Amendments were passed after the Fannie/Freddie crisis came to the surface this year and are now law.

The US Congress passed the amendments Tom Allen opposed because the financial disaster of the last few weeks made it obvious that it was the right thing to do.

To make it clear:
Peter Chandler is attempting to distract from the facts. Allen had the chance to vote for stricter regulation and didn't. And his attempts to portray these two amendments as no good doesn't hold water in the face of the facts- that they have now been made law in the 20/20 hindsight brought on by the GSE meltdown.