Bill Archey, president of the American Electronics Association, says that "there's one reason and one reason alone" for the alliance: "That's what the Hill told us to do. They told us, 'We're not going to deal with multiple industry bills on Y2K.' They just wanted one comprehensive bill."

Agrees a high-level Senate staffer: "I'm not sure [the high-tech lobby] had any other option."

But from the beginning, the U.S. Chamber had a much more audacious goal for the Y2K litigation reform bill than the narrow legislative issues that matter to the high-tech companies. The Chamber's number one priority is far-reaching tort reform. The group has always wanted to legally limit the amount plaintiffs can be awarded, and it saw Y2K litigation reform as a first step toward fighting what Chamber president Thomas J. Donohue calls "avaricious trial attorneys."

The Chamber's Senate allies clearly agreed. "A panel of experts predicted that the legal costs associated with the Y2K would exceed that of asbestos, breast implants, tobacco and Superfund litigation combined," said Senator Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., on the Senate floor on Tuesday. "We have too much litigation now ... Approximately 500 law firms across the country have put together Y2K litigation teams to capitalize on the event. They can't wait."

Still others working on the bill reportedly -- and not surprisingly -- had agendas other than preparing the world for Y2K. Some House staffers have said that GOP House leaders -- namely Majority Leader Dick Armey and Minority Whip Tom DeLay -- are planning to use the president's opposition to whatever passes as one of the top three issues against the Democrats for the 2000 elections. McCain is said to be taking the lead on this issue at least partially in hopes of making friends in Silicon Valley and Redmond, thus boosting his presidential campaign's fundraising.

Many Democrats -- South Carolina's Ernest "Fritz" Hollings, and Vermont's Patrick Leahy foremost among them -- decided to play the board by fighting the GOP's efforts tooth and nail. Democrats traditionally have opposed "tort reform," viewing such efforts as a violation of the Constitution and a limit on the rights of average citizens to seek redress of grievances -- as well as a good way to garner campaign donations from wealthy attorneys. Thus many viewed Senator McCain's Y2K bill warily. His bill would have been "the first time that any of these provisions would be enshrined into law for any sort of time," says one Senate Democratic staffer. "So it's a step. It's a camel's nose under the tent."

To end Senate debate and then proceed to a vote, a Senate bill needs 60 votes for "cloture." McCain's bill probably would have had all 55 Republican senators, though a handful were wavering, and maybe three or four Democrats, including Oregon Senator Ron Wyden, cosponsor of McCain's bill.

Senators worked on compromise bills in the hopes of finding a middle ground that would appeal to enough Senators to reach cloture. Minority Whip Chris Dodd, D-Conn., seen as a moderate on the issue of litigation reform, worked one up, as did Virginia's Chuck Robb and Massachusetts' John Kerry. Senators Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, and Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., had a bill very similar to McCain's.

On Monday night, Majority Leader Trent Lott ordered all the major players on this issue into a room under orders to bang out a compromise bill that would achieve the 60 necessary cloture votes. Still, nothing much changed. By Tuesday morning, the bill seemed doomed to never garner more than 59 yeas.

Additionally, the Clinton administration was compounding the problem by suggesting that it might veto McCain's bill. To override a veto, McCain would need 67 votes -- which just wasn't possible without Dodd's support, an impossibility unless McCain was willing to compromise.

Here's where the high-tech lobby came in -- and stumbled.

Next page | Tort reform wasn't really what the high-tech lobby was after