Last year, legislation giving Washington, DC voting rights in the House of Representatives stalled after city leaders objected to an amendment that would break down the city’s strict gun control laws. The bill had managed to pass both the House and the Senate, with the support of Sen. Orrin Hatch (R), whose home state of Utah would also have received a fourth House member.

Congressional leaders now intend to resurrect the bill “as early as next week.” DC Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D) said that they are trying to “weaken the gun amendment language,” but insisted that she was “unwilling to sacrifice the opportunity to win a long-sought voting seat for the District by insisting on a stand-alone bill.” “This is the best chance we’ve had to get a House vote for D.C. in my lifetime,” Norton said. “Nobody would leave it on the table because it’s not at all clear when there will be another chance.”

Despite his past support, Hatch is now saying that he will oppose the legislation:

Hatch championed the D.C. voting bill as recently as last year when it passed the Senate, but not this go-around. He is upset that the new proposal would give Utah a temporary fourth seat on a statewide basis, instead of using a map of four districts previously drawn by Utah’s Legislature. [...]

He is so angry he vowed to filibuster the bill in the Senate, which would greatly reduce the chance of it passing.

Hatch’s argument is that an at-large seat for Utah would be unconstitutional, since each Utahn would be able to “vote for two House members — one in their existing district, plus one in the new at-large seat.” In the past, he and Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) sponsored a DC voting rights bill in the Senate but made sure that Utah would be “free to redistrict into four equal districts.”

So why is the House insisting on a temporary at-large seat? ThinkProgress spoke to DC Vote Executive Director Ilir Zherka, who said that while his organization is neutral on how the Utah seat is constituted, he believes that an at-large representative — which would be temporary until the Census results are done — is not only the most viable option right now, but is also favored by many members of the Utah delegation:

ZHERKA: The primary process in Utah is underway. I think most Utahns would agree that the only reasonable thing for Utah to do if it gets a seat in the next few months…and not disrupt the process that’s already underway is to make that seat at-large, and I think other people in Utah would prefer an at-large for the fourth seat. I feel comfortable in saying that’s true for the House delegation, so I’m disappointed that he’s taken that position. [...]

They [Members of the Utah delegation] prefer an at-large. They don’t want to run in new districts. They’re months away from an election. So a member of the House doesn’t want, just months before they’re going to run, a whole new set of constituents. And so that’s been an issue.

While the fourth Utah representative would be a Republican no matter how the seat is constituted, there are political considerations on each side. Last year, Democrats and civil rights leaders worried that with the redrawing of districts, “Utah might be tempted to draw districts in a way to eliminate the Utah delegation’s lone Democrat, Rep. Jim Matheson.” Although Hatch has opposed an at-large seat in the past, his new threat to veto the DC legislation may be an attempt to appeal to some of his far-right constituents who oppose DC voting rights.

Neither Norton nor Hatch returned our request for comment.

On Sunday, the New York Times’ Kevin Sack reported on the difficulty Mitt Romney faces in convincing conservative voters that the new health care reform law is substantially different from the reform he signed in Massachusetts. While Romney is currently denying that Massachusetts served as a template for national health reform, the former Governor indicated that he may be prepared to change his position if he wins the Republican Presidential nomination in 2012:

“I keep on scratching my head,” Mr. Obama said at a fund-raising reception in Boston. “I say, ‘Boy, this Massachusetts thing, who designed that?’”

In response, Mr. Romney is reminding audiences that Mr. Obama has cast the Republicans as the “party of no,” devoid of ideas. “And yet,” Mr. Romney said in Bedford, “he’s saying that I was the guy that came up with the idea for what he did. He can’t have it both ways.”

He added, “If ever again somewhere down the road I would be debating him, I would be happy to take credit for his accomplishment.”

Last week, Romney added even more nuance to his position, telling the New Hampshire Union Leader that it was unconstitutional for the federal government to require everyone to purchase insurance coverage. “I think it’s unconstitutional on the 10th Amendment front,” he said.

Sen. Scott Brown’s (R-MA) surprise election in January may not have been possible without the help of Wall Street’s “largest political enforcers.” The U.S. Chamber of Commerce spent $1 million on television ads backing Brown and boasted about its “influence” in the race. After the election, the Chamber proudly said that Brown’s election would “allow Republicans to block legislation” the business lobby opposed. Wall Street front groups FreedomWorks and Club for Growth also mobilized get out the vote efforts and strongly “boost[ed]” Brown’s campaign.

Moreover, as a ThinkProgress analysis revealed, business and Wall Street executives lavished Brown’s campaign coffers with over $200,000 in 11th hour contributions — nearly half of his total haul over that period.

Now, Brown seems to be returning the favor. As the Senate prepares to take up Sen. Chris Dodd’s (D-CT) financial regulatory reform bill, Brown said “in his strongest statement yet” that he “can’t support it.” While Brown said he is still “open” to working on a bipartisan bill, he seemed befuddled when asked how the bill could win his support:

Brown, whose vote could be critical as Democrats seek to find a GOP member to avoid a filibuster, assiduously avoided talking about specifics.

When asked what areas he thought should be fixed, he replied: “Well, what areas do you think should be fixed? I mean, you know, tell me. And then I’ll get a team and go fix it.”

Brown is hardly the only Republican to take money from Wall Street while opposing financial reform. His lack of ideas on how to improve the bill underscores the fact that many in his party seem more interested in stopping reform than negotiating a compromise.

It’s ironic that Brown would toe Wall Street’s line so dependably, considering that a majority of his voters said they were motivated by a belief “that Democratic policies were doing more to help Wall Street than Main Street.”