Chris Dodd for President

Kagro X said this when explaining the "hold":

Here's the deal on holds, adapted from a previous answers to the question of whether or not Senator Feingold could hold the same bill:

There are no real rules about holds. Holds don't really exist on their own as an independent right enshrined in the rules. They're a derivative of the Senate's preference for operating under unanimous consent.

Although there are rules in existence for bringing bills to the floor over the objections of the minority, the Senate typically operates by unanimous consent, and bills that aren't cleared by the Majority and Minority Leaders (who are given the proxies of other Senators to buy into unanimous consent requests to bring bills to the floor) don't get moved.

So here's how a hold works: If you want to hold a bill, you tell your party leader that if anyone asks for unanimous consent to bring that bill to the floor, you intend to object and withhold your consent. That would force whoever wants to bring the bill up to use the actual rules -- typically making a "motion to proceed" -- which is a bit of a pain in the ass, and requires getting an actual vote on whether or not to start debate on this bill.

If you're really insistent, you'll show up and filibuster the motion to proceed. Then we're back in the familiar and annoying territory of needing 60 votes to do anything. And that's always dicey, especially in an atmosphere in which Senators will automatically get each others' backs even if they're doing something stupid, like filibustering a motion to proceed on a perfectly good and popular bill. You get another Senator's back on something stupid, because one day you'll need him to get yours on something equally stupid.

So what it comes down to is that the "hold" is simply a matter of "professional courtesy." I want a bill held, so I notify my party leader of my intention to object to any unanimous consent request to bring the bill to the floor. Implied in that is the hint that I will make everyone sorry they brought it up if they don't just give me what I want, and they know by now that any Senator can do that, so they might as well just go ahead and hold it, for the sake of everyone's sanity.

Why is the hold secret? Again, professional courtesy. The party leaders could throw the guy under the bus if they felt like it, but only at the risk of having that pissed off Senator (and all his stupid friends) retaliate against the leaker, filibuster all his bills, etc. And since it's a party leader, they could vote him out on his ass, too.

So it's honored in the first place, and kept secret (if requested), because the party leaders don't want to make their constituents (in this case, their fellow Senators who elected them to leadership and can unelect them, too) mad.
...
So, can a bill that's being "held" get to the floor anyway? Yes it can, if a motion to proceed wins a majority vote. But since the motion to proceed is debatable, it's subject to a filibuster. If you've got the numbers, you can require 60 votes before the Senate can even get to the motion.

How long does a hold last? For as long as you refuse to join in giving unanimous consent, or until you lose a motion to proceed, whichever comes first.

I second that - I'd love to see how the campaign contribs went today! I donated $100 at chrisdodd.com, then I set up my own ActBlue page and started it off with $50 seed money and I linked it in my Dkos sig line. Right now, that page is at $695...

For the record, prior to today I had no candidate. I had donated to both Edwards and Obama - I'm still doing a $25 monthly donation to Edwards, for the next 3 months. But I've found my candidate - Chris Dodd is going to the White House, if I have anything to say about it!