Before we impeach the guy or hang him or whatever the angry mob in this thread wants to do, can someone explain what exactly he did to "neuter" the bill? The article that this quote was taken from (inflammatorily abandoning all semblance of context) indicates that Cantor removed a "political intelligence" requirement that the Democratic leadership in the Senate also opposed. I can't find the text of the amended House bill, but this article seems to be about the portion that was struck in the House version. From that article:

Sen. Chuck Grassley, Iowa Republican, succeeded in adding a provision to the Senate bill that will require anyone who seeks information from a government official to help them analyze markets or make investment decisions to register as a lobbyist.

But analysts said that is so broad that it could sweep up average citizens, adding thousands of people to the rolls of official lobbyists by classifying them as “political intelligence consultants.”

Under the definition, Wall Street analysts who gather information for investment firms would have to register as lobbyists for the first time. But some experts say the provision is so vague it could apply to anyone who seeks information from a friend on Capitol Hill — even if the information is public.

From what I can tell, a Republican senator proposed an amendment to the Senate bill that the Democratic leadership in the Senate opposed due to concerns about vagueness and over-broad applicability. This amendment passed. Republicans in the House then removed the language. Where's the outrage?

edit: If anyone is interested, I copy/pasted the text of Grassley's amendment here. It modifies the definitions in 2 U.S.C. 1602, which impact who is covered under the subsequent regulations on lobbyist registration. Under 1603, there's an exception for "a person or entity whose...total income for matters related to lobbying activities [and political intelligence activities] on behalf of a particular client (in the case of a lobbying firm [or political intelligence firm]) does not exceed and is not expected to exceed $2,500." (brackets indicate amendment text). You can read the definition for political intelligence activities and political intelligence firm in the amendment. Without any specialized knowledge, I think the fear that this would apply to constituents who call their congressman is unfounded. Opposition on the grounds that this would sweep in tens of thousands of firms for even minimal contacts with anyone in politics and require those firms to adhere to strict registration requirements seems reasonable, however. The amendment was quite broad in its definition of "political intelligence activities" and could thus cover firms with no meaningful access to politicians.

edit2: No one is reading this, but I'll add more. Here is Grassley commenting on his amendment and a brief response from Lieberman indicating his concern (from the Congressional Record).

edit3: The roll call vote in the Senator on the Grassley amendment (which is what Cantor removed) was 60-39. Democrats voted 28-25 in favor of the amendment (counting Lieberman as a Democrat) and Republicans voted 32-14 in favor, with one Republican not voting (Senator Kirk had a stroke last month and isn't doing very well). Republicans favored this amendment more heavily than Democrats.

edit4: I'll throw another edit on this unread comment and note my opinion that the "political intelligence" stuff seems pretty much unrelated to the issue of alleged insider trading by congressmen. Why it needs to be thrown into this legislation I don't know.