There was some concern that the 30% cap would supercede any state usury laws. Rollcall below.

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=1&vote=00020

Number: S.Amdt. 31 to S. 256
Statement of Purpose: To limit the amount of interest that can be charged on any extension of credit to 30 percent.
Vote Counts: YEAs 24
NAYs 74
Not Voting 2

Grouped By Vote Position
YEAs ---24
Akaka (D-HI)
Bayh (D-IN)
Boxer (D-CA)
Byrd (D-WV)
Clinton (D-NY)
Conrad (D-ND)
Corzine (D-NJ)
Dayton (D-MN)
Dodd (D-CT)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Harkin (D-IA)
Jeffords (I-VT)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Levin (D-MI)
Lieberman (D-CT)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murray (D-WA)
Pryor (D-AR)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Salazar (D-CO)
Schumer (D-NY)
Stabenow (D-MI)

NAYs ---74
Alexander (R-TN)
Allard (R-CO)
Allen (R-VA)
Baucus (D-MT)
Bennett (R-UT)
Biden (D-DE)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Bond (R-MO)
Brownback (R-KS)
Bunning (R-KY)
Burns (R-MT)
Burr (R-NC)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Carper (D-DE)
Chafee (R-RI)
Chambliss (R-GA)
Coburn (R-OK)
Cochran (R-MS)
Coleman (R-MN)
Collins (R-ME)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Craig (R-ID)
Crapo (R-ID)
DeMint (R-SC)
DeWine (R-OH)
Dole (R-NC)
Domenici (R-NM)
Durbin (D-IL)
Ensign (R-NV)
Enzi (R-WY)
Frist (R-TN)
Graham (R-SC)
Grassley (R-IA)
Gregg (R-NH)
Hagel (R-NE)
Hatch (R-UT)
Hutchison (R-TX)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Isakson (R-GA)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kerry (D-MA)
Kohl (D-WI)
Kyl (R-AZ)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Leahy (D-VT)
Lincoln (D-AR)
Lott (R-MS)
Lugar (R-IN)
Martinez (R-FL)
McCain (R-AZ)
McConnell (R-KY)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Nelson (D-FL)
Nelson (D-NE)
Obama (D-IL)
Reed (D-RI)
Reid (D-NV)
Roberts (R-KS)
Santorum (R-PA)
Sarbanes (D-MD)
Sessions (R-AL)
Shelby (R-AL)
Smith (R-OR)
Snowe (R-ME)
Specter (R-PA)
Stevens (R-AK)
Sununu (R-NH)
Talent (R-MO)
Thomas (R-WY)
Thune (R-SD)
Vitter (R-LA)
Voinovich (R-OH)
Warner (R-VA)
Wyden (D-OR)

Not Voting - 2
Feingold (D-WI)
Inouye (D-HI)

I trust them as well.

as well as the IL "present" votes is the same as Rove exploiting Kerry's (arguably not perfectly worded) "I voted for the 87 bil before I voted against". It's blatantly and shamelessly taking advantage of the fact that most people are completely unaware of the rules and inner working that dictate how things are done in the US Senate, and even less in the IL state senate. Ignoring the context and pummeling your opponent with accusations not based on facts. Obama's explanation about this vote made perfect sense, but in the context of the heated debate I am not sure I would have been able to understand it myself had I not vaguely remembered the discussion that took place in the senate at the time. Both vote-related accusations were also thrown at him knowing full well that the debate format will not allow him the chance to actually explain the context and the attempts at explaining procedural details will not put him in a good light. Politics of personal destruction, anyone?