home.social

#doddfrank — Public Fediverse posts

Live and recent posts from across the Fediverse tagged #doddfrank, aggregated by home.social.

  1. An #email sent Monday by a #Trump administration official, obtained by Popular Information, explicitly instructs federal employees at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau #CFPB to not carry out activities mandated by law. The email directly contradicts representations CFPB officials made in federal #court. #maga #vought #musk #doge #politics #WhiteHouse #congress #DoddFrank #financialsystem #economics #banking #loans #college #debt #mortgages #consumerprotection popular.info/p/email-shows-tru

  2. An #email sent Monday by a #Trump administration official, obtained by Popular Information, explicitly instructs federal employees at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau #CFPB to not carry out activities mandated by law. The email directly contradicts representations CFPB officials made in federal #court. #maga #vought #musk #doge #politics #WhiteHouse #congress #DoddFrank #financialsystem #economics #banking #loans #college #debt #mortgages #consumerprotection popular.info/p/email-shows-tru

  3. An #email sent Monday by a #Trump administration official, obtained by Popular Information, explicitly instructs federal employees at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau #CFPB to not carry out activities mandated by law. The email directly contradicts representations CFPB officials made in federal #court. #maga #vought #musk #doge #politics #WhiteHouse #congress #DoddFrank #financialsystem #economics #banking #loans #college #debt #mortgages #consumerprotection popular.info/p/email-shows-tru

  4. An #email sent Monday by a #Trump administration official, obtained by Popular Information, explicitly instructs federal employees at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau #CFPB to not carry out activities mandated by law. The email directly contradicts representations CFPB officials made in federal #court. #maga #vought #musk #doge #politics #WhiteHouse #congress #DoddFrank #financialsystem #economics #banking #loans #college #debt #mortgages #consumerprotection popular.info/p/email-shows-tru

  5. An #email sent Monday by a #Trump administration official, obtained by Popular Information, explicitly instructs federal employees at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau #CFPB to not carry out activities mandated by law. The email directly contradicts representations CFPB officials made in federal #court. #maga #vought #musk #doge #politics #WhiteHouse #congress #DoddFrank #financialsystem #economics #banking #loans #college #debt #mortgages #consumerprotection popular.info/p/email-shows-tru

  6. On Tuesday, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in Consumer Financial Protection Bureau v. Community Financial Services Association of America.

    The case is a challenge to the funding mechanism that Congress set up for the CFPB when it created the consumer-finance watchdog agency as part of the Dodd-Frank financial reforms in 2011.

    Unlike some other federal agencies that receive annual appropriations from lawmakers, Congress allows the CFPB to draw its funding directly from an account in the Federal Reserve System.

    Congress has allowed federal agencies to receive funding from a variety of different sources, and it retains the power to change those arrangements whenever it sees fit.

    The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals disagreed. Judge Cory Wilson, writing for a unanimous three-judge panel, described the funding mechanism as a violation of the appropriations clause as well as a blow to the separation of powers.

    “Even among self-funded agencies, the Bureau is unique,” Wilson claimed, quoting from precedent. “The Bureau’s perpetual self-directed, double-insulated funding structure goes a significant step further than that enjoyed by the other agencies on offer. And none of the agencies cited above ‘wields enforcement or regulatory authority remotely comparable to the authority the [Bureau] may exercise throughout the economy.’”

    Wilson’s opinion echoed the widespread belief in the conservative legal movement that the CFPB is a dangerous threat to liberty and must be either reined in or destroyed.

    The Supreme Court’s conservative majority, which appears similarly skeptical of the consumer-finance watchdog, previously dismantled the statutory for-cause protections for the CFPB’s director in 2018.

    In one notable exchange on Capitol Hill, a Republican lawmaker from Pennsylvania told CFPB Director Rohit Chopra during a congressional hearing earlier this year that the financial industry was not happy with the agency’s work and urged her to “be responsive to the clientele that you’re supposed to be helping” when adopting new policies and regulations.

    “Just to be clear, the clientele of the CFPB is not banks,” Chopra responded. “The clientele is the public"
    #cfpb #scotus #doddfrank #fed
    newrepublic.com/article/175899

  7. On Tuesday, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in Consumer Financial Protection Bureau v. Community Financial Services Association of America.

    The case is a challenge to the funding mechanism that Congress set up for the CFPB when it created the consumer-finance watchdog agency as part of the Dodd-Frank financial reforms in 2011.

    Unlike some other federal agencies that receive annual appropriations from lawmakers, Congress allows the CFPB to draw its funding directly from an account in the Federal Reserve System.

    Congress has allowed federal agencies to receive funding from a variety of different sources, and it retains the power to change those arrangements whenever it sees fit.

    The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals disagreed. Judge Cory Wilson, writing for a unanimous three-judge panel, described the funding mechanism as a violation of the appropriations clause as well as a blow to the separation of powers.

    “Even among self-funded agencies, the Bureau is unique,” Wilson claimed, quoting from precedent. “The Bureau’s perpetual self-directed, double-insulated funding structure goes a significant step further than that enjoyed by the other agencies on offer. And none of the agencies cited above ‘wields enforcement or regulatory authority remotely comparable to the authority the [Bureau] may exercise throughout the economy.’”

    Wilson’s opinion echoed the widespread belief in the conservative legal movement that the CFPB is a dangerous threat to liberty and must be either reined in or destroyed.

    The Supreme Court’s conservative majority, which appears similarly skeptical of the consumer-finance watchdog, previously dismantled the statutory for-cause protections for the CFPB’s director in 2018.

    In one notable exchange on Capitol Hill, a Republican lawmaker from Pennsylvania told CFPB Director Rohit Chopra during a congressional hearing earlier this year that the financial industry was not happy with the agency’s work and urged her to “be responsive to the clientele that you’re supposed to be helping” when adopting new policies and regulations.

    “Just to be clear, the clientele of the CFPB is not banks,” Chopra responded. “The clientele is the public"
    #cfpb #scotus #doddfrank #fed
    newrepublic.com/article/175899

  8. On Tuesday, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in Consumer Financial Protection Bureau v. Community Financial Services Association of America.

    The case is a challenge to the funding mechanism that Congress set up for the CFPB when it created the consumer-finance watchdog agency as part of the Dodd-Frank financial reforms in 2011.

    Unlike some other federal agencies that receive annual appropriations from lawmakers, Congress allows the CFPB to draw its funding directly from an account in the Federal Reserve System.

    Congress has allowed federal agencies to receive funding from a variety of different sources, and it retains the power to change those arrangements whenever it sees fit.

    The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals disagreed. Judge Cory Wilson, writing for a unanimous three-judge panel, described the funding mechanism as a violation of the appropriations clause as well as a blow to the separation of powers.

    “Even among self-funded agencies, the Bureau is unique,” Wilson claimed, quoting from precedent. “The Bureau’s perpetual self-directed, double-insulated funding structure goes a significant step further than that enjoyed by the other agencies on offer. And none of the agencies cited above ‘wields enforcement or regulatory authority remotely comparable to the authority the [Bureau] may exercise throughout the economy.’”

    Wilson’s opinion echoed the widespread belief in the conservative legal movement that the CFPB is a dangerous threat to liberty and must be either reined in or destroyed.

    The Supreme Court’s conservative majority, which appears similarly skeptical of the consumer-finance watchdog, previously dismantled the statutory for-cause protections for the CFPB’s director in 2018.

    In one notable exchange on Capitol Hill, a Republican lawmaker from Pennsylvania told CFPB Director Rohit Chopra during a congressional hearing earlier this year that the financial industry was not happy with the agency’s work and urged her to “be responsive to the clientele that you’re supposed to be helping” when adopting new policies and regulations.

    “Just to be clear, the clientele of the CFPB is not banks,” Chopra responded. “The clientele is the public"
    #cfpb #scotus #doddfrank #fed
    newrepublic.com/article/175899

  9. On Tuesday, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in Consumer Financial Protection Bureau v. Community Financial Services Association of America.

    The case is a challenge to the funding mechanism that Congress set up for the CFPB when it created the consumer-finance watchdog agency as part of the Dodd-Frank financial reforms in 2011.

    Unlike some other federal agencies that receive annual appropriations from lawmakers, Congress allows the CFPB to draw its funding directly from an account in the Federal Reserve System.

    Congress has allowed federal agencies to receive funding from a variety of different sources, and it retains the power to change those arrangements whenever it sees fit.

    The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals disagreed. Judge Cory Wilson, writing for a unanimous three-judge panel, described the funding mechanism as a violation of the appropriations clause as well as a blow to the separation of powers.

    “Even among self-funded agencies, the Bureau is unique,” Wilson claimed, quoting from precedent. “The Bureau’s perpetual self-directed, double-insulated funding structure goes a significant step further than that enjoyed by the other agencies on offer. And none of the agencies cited above ‘wields enforcement or regulatory authority remotely comparable to the authority the [Bureau] may exercise throughout the economy.’”

    Wilson’s opinion echoed the widespread belief in the conservative legal movement that the CFPB is a dangerous threat to liberty and must be either reined in or destroyed.

    The Supreme Court’s conservative majority, which appears similarly skeptical of the consumer-finance watchdog, previously dismantled the statutory for-cause protections for the CFPB’s director in 2018.

    In one notable exchange on Capitol Hill, a Republican lawmaker from Pennsylvania told CFPB Director Rohit Chopra during a congressional hearing earlier this year that the financial industry was not happy with the agency’s work and urged her to “be responsive to the clientele that you’re supposed to be helping” when adopting new policies and regulations.

    “Just to be clear, the clientele of the CFPB is not banks,” Chopra responded. “The clientele is the public"
    #cfpb #scotus #doddfrank #fed
    newrepublic.com/article/175899

  10. On Tuesday, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in Consumer Financial Protection Bureau v. Community Financial Services Association of America.

    The case is a challenge to the funding mechanism that Congress set up for the CFPB when it created the consumer-finance watchdog agency as part of the Dodd-Frank financial reforms in 2011.

    Unlike some other federal agencies that receive annual appropriations from lawmakers, Congress allows the CFPB to draw its funding directly from an account in the Federal Reserve System.

    Congress has allowed federal agencies to receive funding from a variety of different sources, and it retains the power to change those arrangements whenever it sees fit.

    The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals disagreed. Judge Cory Wilson, writing for a unanimous three-judge panel, described the funding mechanism as a violation of the appropriations clause as well as a blow to the separation of powers.

    “Even among self-funded agencies, the Bureau is unique,” Wilson claimed, quoting from precedent. “The Bureau’s perpetual self-directed, double-insulated funding structure goes a significant step further than that enjoyed by the other agencies on offer. And none of the agencies cited above ‘wields enforcement or regulatory authority remotely comparable to the authority the [Bureau] may exercise throughout the economy.’”

    Wilson’s opinion echoed the widespread belief in the conservative legal movement that the CFPB is a dangerous threat to liberty and must be either reined in or destroyed.

    The Supreme Court’s conservative majority, which appears similarly skeptical of the consumer-finance watchdog, previously dismantled the statutory for-cause protections for the CFPB’s director in 2018.

    In one notable exchange on Capitol Hill, a Republican lawmaker from Pennsylvania told CFPB Director Rohit Chopra during a congressional hearing earlier this year that the financial industry was not happy with the agency’s work and urged her to “be responsive to the clientele that you’re supposed to be helping” when adopting new policies and regulations.

    “Just to be clear, the clientele of the CFPB is not banks,” Chopra responded. “The clientele is the public"
    #cfpb #scotus #doddfrank #fed
    newrepublic.com/article/175899

  11. Who can bankroll enough lobbying to actually change federal law?

    Banks. $400M+ in 2 years:

    "the banking lobby worked for two years to water down aspects of the 2010 Dodd-Frank law...with companies and trade groups that specifically mention Idaho Senator Mike Crapo’s legislation spending more than $400 million in 2017 and 2018, according to an Associated Press analysis of the public lobbying disclosures"
    apnews.com/article/banking-cri
    --
    #Congress #corruption #banking #finance #DoddFrank #crapo

  12. Who can bankroll enough lobbying to actually change federal law?

    Banks. $400M+ in 2 years:

    "the banking lobby worked for two years to water down aspects of the 2010 Dodd-Frank law...with companies and trade groups that specifically mention Idaho Senator Mike Crapo’s legislation spending more than $400 million in 2017 and 2018, according to an Associated Press analysis of the public lobbying disclosures"
    apnews.com/article/banking-cri
    --
    #Congress #corruption #banking #finance #DoddFrank #crapo

  13. Who can bankroll enough lobbying to actually change federal law?

    Banks. $400M+ in 2 years:

    "the banking lobby worked for two years to water down aspects of the 2010 Dodd-Frank law...with companies and trade groups that specifically mention Idaho Senator Mike Crapo’s legislation spending more than $400 million in 2017 and 2018, according to an Associated Press analysis of the public lobbying disclosures"
    apnews.com/article/banking-cri
    --

  14. Who can bankroll enough lobbying to actually change federal law?

    Banks. $400M+ in 2 years:

    "the banking lobby worked for two years to water down aspects of the 2010 Dodd-Frank law...with companies and trade groups that specifically mention Idaho Senator Mike Crapo’s legislation spending more than $400 million in 2017 and 2018, according to an Associated Press analysis of the public lobbying disclosures"
    apnews.com/article/banking-cri
    --
    #Congress #corruption #banking #finance #DoddFrank #crapo

  15. Who can bankroll enough lobbying to actually change federal law?

    Banks. $400M+ in 2 years:

    "the banking lobby worked for two years to water down aspects of the 2010 Dodd-Frank law...with companies and trade groups that specifically mention Idaho Senator Mike Crapo’s legislation spending more than $400 million in 2017 and 2018, according to an Associated Press analysis of the public lobbying disclosures"
    apnews.com/article/banking-cri
    --
    #Congress #corruption #banking #finance #DoddFrank #crapo

  16. CW: Long thread/4

    If you're interested in the minutiae of this, Levitin's piece is short and clear - there's no automatic tort-based claim that would let the FDIC get the money back from the investors, because SVB isn't classed as a really big bank (a "#GSIB").

    As for #DoddFrank's #SourceOfStrength doctrine, it "doesn't create any concrete financial liability—it's just exhortatory."

    4/

  17. CW: Long thread/4

    If you're interested in the minutiae of this, Levitin's piece is short and clear - there's no automatic tort-based claim that would let the FDIC get the money back from the investors, because SVB isn't classed as a really big bank (a "#GSIB").

    As for #DoddFrank's #SourceOfStrength doctrine, it "doesn't create any concrete financial liability—it's just exhortatory."

    4/

  18. CW: Long thread/4

    If you're interested in the minutiae of this, Levitin's piece is short and clear - there's no automatic tort-based claim that would let the FDIC get the money back from the investors, because SVB isn't classed as a really big bank (a "#GSIB").

    As for #DoddFrank's #SourceOfStrength doctrine, it "doesn't create any concrete financial liability—it's just exhortatory."

    4/

  19. CW: Long thread/4

    If you're interested in the minutiae of this, Levitin's piece is short and clear - there's no automatic tort-based claim that would let the FDIC get the money back from the investors, because SVB isn't classed as a really big bank (a "#GSIB").

    As for #DoddFrank's #SourceOfStrength doctrine, it "doesn't create any concrete financial liability—it's just exhortatory."

    4/

  20. CW: Long thread/4

    If you're interested in the minutiae of this, Levitin's piece is short and clear - there's no automatic tort-based claim that would let the FDIC get the money back from the investors, because SVB isn't classed as a really big bank (a "#GSIB").

    As for #DoddFrank's #SourceOfStrength doctrine, it "doesn't create any concrete financial liability—it's just exhortatory."

    4/

  21. #Senators Aren’t Ready to Blame Themselves for #SiliconValleyBank Implosion theintercept.com/2023/03/15/si

    2018 #deregulation bill: #Senate #Bill2155 — curbed parts of the #DoddFrank Act that forced #banks to lend responsibly, hold adequate cash on hand, and conduct stress tests to ensure the liquidity required to prevent a run. Removing oversight on banks holding $50 billion in assets to banks holding over $250 billion.

  22. #Senators Aren’t Ready to Blame Themselves for #SiliconValleyBank Implosion theintercept.com/2023/03/15/si

    2018 #deregulation bill: #Senate #Bill2155 — curbed parts of the #DoddFrank Act that forced #banks to lend responsibly, hold adequate cash on hand, and conduct stress tests to ensure the liquidity required to prevent a run. Removing oversight on banks holding $50 billion in assets to banks holding over $250 billion.

  23. Aren’t Ready to Blame Themselves for Implosion theintercept.com/2023/03/15/si

    2018 bill: — curbed parts of the Act that forced to lend responsibly, hold adequate cash on hand, and conduct stress tests to ensure the liquidity required to prevent a run. Removing oversight on banks holding $50 billion in assets to banks holding over $250 billion.

  24. #Senators Aren’t Ready to Blame Themselves for #SiliconValleyBank Implosion theintercept.com/2023/03/15/si

    2018 #deregulation bill: #Senate #Bill2155 — curbed parts of the #DoddFrank Act that forced #banks to lend responsibly, hold adequate cash on hand, and conduct stress tests to ensure the liquidity required to prevent a run. Removing oversight on banks holding $50 billion in assets to banks holding over $250 billion.

  25. #Senators Aren’t Ready to Blame Themselves for #SiliconValleyBank Implosion theintercept.com/2023/03/15/si

    2018 #deregulation bill: #Senate #Bill2155 — curbed parts of the #DoddFrank Act that forced #banks to lend responsibly, hold adequate cash on hand, and conduct stress tests to ensure the liquidity required to prevent a run. Removing oversight on banks holding $50 billion in assets to banks holding over $250 billion.