Regulation
Financial justice advocates slam crypto regulation bill / Public News Service
Consumer advocates are opposing a bill to regulate the cryptocurrency market, saying it is a wolf in sheep’s clothing.
THE Financial Innovation and Technology for the 21st Century Act would give regulatory authority to the Commodity Futures Trading Commission instead of the Securities and Exchange Commission.
Mark Hays, senior policy analyst for the nonprofits Demand Progress and Americans for Financial Reform, said that would be a mistake.
“Basically, you’re creating a more permissive regulatory regime that allows crypto companies to essentially do what they do with some protection,” Hays pointed out. “But in reality, it doesn’t provide the same kind of protection that you get if you just treat them the way we do now.”
Supporters of the bill said it creates strong protections for consumers and provides regulatory certainty allowing the growing industry to thrive. The bill passed the House of Representatives last month with majority Republican votes, but also some support from progressive Democrats, including Rep. Robert Garcia, Democrat of California, Rep. Jimmy Gomez, Democrat of California, Rep. Sydney Kamlager-Dove, Democrat. California, Representative Ro Khanna, Democrat of California, Representative Mike Levin, Democrat of California, Representative Ted Lieu, Democrat of California and Representative Jimmy Panetta, Democrat of California.
Kevin Stein, chief legal and strategy officer at the nonprofit RISE Economy, said lawmakers should prioritize the needs of vulnerable consumers.
“There are all these horror stories and consumer violations, so we need regulation,” Stein argued. “The crypto industry has invested a lot of money and a lot of lobbying power to try to get the rules they want and that’s always a recipe for disaster.”
The US Senate will now consider whether to pass the bill.
Disclosure: Americans for Financial Reform contributes to our fund for reporting on policy and budget priorities, campaign finance reform/money in politics, and social justice. If you would like to help support news of public interest, Click here.
receive more stories like this by email
In a analysis of 100 cities across the United StatesCincinnati ranks 22nd for decreasing credit limits – not for the city itself, but for its residents.
Significant drops in the average credit limit can indicate where people are experiencing financial problems. According to Cassandra Happe, analyst at WalletHubWhen credit card issuers evaluate the profitability and risks of particular users, they may lower someone’s credit limit to reduce their own risk and increase their long-term profitability.
Happe said people should be aware of how lowering their credit limit can affect their overall financial well-being.
“Adjust your spending accordingly,” she said, “so you don’t hurt your long-term credit score by spending more when you have less to spend.”
She noted that Cincinnati has seen a considerable decline over the past year, with individual credit limits reduced by an average of more than 15%. In the same survey, Columbus, Toledo and Cleveland were near the middle of the rankings, 45th, 72nd and 80th, respectively.
Happe said this indicates that people manage their accounts well and that credit card issuers see no need to reduce these limits.
It’s a good idea,” she said, “for people to check their current credit limits and make sure their balances aren’t driving what’s called ‘credit utilization’ to a higher level than it would otherwise be.
“If you find that your balance is significantly higher than your limit,” she said, “you may want to focus on paying down that balance, to ensure that you are not going to incur a lot of damage to your credit rating.
The report shows that for accounts opened in the first quarter of this year, Cincinnati ranked 77th in average credit limit per user, indicating higher credit limits for these new account holders, compared to many other cities in the study.
This story was produced in association with Media in the Public Interest and funded in part by the George Gund Foundation.
receive more stories like this by email
A new online guide helps people in Connecticut and across the country recover from scams.
The Better Business Bureau Scam Survival Kit connects people with services that help them recover mentally and financially from scams. Research shows that after being scammed, people feel angry, anxious, stressed, and have feelings of anger. loss of trustworthy.
Kristen Johnson, communications director for the Better Business Bureau serving Connecticut, said they often feel isolated.
“A lot of them don’t even want to admit it to their closest friends and family,” Johnson said. “They feel so alone, like they’re the only ones who have experienced this and don’t realize that thousands and thousands of people have experienced the same scam, let alone all the different scams.”
She added that this can lead to a loss of confidence and feelings of shame and embarrassment. The Scam Survival Kit aims to encourage more people to report scams. One of the features in the kit is called Survivor Stories, featuring quotes from other people who have been victims of scams. People can also upload their own words of encouragement so more people feel comfortable sharing their experiences.
While most people think of individuals being scammed, Johnson pointed out that the Scam Survival Kit can also help businesses by focusing on data breaches.
“We talk about data breaches because it’s not only one of the most common types of scams targeting businesses, but also one of the most impactful,” Johnson noted. “Because obviously they can get financial information for the company and for the employees.”
Businesses lose money about 30% of the time they are targeted by fraudsters, far less than individuals likely to fall victim to scams. Businesses lose an average of $523 to fraudsters, compared to about $100 reported by consumers.
receive more stories like this by email
THE “AM Radio Law for Every Vehicle“Congress would now require all new cars in the United States to have AM radios, sparking debate in Missouri.
The legislation is supported by 60 bipartisan U.S. senators, including Rep. Josh Hawley, R-Mo. But the Consumer Technology Association criticizes it for its potential to raise vehicle costs and stifle innovation, especially as electric vehicles grow in popularity.
Gary Shapiro, CEO of the Consumer Technology Association, testified against the mandate before a House subcommittee. He highlighted the financial and technological burdens a mandate would impose on both automakers and consumers.
“AM radio is wonderful, but it shouldn’t be required in every car sold in the ‘eternal future’ because it’s a trade-off between safety and other features, and it costs money,” Shapiro argued. “This slows down the transition to electric cars.”
Supporters of the mandate responded. AM radio is crucial for emergency broadcasts, especially in rural areas where digital signals may be weak. Shapiro pointed out that integrating AM radios into electric vehicles is problematic due to battery signal interference, which would lead to costly redesigns and divert resources from other advancements.
For Missourians, especially those in rural areas who might rely more on AM radio for information, a mandate would present both benefits and challenges. While AM radio’s extended reach is valuable, Shapiro argued such a requirement could hamper the state’s broader efforts to transition to electric vehicles.
He added that the need for AM radio is diminishing with the advent of digital and streaming options, which many consumers now prefer.
“AM radio is not going away; we don’t think it should be a requirement,” Shapiro explained. “There are simpler solutions, for example, if you don’t buy a car with an AM radio, the car seller should disclose that. Or you can plug in an AM radio.”
Shapiro emphasized that a balanced approach is needed to electrify vehicles while satisfying the radio industry and respecting consumer choice and market dynamics.