Consumer advocates are coming out against 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 power 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 it would be a mistake.
“You’re basically creating a more permissive regulatory regime that allows crypto businesses to do basically what they do with a patina of protection,” Hays pointed out. “But it actually doesn’t provide the same kind of protections you get if you simply dealt with them the way we do now.”
Supporters of the bill said it creates robust consumer protections and provides regulatory certainty for the growing industry to flourish. The bill passed the U.S. House last month with majority Republican votes but also some support from progressive Democrats, including Rep. Robert Garcia, D-Calif., Rep. Jimmy Gomez, D-Calif., Rep. Sydney Kamlager-Dove, D-Calif., Rep. Ro Khanna, D-Calif., Rep. Mike Levin, D-Calif., Rep. Ted Lieu, D-Calif., and Rep. Jimmy Panetta, D-Calif.
Kevin Stein, chief of legal and strategy for the nonprofit RISE Economy, said lawmakers should put the needs of vulnerable consumers first.
“There are all these horror stories and consumer violations, so we need regulation,” Stein argued. “The crypto industry put a lot of money and a lot of lobbying power into trying to get the rules that they want and that is always a recipe for disaster.”
The U.S. Senate will now consider whether to take up the bill.
Disclosure: Americans for Financial Reform contributes to our fund for reporting on Budget Policy and Priorities, Campaign Finance Reform/Money in Politics and Social Justice. If you would like to help support news in the public interest, click here.
get more stories like this via email
In an analysis of 100 cities across the United States, Cincinnati ranks 22nd for decreasing credit limits – not for the city itself, but for its residents.
Large drops in the average credit limit can indicate where people are having financial problems. According to Cassandra Happe, an analyst at WalletHub, when credit card issuers evaluate the profitability and risks of particular users, they may drop someone’s credit limit to reduce their own risk and increase long-term profitability.
Happe said people should be aware of how a credit limit decrease can affect their overall financial well-being.
“Adjust your spending accordingly,” she said, “so you don’t end up hurting your credit score in the long run by spending more, when you have less available to spend.”
She noted that Cincinnati saw a sizable drop in the last year, with individual credit limits being cut an average of more than 15%. In the same survey, Columbus, Toledo and Cleveland were near the middle of the rankings at 45th, 72nd and 80th, respectively.
Happe said this indicates people there are handling their accounts well and the credit card issuers aren’t seeing a need to dial back those limits.
It’s a good idea,” she said, “for people to check their current credit limits, and make sure their balances aren’t causing what’s known as their “credit utilization” to be higher than it otherwise would be.
“If you’re seeing that your balance is substantially higher in comparison to your limit,” she said, “you may want to focus on paying down that balance, to ensure that you’re not going to incur a lot of credit score damage.”
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 with 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.
get more stories like this via email
A new online guide helps people in Connecticut and nationwide recover from scams.
The Better Business Bureau’s Scam Survival Kit connects people with services for them to mentally and financially recover from scams. Research shows after being scammed, people feel angry, anxious, stressed and have a loss of trust.
Kristen Johnson, communications director for the Better Business Bureau Serving Connecticut, said they often also feel isolated.
“A lot of them don’t even want to admit it to their closest friends and family,” Johnson explained. “They feel so alone like they’re the only ones that have experienced this and don’t realize there are thousands upon thousands of people that have experienced the very same scam, let alone all the different scams out there. “
She added it 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 feature of the kit is called Survivor Stories, featuring quotes from other people who have been the victims of scams. People can also upload their own words of encouragement so more people feel comfortable reporting their experiences.
While most people think about individual people being scammed, Johnson pointed out the Scam Survival Kit can also help businesses by focusing on data breaches.
“We’re talking about data breaches because it’s not only one of the more common types of scams to target businesses, but it’s one of the most impactful,” Johnson noted. “Because obviously, they can get a hold of financial information for the business, and for the employees. “
Businesses lose money around 30% of the time they are targeted by scammers, far less than individuals who are susceptible to scams. Businesses lose an average of $523 to scammers compared to about $100 reported by consumers.
get more stories like this via email
The “AM Radio for Every Vehicle Act” now in Congress would mandate all new cars in the U.S. be equipped with AM radios, which is stirring a debate in Missouri.
The legislation is supported by 60 bipartisan U.S. senators, including Rep. Josh Hawley, R-Mo. But it is being criticized by the Consumer Technology Association for its potential to increase vehicle costs and stifle innovation, particularly as electric vehicles rise in popularity.
Gary Shapiro, CEO of the Consumer Technology Association, testified against the mandate in a House subcommittee. He highlighted the financial and technological burdens a mandate would place on automakers and consumers alike.
“AM radio is wonderful but it should not be required in every car sold in the ‘forever future,’ because it is a trade-off with safety and other features, and it costs money,” Shapiro argued. “It slows the shift to electric cars.”
Proponents of the mandate countered AM radio is crucial for emergency broadcasts, particularly in rural areas where digital signals may be weak. Shapiro pointed out incorporating AM radios into EVs is problematic due to signal interference from the batteries, which would cause 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 extensive range is valuable, Shapiro contended such a requirement could hinder the state’s broader efforts to transition to electric vehicles.
He added the necessity of 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, like, if you’re not buying a car with an AM radio, the car seller should have to disclose that. Or you could plug in an AM radio.”
Shapiro stressed a balanced approach is needed to electrify vehicles while satisfying the radio industry and respecting consumer choice and market dynamics.
get more stories like this via email
