A new poll released today shows voters across the political spectrum overwhelmingly back the mission of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), financial regulation generally and a variety of new, specific consumer protections. The findings are released as the Supreme Court is poised to consider a lawsuit from payday lenders that could invalidate the CFPB’s funding mechanism, which would undermine its effectiveness.
AFREF led a letter calling on the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the banking associations to drop the lawsuit against the CFPB that would allow them to discriminate against similarly situated BIPOC communities. The lawsuit focuses on the Bureau’s warning that the federal prohibition on unfair practices covers discrimination, and that the Bureau will be using its examination authority to look for and address unlawful discrimination in financial services, including in areas outside of lending, The CFPB was well within its authority to take these actions. Discrimination is unfair and unlawful, and it should have no place in our financial system.
It is urgent that the Supreme Court hear the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau appeal of an erroneous decision that declared the funding mechanism of this vital federal agenda unconstitutional.
Remarks and Q&A with prominent legal experts on the extreme attempt by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals to overturn CFPB’s payday lending rule and destroy the funding mechanism Congress created for the agency, a step that threatens to unleash chaos in consumer finance markets and inhibit the agency’s work in protecting consumers.
News Release: 5th Circuit Court of Appeal’s Decision on CFPB Funding is an Outrageous Undermining of Consumers’ Rights
On Wednesday, October 19, 2022, a three-judge panel in the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with the payday lenders trade association in ruling that the CFPB’s funding structure is unconstitutional because it does not go through Congressional appropriations. This line of attack toward the CFPB – via its funding – has nothing to do with actually caring about the constitution and everything to do with the big banks and predatory lenders trying to escape the oversight and enforcement actions of an agency focusing on protecting and defending consumers.
Americans for Financial Reform is out with a blog post this morning blasting a coalition of big bank trade groups over their lawsuit against the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau seeking to reverse a new agency crackdown on discrimination in banking or banking services. They accuse the groups, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and Consumer Bankers Association, of “trying to drag their disputes with CFPB into a more favorable arena, namely a judiciary with a strong pro-corporate, right-wing bent.”
Ask a reasonable person if discrimination on the basis of race or religion is unfair. The odds are good – very good, according to this AFR poll, – that you’ll get a resounding “yes,” a polite “of course,” or even an incredulous “are you kidding?” Yes. Discrimination. Is. Unfair. But if you try to convince big-bank lobbyists that discrimination is unfair, you won’t get a “yes.” You get a lawsuit, with multiple awful lines of attack, that stands a good chance of succeeding. And that’s not satire.
WASHINGTON-D.C. — A lawsuit filed by the Wall Street lobby attempts to use the increasing corrosion of the judiciary by right-wing judges to enshrine in law a right to discriminate, according to Americans for Financial Reform, a broad coalition of organizations that includes civil rights and racial justice groups.
Letters to Regulators: Letter to the CFPB Requesting Rulemaking to Ban Medical Debt from Credit Reports
AFREF joined 91 coalition partners in sending a letter to the CFPB in support of banning all medical debt from consumer credit reports. The letter asks the CFPB to take a step further and address this issue by beginning the rulemaking process to ban medical for medically necessary services.
AFREF joined a letter to the CFPB urging it to take action on the ongoing issue of forced arbitration in consumer financial services/products.