The Fifth Circuit’s radical and unprecedented decision in the case of CFPB vs. CFSA, if confirmed, would undermine the critical work carried out by the CFPB in protecting consumers and enforcing regulations on Wall Street and predatory lenders, according to an amicus brief filed by consumer advocates.
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.
WASHINGTON – In response to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s (CFPB) call for public input on how to save Americans billions in junk fees charged by financial companies, leading consumer advocacy organizations submitted an extensive comment letter detailing junk fees across a wide range of consumer financial products and services. The letter was submitted by Americans for Financial Reform (AFR), the Center for Responsible Lending (CRL), Consumer Federation of America (CFA), the National Community Reinvestment Coalition (NCRC), and National Consumer Law Center (NCLC) (on behalf of its low-income clients).
The recommendations below are focused on direct relief for consumers and individuals with debt burdens, which should be in addition to other efforts to provide broader fiscal relief and to support small businesses.
There was no evidence before her confirmation hearing that Kathy Kraninger would champion the interests of consumers, and there’s no evidence of it afterwards either.
A bipartisan majority of lawmakers on the Senate Banking Committee last week rejected a series of public interest amendments in order to advance a bill full of gifts to banks.
“…We are writing to express our opposition to the “Financial CHOICE Act” and to urge you to oppose this measure. This legislation would be better dubbed “Wall Street’s CHOICE Act,” as it would have a devastating effect on the ability of regulators to protect consumers and investors from Wall Street exploitation and the economy from financial risks created by too-big-to-fail megabanks. It would expose consumers, investors, and the public to greatly heightened risk of abuse in their regular dealings with the financial system, and our economy as a whole to a far greater risk of instability and crisis. “
“We believe protections for student and taxpayers should be strengthened, not scaled back. …Veterans, low-income students and students of color have been disproportionately harmed by predatory colleges. Last month, 16 organizations representing millions of military servicemembers, veterans, survivors, and military families voiced their strong support for these protections and urged Congress to fully uphold them.”