August, 17 2017, 01:45pm EDT

Whose Side Are They On: Main Street Consumers or Wall Street Banks?
The Senate Could Take Away Consumers’ Right to Go to Court to Challenge Wrongdoing by Financial Companies
WASHINGTON
One of the major battles in Congress this fall will be a fight over a regulatory repeal measure that will have lasting ramifications for Americans' constitutional rights. That measure, if it passes and is signed by the president, would take away consumers' right to challenge wrongdoing by financial companies in court.
This note provides basic information about the consumer right that is at risk and why it matters, the process Congress is using to try to repeal it and the current state of play. Please cover this important issue before a vote takes place.
Forced Arbitration "Rip-Off" Clauses
Financial companies have systematically taken away consumers' right to go to court by hiding forced arbitration "rip-off" clauses in the fine print of take-it-or-leave-it contracts. These clauses (PDF) block consumers from joining class-action lawsuits against corporate wrongdoing and push disputes into secretive arbitration proceedings rigged to favor financial companies. The average consumer forced into arbitration ends up paying more than $7,700 to the bank or lender, according to a report from the Economic Policy Institute.
Forced arbitration may be the single most important tool that predatory banks, payday lenders, credit card companies and other financial institutions have used to escape accountability for cheating and defrauding consumers. The secretive nature of arbitration proceedings - by design - conceals wrongdoing from regulatory authorities. Wells Fargo's defrauded customers were blocked from going to court and unable to share their stories - allowing the bank to continue its fraudulent practices for years before getting caught.
On July 10, the U.S. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) took a critical step toward protecting consumers by finalizing its long-awaited arbitration rule, which restricts rip-off clauses in consumer financial contracts and allows customers to join together in court to hold banks and lenders accountable when they break the law. Yet, even as a new Wells Fargo scandal seems to break almost every month, Congress is attempting to reinstate secret arbitration as the law of the land.
The Need For Protections Against Rip-Off Clauses
The result of a congressional directive and five years of careful study (PDF), the arbitration rule was proposed in May 2016 after the CFPB's comprehensive 2015 study documented that forced arbitration effectively wipes out consumer claims. Wells Fargo's fraudulent accounts scandal demonstrates how rip-off clauses allow corporations to hide and get away with egregious misconduct. Even after pledging to make things right, the bank continues to use forced arbitration to block customers from suing over fraudulent accounts and the bank's other crimes.
Letting banks and other financial institutions rip off customers with impunity is a savage attack on American consumers. By voting to overturn the CFPB's arbitration rule, Republicans in Congress are choosing predatory banks, payday lenders, credit card companies and the financial industry over Main Street Americans and putting themselves on the wrong side of history.
Forced arbitration is particularly harmful to military servicemembers, who are in no position to individually challenge a financial institution's illegal or unfair practices due to their limited resources, frequent relocations and deployments overseas. Class actions are the only way many servicemembers can enforce their rights and obtain justice.
With the CFPB rule in place, consumers still can choose to pursue arbitration if they prefer. But there is absolutely no consumer benefit in being forced into arbitration and losing the right to file a class-action lawsuit; these suits return $440 million to 6.8 million consumers every year, after attorneys' fees and court costs.
The Congressional Review Act
Just 15 days after the CFPB finalized the arbitration rule, the U.S. House of Representatives passed a Congressional Review Act (CRA) resolution of disapproval striking down the rule. The CRA allows Congress - by majority vote in both chambers, with limited debate, no possibility of a filibuster and the president's signature - to overturn recently issued public protections. Making matters worse, the CRA blocks agencies from issuing rules that are "substantially the same" without express authorization from Congress.
The CRA process gives the U.S. Senate until roughly the end of October to act.
To date, Republicans in Congress and President Donald Trump have used the CRA to strike down 14 regulatory protections as payback to their corporate donors, who spent more than $1 billion to get their way. Seven months into the Trump administration, these 14 resolutions remain the only legislation of consequence the president has signed other than Russia sanctions (which Trump signed reluctantly). The arbitration rule is at serious risk of becoming the 15th protection repealed using the CRA's expedited process.
The financial industry has given more than $100 million in campaign contributions to Senate Republicans co-sponsoring the CRA resolution, according to an analysis (PDF) from Public Citizen. These contributions may explain why Republicans in Congress are willing to aid and abet bank rip-offs of their own constituents (PDF) - even after many of these same politicians condemned Wells Fargo for its litany of financial abuses and even in the face of polling showing that voters in both parties strongly support protections against rip-off clauses.
The State of Play
According to press reports, U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) opposes the CRA resolution overturning the arbitration rule, and U.S. Sens. Susan Collins (R-Maine), John Kennedy (R-La.), and Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) remain undecided as to how they will vote. Every senator who wants to be able to look a Wells Fargo customer in the eye should oppose repeal. Siding with consumers should be an easy choice.
With so many pressing issues on the congressional docket this fall - government funding, the debt ceiling, renewal of the Children's Health Insurance Program and the National Flood Insurance Program, and more - it would be a relief to tens of millions of American consumers if these senators never had to make a choice.
Senators are expected to return to Washington, D.C. on September 5, concluding the August recess. From that point until late October, the CRA resolution to repeal the arbitration could be brought to the floor for a vote at any time. If this CRA resolution follows the timetable of similar resolutions voted on in the spring, there will be less than 24 hours of advanced warning when a Senate vote is scheduled.
In late March, Americans across the ideological spectrum were shocked to learn that Congress had repealed broadband privacy protections and dismayed that the public hadn't been warned in advance about such a flagrant and unpopular corporate power-grab. The CRA's lightning-fast repeal process allowed Congress to act before the press caught wind of what was happening. It easily could happen again.
The time to cover forced arbitration is now. Please contact any of the individuals listed above to speak with an expert.
Public Citizen is a nonprofit consumer advocacy organization that champions the public interest in the halls of power. We defend democracy, resist corporate power and work to ensure that government works for the people - not for big corporations. Founded in 1971, we now have 500,000 members and supporters throughout the country.
(202) 588-1000LATEST NEWS
'Evil and Cruel': GOP Lawmaker Shamed for Unloading Medicaid-Related Stock Before Voting to Gut Program
"Their bill will gut Medicaid and kill people, and they know it," said Rep. Delia Ramirez (D-Ill.).
Jul 03, 2025
Republican Congressman Robert Bresnahan of Pennsylvania got publicly shamed by many of his congressional colleagues on Thursday after it was revealed he unloaded a Medicaid-related stock before voting for a massive budget package that enacted historically devastating cuts to the program.
Quiver Quantitative, an investment data platform that tracks stock trades made by politicians and other prominent public figures, revealed on its X account that Bresnahan recently sold shares he'd owned in Centene Corporation, a for-profit firm that specializes in delivering healthcare exchanges for Medicaid. In the weeks since he sold his shares in the company, their value plunged by more than 40 percent.
Quiver Quantitative added that while Bresnahan claims not to manage his own stock portfolio, he does not appear to have set up a qualified blind trust that would eliminate potential conflicts of interest between his investments and his work as a member of Congress.
Regardless, many of Bresnahan's Democratic colleagues reacted with fury and disgust to revelations that the Centene shares were dropped before he voted for a bill that will slash more than $1 trillion from Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP) over the span of a decade.
"This Congressman literally dumped stock in a Medicaid provider company right before this bill came to the floor," wrote Rep. Melanie Stansbury (D-N.M.) on X. "Don't be fooled—these guys know exactly what they're doing."
"Wow," marveled Rep. Maxwell Frost (D-Fla.). "So he votes to gut Medicaid and throw 17 million people off of their healthcare and then dumps his Medicaid related stock to cover his own ass? That's just evil and cruel."
"If the Big Ugly Nasty Bill doesn't hurt Medicaid, why are Republicans selling their Medicaid-associated stocks?" asked Rep. Delia Ramirez (D-Ill.). "Their words say one thing, their actions another. Their bill will gut Medicaid and kill people, and they know it."
Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) ripped Bresnahan for "protecting his stock portfolio while ripping away health care from 17 million Americans" with his vote to gut Medicaid.
"This is Washington at its worst," she added. "We need to ban Congressional stock trading."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Climate Change Fueling 'Most Widespread and Damaging' Droughts in History: UN Report
"This is not a dry spell," said the co-author of a new U.N. report. "This is a slow-moving global catastrophe."
Jul 03, 2025
Climate change is driving "some of the most widespread and damaging drought events in recorded history," according to a report published Wednesday on global drought hotspots.
Over the past two years, droughts have fueled increased food insecurity, dehydration, and disease that have heightened poverty and political instability in several regions of the world, according to research by the U.S. National Drought Mitigation Center (NDMC) and the UN Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD).
"This is not a dry spell," says Dr. Mark Svoboda, report co-author and NDMC Director. "This is a slow-moving global catastrophe, the worst I've ever seen. This report underscores the need for systematic monitoring of how drought affects lives, livelihoods, and the health of the ecosystems that we all depend on."
The report examined conditions in some of the globe's most drought-prone regions. They found that the economic disruption caused by droughts today is twice as high as in 2000.
In Eastern and Southern Africa, which have been blighted with dangerously low levels of rainfall, more than 90 million people face acute hunger.
Somalia has been hit particularly hard, with 4.4 million, more than a quarter of the population, facing "crisis level" food insecurity in early 2025. Zambia, meanwhile, faced one of the world's worst energy crises last year when the Zambezi River dried up, causing its hydroelectric dams to run critically low.
Other drought-plagued regions have seen wide ranges of ecological and economic disruptions.
In Spain, low levels of rainfall in 2023 devastated olive crops, causing olive oil prices to double. In the Amazon Basin, low water levels caused a mass death of fish and endangered dolphins. The Panama Canal became so depleted that trade vessels were forced to re-route, causing multi-week shipping delays. And in Morocco, Eid celebrations had to be cancelled due to a shortage of sheep.
Recent studies of drought have found that they are increasingly caused not by lack of rainfall, but by aggressive heat, which speeds up evaporation. The areas hit the hardest over the past two years were ones already suffering from the most severe temperature increases. It was also exacerbated by a particularly severe El Niño weather cycle in 2023-24.
"This was a perfect storm," says report co-author Dr. Kelly Helm Smith, NDMC Assistant Director and drought impacts researcher. "El Niño added fuel to the fire of climate change, compounding the effects for many vulnerable societies and ecosystems past their limits."
Though the effects of droughts are often felt most acutely in areas already suffering from poverty and instability, the researchers predict that as they get worse, the effects will be felt worldwide.
In 2024, then the hottest year on record, 48 of the 50 U.S. states faced drought conditions, the highest proportion ever seen. Drought in the U.S. has coincided with a dramatic increase in wildfire frequency and severity over the past 50 years.
"Ripple effects can turn regional droughts into global economic shocks," Smith said. "No country is immune when critical water-dependent systems start to collapse."
The researchers advocated for investments in global drought prevention, but also for broader measures to address the existing inequalities that make droughts more severe.
"Drought has a disproportionate effect on those with few resources," Smith said. "We can act now to reduce the effects of future droughts by working to ensure that everyone has access to food, water, education, health care and economic opportunity."
The researchers also emphasized the urgency of coordinated action to confront the climate crisis.
"The struggles...to secure water, food, and energy under persistent drought offer a preview of water futures under unchecked global warming," said Svoboda. "No country, regardless of wealth or capacity, can afford to be complacent."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump-GOP Budget Bill Will Give Top 1% Over $1 Trillion in Tax Breaks: Analysis
The amount set to flow to a "tiny sliver of affluent families" over the next decade is roughly equal to the Medicaid cuts included in the Republican bill, according to the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy.
Jul 03, 2025
An analysis released Thursday estimates that the Republican legislation on the brink of final passage in Congress would deliver over $1 trillion in combined tax breaks to the richest 1% of Americans over the next decade—an amount roughly equal to the bill's unprecedented cuts to Medicaid.
The new analysis by the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP), which utilizes data from the nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation and other sources, finds that the "tiny sliver of affluent families" in the top 1% of the U.S. income distribution will "receive tax cuts totaling $1.02 trillion over the next decade."
The centerpiece of Trump's megabill is a trillion-dollar tax cut to the wealthy, paid for by increasing the national debt and cutting public services. pic.twitter.com/ISr2XuIdJQ
— ITEP (@iteptweets) July 3, 2025
ITEP has previously shown that the Republican bill's tax cuts—largely extensions of expiring provisions of the 2017 Trump-GOP tax law—would be highly skewed to the wealthy, with the small percentage of households at the very top receiving significantly more in total tax breaks than middle- and lower-income Americans.
"Sixty-nine percent of the net tax cuts would go to the richest fifth of Americans in 2026, only 11% would go to the middle fifth of Americans, and less than 1% would go to the poorest fifth," the group found. "The $107 billion in net tax cuts going to the richest 1% next year would exceed the amount going to the entire bottom 60% of taxpayers."
ITEP's new analysis was released as House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) wrapped up a record-breaking, eight-hour-plus speech against the GOP legislation, which delayed a final vote on the measure. Republicans are expected to pass the unpopular bill on Thursday.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular