Skip to main content

Sign up for our newsletter.

Quality journalism. Progressive values. Direct to your inbox.

Sen. Tim Kaine (D-VA) talks with Sen. Angus King (I-ME) during a hearing on Capitol Hill, October 19, 2017 in Washington, DC. Both senators were among the seventeen Democratic caucus members who voted in favor of a financial dergulation bill on Tuesday. "This bill wouldn't be on the path to becoming law without the support of these Democrats," said Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) following the vote. (Photo: Drew Angerer/Getty Images)

One Thing Democrats and Republicans Apparently Agree On: Deregulating Wall Street

There is no constituency for bank deregulation outside of executive boardrooms and K Street lobby shops. And yet here we are...

Next week marks the 10th anniversary of the run on Bear Stearns, the investment bank that collapsed under the weight of toxic subprime mortgages. Although JPMorgan Chase snapped up Bear Stearns for pennies on the dollar, this maneuver failed to stop the bleeding from the mortgage meltdown, leading to the biggest economic crisis in nearly a century.

That seems like a terrible political backdrop for the Senate to pass a bill that deregulates the banking sector. But that's exactly what's about to happen.

The Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief and Consumer Protection Act, which pro-regulation groups have called the "Bank Lobbyist Act," advanced in the Senate this week with the support of 50 Republicans, 16 Democrats, and one Democratic-leaning independent. Bipartisanship, it seems, isn't dead.

We're witnessing a familiar swing of the pendulum: toward regulation when banks crash the economy, away from regulation when memories fade. The next stop is often financial crisis, and the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office stated this week that the bipartisan legislation would increase the risk of another one happening.

"We’re witnessing a familiar swing of the pendulum: toward regulation when banks crash the economy, away from regulation when memories fade."

Pitched as a way to provide regulatory relief for community banks, the bill goes well beyond that; it rolls back key pieces of the Dodd-Frank Act and includes giveaways to large institutions of the same size and scope as the ones that crashed the economy in 2008.

The most important measure in the legislation raises the threshold for enhanced regulatory supervision by the Federal Reserve from $50 billion to $250 billion. The beneficiaries, 25 of the top 38 banks in America, could be called "stadium banks:" not big enough to count as Wall Street mega-banks, but big enough to have a sports stadium named after them.

A failure of one or more of these banks would likely be catastrophic — a fact made obvious by the recent past. For example, Calabasas-based Countrywide was America's biggest subprime lender, supplying one out of every five new mortgages, when it fell in 2008, deepening the financial crisis. It had assets of $200 billion.

Dodd-Frank targeted stadium banks for more rigorous monitoring and increased capital and liquidity requirements, so they — instead of taxpayers — could pay for their own losses. If the new legislation releases stadium banks from such rules, they could take on more risk, and they would lose a powerful disincentive to get even bigger by gobbling up smaller rivals. So although it is intended to enhance community bank competition, the deregulatory legislation will likely consolidate the industry.

Technically speaking, the Federal Reserve could still apply tighter rules on these banks. But a one-word change in the bill, from "may" to "shall," obligates the Fed to tailor any new rule it makes to a bank's size and risk profile. This language is an invitation to litigation, with banks claiming that the Fed didn't undertake the proper cost-benefit analysis. It actually would leave the Fed more constrained to act than before the financial crisis. And the Fed didn't exactly cover itself in glory during that episode.

"When powerful interests need something done, suddenly Democrats and Republicans can put aside differences and work together."

Big banks shouldn't be jealous, as they get goodies as well. Nearly all giant foreign banks with operations in the U.S. could enjoy the same weaker rules as the stadium banks. Stress tests currently conducted semi-annually to measure how big banks would perform in a downturn will now occur on a "periodic" basis, with no definition of "periodic" given. Citigroup and JPMorgan could take advantage of a relaxation of leverage rules, enabling them to take on more debt and ramp up risk. And big banks would also be able to count municipal bonds as highly liquid assets, hooking an unrelated $3.8-trillion market into any financial catastrophe.

The list of problems with the legislation goes on. It rips consumer protections away from mortgage borrowers. It exempts 85% of banks and credit unions from supplying data used to detect discriminatory lending practices. There are a few crumbs for consumers, but nothing that justifies the widespread weakening of financial rules.

Banks, including the community banks that allegedly need relief, are enjoying record profits. And the Trump administration doesn't need any help deregulating the financial sector; they're busily doing that on their own. So why would more than one-third of the Senate Democratic caucus provide the margin of victory on a bill assisting Trump's aims?

The answer is simple: money. North Dakota, Indiana and Montana may not have any banking giants within their borders, but the top three recipients of campaign donations from commercial banks since 2017 are Democrats from those states who are up for reelection in November: Heidi Heitkamp, Joe Donnelly, and Jon Tester.

This whole process reveals that bipartisanship usually arrives in Washington at the barrel of a money cannon. There is no constituency for bank deregulation outside of executive boardrooms and K Street lobby shops. Nobody is begging Congress to call off financial regulators. In fact, they'll likely punish politicians who do. But when powerful interests need something done, suddenly Democrats and Republicans can put aside differences and work together. Another way of saying bipartisanship is "watch your wallet."


© 2021 Los Angeles Times
David Dayen

David Dayen

David Dayen is the executive editor of The American Prospect. His work has appeared in The Intercept, The New Republic, HuffPost, The Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times, and more. His first book, "Chain of Title: How Three Ordinary Americans Uncovered Wall Street's Great Foreclosure Fraud," winner of the Studs and Ida Terkel Prize, was released by The New Press in 2016. His book, "Fat Cat: The Steve Mnuchin Story," with Rebecca Burns, was published in 2018.

We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.

'A No-Brainer': Lawmakers Urge Pelosi to Hold Vote on Stock Trading Ban

"Perhaps this means some of our colleagues will miss out on lucrative investment opportunities," said House members in a bipartisan letter. "We don't care."

Jessica Corbett ·


Virginia Schools Sue Youngkin Mandate Making Masks Optional

The Republican governor wants to allow parents to decide whether their children should wear masks to school to mitigate Covid-19 transmission—guidance at least 58 school districts have no plans to follow.

Julia Conley ·


US Puts Troops on Standby as War Tensions Over Ukraine Mount

The U.K. threatens "lightning war" as military forces mobilize in eastern Europe.

Andrea Germanos ·


Advocacy Group Urges Pfizer to Combat Paxlovid Inequality

"Help end the pandemic this year around the world," one advocate told Pfizer. "Not just in a handful of rich countries."

Kenny Stancil ·


260+ Companies Demand 'Big, Bold Action' on Clean Energy

"The time to act is now," the firms wrote in a letter to Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi.

Andrea Germanos ·

Support our work.

We are independent, non-profit, advertising-free and 100% reader supported.

Subscribe to our newsletter.

Quality journalism. Progressive values.
Direct to your inbox.

Subscribe to our Newsletter.


Common Dreams, Inc. Founded 1997. Registered 501(c3) Non-Profit | Privacy Policy
Common Dreams Logo