House Financial Services Committtee Votes to Cripple CFPB Right After CFPB Punishes Wells Fargo for Opening Phony Consumer Accounts

by Jeff Sovern

As has been widely reported, last week the CFPB fined Wells Fargo $100 million for setting up phony accounts in consumers' names.  But that didn't stop the House Financial Services Committee from voting yesterday on a largely party-line vote to adopt the Financial Choice Act, which would gut the Bureau. According to Law360, the bill has no "shot a[t] passage this year but it seen as a preview of Republicans’ 2017 banking legislation."  According to the Committee's Executive Summary, here is what the bill would do to the CFPB: 

  • Change the name of the CFPB to the "Consumer Financial Opportunity Commission (CFOC)," and task it with the dual mission of consumer protection and competitive markets, with a cost-benefit analysis of rules performed by an Office of Economic Analysis.
  •  Replace the current single director with a bipartisan, five-member commission which is subject to congressional oversight and appropriations.
  •  Establish an independent, Senate-confirmed Inspector General.
  •  Require the Commission obtain permission before collecting personally identifiable information on consumers.
  •  Repeal authority to ban bank products or services it deems "abusive" and its authority to prohibit arbitration.
  •  Repeal indirect auto lending guidance.



0 thoughts on “House Financial Services Committtee Votes to Cripple CFPB Right After CFPB Punishes Wells Fargo for Opening Phony Consumer Accounts

  1. K. Rowlett says:

    We need more ecology and environmental justice in these SE TN, N GA historic natural resource rich areas that are upon a (miles big) waterfilled sinkhole or cave which has not collapsed yet, and we want it to remain that way in these historic American Indian and Civil/Revolutionary War areas. These areas do not need to be “the real estate hub” or significantly more trafficked than it is, thus bringing more traffic into these areas which was said in the 70s to always need to remain as sparsely populated rural areas. These areas could be possibly dangerous to the potential residents of these other kinds of living, and we do not need more real estate developments/expansions, businesses, buidlings, or bigger roads, highways, interstates or enlarged roads, etc. (We also do not need or want ‘driverless cars” (among other possible dangers) in/and around these areas, which is subject to possbly becoming widespread contaminated waters, as was noted in the 70s. These areas were supposed to be allowed to remain as very natural, and would be dangerous for consumers of housing,etc., as they have not been told that these areas are on a unique geology and/or that it might be unsafe for consumers.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *