Consumer Protection Panel Actually Wants to Deregulate Wall Street, Lawsuit Alleges

Under Trump, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has moved away from policing the financial industry.

Graeme Sloan/AP

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.

In October 2019, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau—tasked with enforcing federal regulations on financial institutions—announced the creation of a new task force to conduct an “objective and independent evaluation” of current financial regulations. On Tuesday, the watchdog group Democracy Forward filed a lawsuit against the CFPB, alleging that the bureau has intentionally stacked the task force with supporters of Wall Street deregulation.

The lawsuit—filed on behalf of the National Association of Consumer Advocates, US Public Interest Research Group, and a consumer finance professor who applied for a position on the task force and was rejected—alleges that the skewed membership is a violation of a federal law designed to prevent special interest groups from swaying federal agencies by way of advisory boards.

During the Trump administration, consumer watchdogs say, the agency has been focused more on deregulating financial institutions than on keeping them in check. President Trump’s first appointee to run the CFPB, Mick Mulvaney, is a longtime foe of the agency. While in charge, he shelved investigations, weakened regulation of payday lenders, and dismissed advisory boards stacked with consumer finance experts. Since Kathy Kraninger took over in 2018, the bureau has moved away from enforcement actions and instead prioritized supervision and prevention—a shift that critics worry will keep companies’ bad behavior from coming to light. 

Within three months of announcing the task force’s creation, the CFPB settled on its five members. The chairman it appointed, lawyer Todd Zywicki, often criticized the CFPB under President Obama, called it a “train wreck,” and defended a company under investigation by the agency for an illegal debt relief scam. Other members include a former Federal Reserve economist who has written articles calling for the rollback of financial regulations, a lawyer for several payday lenders sued or investigated by the CFPB, and a business professor who in expert testimony had argued that payday loans with high interest rates are beneficial to consumers.

The task force membership earned criticism from Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.)—who proposed and helped build the CFPB after the 2008 financial crisis—and her Senate colleague Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio). The pair sent a letter to the Kraninger in February, expressing “significant concerns” over the makeup of the task force and calling on her to suspend the task force and to answer a detailed list of questions about how it was constructed.

“The members you selected make clear that the Taskforce is just a pretext to gut regulations and protections for consumers,” the senators wrote. “The pro-industry, deregulatory makeup of the Taskforce is no accident.”

They also wrote that they’d heard of at least five consumer finance experts who had applied for membership on the task force and been rejected. They asked whether the task force was subject to the Federal Advisory Commission Act (FACA), which requires that federal advisory boards include a fair balance of views.

The Democracy Forward lawsuit picks up where Warren and Brown left off. The lawsuit alleges that the CFPB’s actions in forming the task force are a violation of FACA.

According to the suit, Kathleen Engel, a mortgage finance expert and law professor at Suffolk University, interviewed to join the task force after submitting an application through the CFPB’s open process. She had previously sat on the CFPB’s Consumer Advisory Board, a group of prominent consumer finance experts that Mulvaney dismissed in 2018. In her interview with a political appointee, the suit states, she was asked questions aimed at determining her stance on deregulation, instead of questions about her qualifications.

“The Federal Consumer Financial Law Taskforce is the latest effort by a Trump appointee to outsource policymaking to private interests while excluding other voices,” said Democracy Forward Executive Director Anne Harkavy in an emailed statement. “In the midst of an economic downturn, the CFPB should not be excluding consumer advocates from key policymaking conversations about how to protect American families.”

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate