Sham Poll Tells Lobbyists What They Want to Hear

In its relatively short life, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has brought basic rules of fairness and transparency to credit markets, while holding predatory lenders and financial wrongdoers like Wells Fargo accountable. It has also delivered – so far – nearly $12 billion in relief to more than 29 million consumers cheated by financial companies of one kind or another.

Across party lines, poll after poll shows overwhelming support for the actual work the CFPB has been doing, and for more, not less, Wall Street regulation in general. Even most Trump voters, according to one recent survey, oppose efforts to weaken or eliminate the Consumer Bureau, and would rather see the Dodd Frank financial reforms (which created the CFPB) maintained or expanded than scaled back or repealed.

Misleading Industry-Funded Poll

So what should we make of a new industry-funded poll that supposedly demonstrates wide backing, in eight battleground states, for a move to turn the Consumer Bureau into a “bipartisan commission”?

“This poll is a quintessential example of a survey that has been designed to produce a specific result — one that is at odds with everything else we know about public opinion on consumer protection and Wall Street reform,” according to Celinda Lake and Daniel Gotoff of Lake Research Partners.

Here’s something it proves beyond any doubt: if you write a poll question artfully, you’ll get the answer you’re after. Put the label “bipartisan” on just about anything, for example, and people will say they’re for it.

Wall Street Wants Gridlock Not Bipartisanship

“This poll is built on leading language in support of what is framed as the ‘bipartisan’ option for the CFPB, and offers no alternative scenario,” Lake and Gotoff say. “In essence, it tells us that voters have a favorable disposition to the term ‘bipartisan,’ but reveals very little about how people feel about the CFPB.”

But the warm and fuzzy picture that word conjures up – of political independence, cooperation, and roll-up-your sleeves pragmatism – is a very far cry from the reality of the “bipartisan commission” sought by the lobbyists who commissioned this survey. Gridlock would be the far more likely outcome.

A truly telling survey would provide voters with information about the entities that the CFPB regulates, highlight the importance of independence — non-partisan action — in this position, according to Lake and Gotoff.

Public Backs Strong Enforcement Agencies

Polling and focus groups with transparent professional methodologies show that large majorities of voters from every demographic favor giving federal agencies the tools they need to enforce the law on the financial services industry.

Just consider the record of the various commissions charged with regulating the financial industry in the years leading up to the 2008 financial and economic meltdown. Two of them, the Federal Reserve and the Securities and Exchange Commission, could have done a lot to prevent that disaster. Neither did much of anything.

That’s the historical pattern, and that’s why the industry is so fond of this regulatory structure. The impetus for making the CFPB a commission isn’t coming from voters or consumers; it’s coming financial industry executives and lobbyists like the ones who paid for this poll – and from the far too many elected officials who seem to be prepared to do their bidding with little regard for the wishes or interests of their constituents.

— Jim Lardner

Oppose Wall Street’s CHOICE Act

“This terrible bill ignores the lessons of the financial crisis and includes a huge list of giveaways to Wall Street,” said Lisa Donner, executive director of Americans for Financial Reform. “Though it may work for Wall Street and assorted predatory lenders, it is dangerous policy that is bad for financial stability, bad for consumers, bad for investors, and bad for the real economy.”

Call it what it is: Wall Street’s CHOICE Act. A detailed analysis of the bill can be found here. In broad terms it would:

  • Create unprecedented barriers to regulatory action that would effectively give large financial institutions veto power to overturn or avoid government oversight.
  • Eviscerate the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and make it impossible for it to act forcefully against unfair or abusive practices in consumer lending markets.
  • Eliminate critical elements of regulatory reforms passed since the financial crisis, including restrictions on subprime mortgage lending, the Volcker Rule ban on banks engaging in hedge-fund like speculation, and restrictions on excessive Wall Street bonuses.
  • Increase the ability of “too big to fail” financial institutions to hold up taxpayers for a bailout by threatening economic disaster if they failed.
  • Weaken investor protections and accountability in the capital markets, including the elimination of crucial new fiduciary protections for retirement savers.

“The level of venom directed at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, an agency that is successfully carrying out its mission of preventing tricks and traps that harm American families, is astounding,” Donner said. “The changes proposed by the legislation only make sense if you want to weaken consumer protections and make it easier for Wall Street, and predatory lenders, to profit by cheating people.”

Wall Street’s CHOICE Act would:

  • End the Consumer Bureau’s authority to supervise large banks, returning to the failed consumer regulatory model that brought us the financial crisis.
  • Take away the Consumer Bureau’s core authority to take on unfair, deceptive and abusive practices, a power that has enabled the Bureau to stop Wells Fargo from opening fake accounts in their customers’ names; prohibit lenders from making false threats in debt collection; and refund consumers tricked into paying for worthless credit card add-ons.
  • Limit supervision of non-bank financial companies.
  • Undermine the Consumer Bureau’s independence, making it subject to the whims of the White House and Wall Street lobbyists.
  • Eliminate all CFPB jurisdiction over payday and title loans, preventing it it from taking on the unaffordable lending at the heart of the payday debt trap, and also from acting against payday lenders that break the law.
  • Stop the Consumer Bureau’s rulemaking on forced arbitration, which is otherwise on track to restore consumers rights to hold financial institutions accountable in court if they break the law..
  • Create massive loopholes in the rules put in place to discourage the kind of unaffordable mortgages that were at the heart of the foreclosure crisis.
  • Hide the public consumer complaint system that has been so useful in making financial companies more responsive to their customers.

NetSpend Stealthily Settles FTC Charges Ahead of Fight Over CFPB Prepaid Card Rules

The Georgia company leading the charge against new rules for prepaid cards has agreed to refund $53 million for denying customers’ access to their own money despite ads promising “instant access.”

The under-the-radar settlement between NetSpend and the Federal Trade Commission was released late last Friday night, just two days after Senator David Perdue and other Georgia lawmakers quietly moved to utilize an obscure law to block the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s prepaid card rule. That rule would guard consumers against fraud, improve disclosures of hidden fees, and limit – although not prohibit – prepaid cards with overdraft features that turn the cards into high-cost credit products.  The rule also protects workers by requiring employers to disclose fees on payroll cards before employees sign up and making sure that workers know they do not need to accept their pay in that form.

Prepaid cards should be just that: prepaid, as are 98 percent of such cards currently on the market. NetSpend is the big exception to the rule – the only major prepaid company with opt-in overdraft fees, deceptively marketed as “protection.” NetSpend primarily sells its cards, which can repeatedly trigger $15-$25 overdraft fees, through payday lenders and employers, such as fast food chains. The company’s biggest single distributor is the payday lending chain ACE Cash Express. NetSpend cards are also unusual in permitting payday lenders to debit accounts on a user’s payday, potentially triggering an overdraft fee.

The company is fighting the CFPB rule because, it has told investors, it stands to lose roughly $80 million in fees annually if the rule goes through.

Users of prepaid cards often live paycheck to paycheck. But after wooing customers with ads promising “guaranteed approval” and “immediate access” to funds with “no waiting,” NetSpend kept some people waiting for weeks, or never approved them at all, even after they had loaded money onto their cards. The FTC order prohibits NetSpend from misrepresenting its card activation procedures in the future, in addition to requiring the company to return $53 million to those who were denied access to their money.

Largely at NetSpend’s behest, lawmakers have filed resolutions in both the House of Representatives and the Senate, invoking the rarely used Congressional Review Act to keep the CFPB’s prepaid card rule from taking effect. If the resolutions are approved, the consumer watchdog will be forever barred from enacting a substantially similar rule without Congress’s permission.

The largest prepaid card company, Green Dot, supports the CFPB’s rule, which basically assures prepaid card users of protections they already enjoy with credit and debit cards. In fact, no prepaid card company other than NetSpend has come out against the rule. It would be outrageous for Congress to block these common sense protections for millions of Americans simply in order to allow a single company to keep gouging cash-strapped families with overdraft fees to the collective tune of $80 million or more a yea

The prepaid card rule is scheduled to go into effect on October 1, 2017, although the CFPB has agreed to extend the effective date until to April 1, 2018, to allow companies more time to bring their practices into full compliance. — Lauren Saunders

Lauren Saunders is Associate Director of the National Consumer Law Center
Related National Consumer Law Center Related Materials:

 

Ahead of CFPB Rule, Congress Prepares for a Showdown over the Future of Forced Arbitration and Consumer Class Actions

Image credit: Johnny Silvercloud (CC BY-SA 2.0)

Last week, lawmakers laid the groundwork for a battle over consumer rights and forced arbitration that likely will play out through the spring.

First, congressional Democrats introduced several bills to restore consumers’ right to hold corporations accountable in court for wrongdoing. Led by U.S. Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.), lawmakers on March 7 introduced a slate of bills aimed at ending the use of forced arbitration in various sectors. Forced arbitration provisions, also known as “ripoff clauses,” block consumers from challenging illegal corporate behavior.

Lawmakers were joined at a packed press conference by people who had been harmed by forced arbitration: a veteran illegally fired from his job while serving in the military and blocked from suing his employer; a victim of Wells Fargo fraud whose class action was kicked out of court; and former news anchor Gretchen Carlson, barred from speaking out about sexual harassment she had suffered at Fox News.

Among the bills introduced were Franken’s Arbitration Fairness Act, which would prohibit forced arbitration in consumer, employment, civil rights, and antitrust cases and Sen. Sherrod Brown’s (D-Ohio) Justice for Victims of Fraud Act, which would close the “Wells Fargo loophole” by restoring consumers’ right to sue when banks open fraudulent accounts without their knowledge.

However, in stark contrast to this push to strengthen rights and restore corporate accountability, GOP lawmakers began pressing to make it harder for consumers to band together when harmed and take corporations to court.

Two days after the Franken press conference, the House passed H.R. 985, the so-called “Fairness in Class Action Litigation Act” would effectively kill class actions by imposing insurmountable requirements to file group lawsuits. This would make it nearly impossible for consumers to hold corporations accountable for illegal and abusive behavior.

Among other onerous provisions, H.R. 985 would require that each harmed person suffer the “same type and scope of injury.” Under this absurd standard, a Wells Fargo customer with two fake accounts opened in his or her name could be barred from joining together with customers who had three fraudulent accounts. The bill also would build in costly and unnecessary delays and appeals, limit plaintiffs’ choice of counsel, and drastically restrict attorneys’ fees.

Joining together in a class action often is the only chance real people have to fight back against widespread harm, including corporate fraud and scams – particularly when claims involve small amounts of money, where it would be too costly for an individual to pursue a separate claim. Class actions have also been critical vehicles for overcoming race- and gender-based discrimination and have been instrumental in achieving victories as momentous as desegregation of our schools, as was the case in Brown v. Board of Education.

Beyond protecting the rights of the disadvantaged, class actions act as a crucial check on corporate misbehavior by returning money to harmed consumers and workers. Removing the threat of class liability would encourage systemic fraud, as banks and lenders that pad their bottom lines by committing fraud would have a competitive advantage in the marketplace.

In the financial sector, the proposed CFPB arbitration rule is a major target of financial industry lobbyists precisely because it would restore the right of consumers to join class action lawsuits. According to the CFPB’s arbitration study, class actions returned $2.2 billion in cash relief to 34 million consumers from 2008-2012, not including attorneys’ fees and litigation costs. While the CFPB rule is expected to be finalized this spring, it would be rendered largely ineffective should H.R. 985 become law.

You can watch our video against H.R. 985 here and follow developments on Twitter using the hashtag, #RipoffClause.

Goldman Sachs Is Riding High Over Trump

By Carter Dougherty

Over the past month, Goldman’s share price has hovered above its previous all-time high which was set in late 2007, just before the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression hit the global economy. That’s a 42 percent increase since Trump’s election!

The business press knows why. Bloomberg News: The share price has rallied on optimism that the Trump administration “will spur trading and dealmaking, slash corporate taxes and roll back costly regulations after installing the firm’s executives in top government posts.”

Today’s news: Trump has nominated Goldman alumnus Jim Donovan to be deputy Treasury secretary.

Goldman Sachs alumni are assuming more powerful positions in Washington than ever before.

He’ll have plenty of company. There’s Gary Cohn, director of the National Economic Council in the Trump White House. And Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin, the former Goldman banker who lied to Congress about his role in the fraudulent processing of foreclosure documents.

Dina Powell is also in the White House, having been an adviser to Trump’s daughter, Ivanka, from her perch at Goldman. Trump’s close adviser and far-right media maven Steve Bannon also worked there. And, Trump’s nominee to run the Securities and Exchange Commission, Jay Clayton, has long been a Goldman lawyer from his perch at Sullivan & Cromwell.

“Cohn and Mnuchin are poised to preside over a rollback of financial regulations that arguably threatened Goldman more than any other top bank in the years following the financial crisis,” Bloomberg pointed out.

Even the Financial Times finds this level of self-dealing by Goldman embarrassing

“It is becoming awkward for Goldman,” writes longtime Financial Times columnist John Gapper. “Having former executives in governments and central banks around the world is useful, as is the prospect of looser regulation. Being visible at the helm is embarrassing, especially when executive power is clearly being used to Wall Street’s benefit.”

Goldman employees enjoy huge Goldman bonuses before joining government

Goldman gave Cohn a severance package of nearly $300 million when he left the firm, a huge golden parachute that makes it even cushier for executives to work in the government.

“They’re playing a game, and they’re playing a game to make this person feel beholden to Goldman Sachs,” Richard W. Painter, a professor at the University of Minnesota Law School and former Bush administration official, told The New York Times.

Appointees are involved with policy affecting Goldman, no matter the “recusals”

Cohn has let it be known through anonymous sources that he will recuse himself from anything “directly” affecting Goldman. But the comment only underscores how serious the problem is. The White House isn’t supposed to involve itself in enforcement at all, nor should it jump into the regulatory process at independent agencies. So as a matter of course he should not be involved in this kind of matter “directly” involving the company. And what does “directly” mean?

He is already deeply involved in matters bearing on Goldman’s profits. He and Treasury Secretary Mnuchin are both working, for example, on plans to roll back the Volcker Rule, a regulation that protects the economy by barring big banks from speculating with their customers’ money. It also stops Goldman from profitable activities it would love to continue.

 

New Report Shows Wall Street Benefits from Huge Tax Subsidies

Twenty-three major American financial firms – including Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan Chase, State Street, PNC Bank, and Wells Fargo – received over $95 billion in tax benefits from 2008 to 2015, according to a new study. Loopholes in federal policy lowered their effective tax rate from the headline 35 percent to below 20 percent – a reduction that increases the fiscal burden on everyone else.

The Institute for Taxation and Economic Policy examined taxes paid by 258 Fortune 500 corporations over the past eight years, and how these taxes compared to what would be paid if these companies paid the full corporate tax rate of 35 percent.

The institute found that these companies enjoyed huge tax subsidies that lowered their tax rates far below the 35 percent rate set in the law,.

The 23 financial firms in the study – including such major banks as Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan Chase, State Street, PNC Bank, and Wells Fargo – received over $95 billion in total tax benefits over the study period.

Some $69 billion of these tax benefits were received by just four highly profitable banks: Wells Fargo, JP Morgan Chase, PNC Bank, and Goldman Sachs.

A few banks, such as State Street and PNC Bank, paid tax rates well under 10 percent. We do not have the data to determine precisely which tax loopholes created these massive benefits, although the ability to move profits to lower-tax foreign jurisdictions likely played a role. But one tax loophole that clearly was highly beneficial to many financial institutions was the ability to write off the giant stock option payments made to their top executives.

Goldman Sachs, for example, reduced its 8-year tax bill by almost 20 percent just using this one loophole.

As large as it is, this tax subsidy of nearly $100 billion is certainly a major underestimate of the tax benefits flowing to the financial sector.

Only 23 financial firms were included in the study, because it was limited to Fortune 500 public companies that had made profits — and therefore had tax liability — over every year in the study period. This rule meant that major banks like Citibank, Morgan Stanley, and Bank of America weren’t included in the study, to say nothing of numerous other companies that were either private companies or too small to be included.

Source: http://www.itep.org/pdf/35percentfullreport.pdf

Faces of Forced Arbitration

Stories of consumers harmed by forced arbitration in financial services contracts.

Photo credit: Juli Shannon (CC BY-NC-ND 2.0)

This afternoon, lawmakers introduced several pieces of legislation to curb the growing use of “ripoff clauses” and ensure harmed consumers, service members, students, and workers have a right to fight back in court against corporate wrongdoing. Known as forced arbitration, this practice strips Americans of any meaningful way to hold companies accountable for fraud or abuse and grants corporations a license to steal to pad its bottom line.

Forced arbitration no place in any system that is fair to everyday people. The bills introduced today would work hand-in-hand with a rule proposed by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) to restrict the financial industry’s use of forced arbitration. Below are the stories of several real people harmed by forced arbitration, who would benefit from this newly-introduced legislation and the proposed CFPB rule.

Credit Cards

Tracy Kilgore, New Mexico

In July 2011, Tracy Kilgore went to a local Wells Fargo branch to change a signature card on behalf of the Daughters of the American Revolution, where she volunteered as Treasurer. Tracy did not personally bank with Wells Fargo or have any accounts with them. The bank teller asked her for her name and ID and began typing away her computer, and she promptly left once the change was processed.

Two weeks later, Tracy received a letter from Wells Fargo saying her credit card application had been rejected, though she never applied for one. When she saw the application was filed the day after she had visited the Wells Fargo branch, it became clear the bank tried to open a fraudulent credit card in her name. After Tracy found the rejected application was listed on her credit report, she called and wrote to Wells Fargo for months asking them to remove it. The bank kept saying it would take another 7-10 days, then another 2-3 weeks, to no avail. In the end, she never even got an apology.

Now, Tracy has joined with other defrauded customers in a class action lawsuit against the bank, but Wells Fargo is trying to force each consumer to fight them one-by-one in a biased and secretive arbitration system. Even though Tracy has never banked with Wells Fargo, their lawyers are trying to block her from suing them in court by pointing to an arbitration clause she never signed.

Auto Financing

Sergeant Charles Beard, California

Sergeant Charles Beard was about to be deployed to Iraq and asked for some help making his car payments. His lender, Santander Consumer USA, Inc., offered him a forbearance for a few months, but in exchange, had Sergeant Beard sign a modified lease agreement. Little did he know, a forced arbitration provision was buried in the fine print.

While serving his country in Iraq, Sergeant Beard fell behind in his payments.  Men came to his home and repossessed the car – breaking federal law, which protects active duty soldiers by requiring lenders to obtain court orders before seizing their cars. Sergeant Beard brought a class action against the lender with other soldiers to enforce their protections under federal law, but their claims were thrown out due to a class action ban in the arbitration clause.

Payday Loans

Stephanie Banks, Oregon

In August 2013, Stephanie Banks made $15 an hour as a bookkeeper for the Salvation Army. To help pay rent for her and her son, she took out a $300 loan from the payday lender Rapid Cash, putting up the title to her car as collateral. Her interest rate was capped at 153.73% per year under state law.  Soon after, Ms. Banks started chemotherapy to treat her lung cancer and retired from her job. A year later, she was in serious financial trouble, and had to declare bankruptcy. She listed the loan from Rapid Cash as a debt to discharge and finished the process in court with a lawyer.

Then, in August 2015, Ms. Banks almost had a heart attack when she received a letter from a collection service, claiming she owed Rapid Cash over $40,000. They threatened to destroy her credit if she did not pay immediately. Ms. Banks filed a free motion in court to dispute the $40,000 claim. Rapid Cash responded by pointing to an arbitration clause, buried in the fine print of the original agreement she signed two years earlier. The court ruled the clause still held and Ms. Banks would have to argue her case to a private arbitration firm chosen by Rapid Cash. To do this, she would have to pay $200 in arbitration fees, almost as much as her original loan.

Debt Relief

Bernardita Duran, New York

Bernardita Duran was 53 years old with only $700 in Social Security income when she paid an Arizona debt relief company to settle her credit card debts. Four thousand dollars later, Ms. Duran realized she had been scammed. She sued the company in New York federal court to get her money back, but the company pointed to a clause in their contract which stated her claims must be decided a private arbitrator – located in Arizona.

Ms. Duran protested that she could not afford to travel to Arizona, as it would cost more than a month’s worth of her income and prevent her from making rent. But the appeals court ruled that only the arbitrator in Arizona could decide if Ms. Duran could bring her claim in New York – meaning she would have to first travel across the country to Arizona to argue to the arbitrator that it’s unfair and unconscionable to force her to arbitrate her case there.

Private Student Loans

Matthew Kilgore, California

Ever since he was a child, Matthew Kilgore wanted to be a helicopter pilot. Mr. Kilgore thought he was on his way to achieving his dream when he enrolled at Silver State Helicopters, a for-profit aviation school that offered pilot training and certification. At the school’s recommendation, Mr. Kilgore took out a $55,000 private student loan from lender Keybank to cover his tuition. But Mr. Kilgore’s ambitions came to a sudden end in 2008 when his school abruptly went out of business and filed for bankruptcy, leaving students with tens of thousands of dollars in student loans but no marketable skills or diplomas. Since then, his loans nearly doubled to $103,000 with accrued interest.

Mr. Kilgore filed a lawsuit on behalf of himself and other Silver State students against Keybank to prevent them from enforcing their loan agreements or ruining the students’ credit. However, Keybank loan contracts contained an arbitration clause which prohibited class actions. An appeals court ruled the students would have to settle disputes with Keybank individually in arbitration. Meanwhile, other Silver State students who had similar loans with Student Loan Express, Inc. got $150 million in debt relief because their loan agreements did not include an arbitration clause.

Consumer Bureau and NY Atty Gen’l Go After First Responder Scam

The list of hazards faced by first responders to the Sept 11th terror attacks is a long one. In addition to cancer, respiratory disease, and post-traumatic stress, the perils include financial scammers out to raid their medical compensation benefits.

In a federal lawsuit filed earlier this month, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) and the New York Attorney General’s Office accuse a New Jersey company, RD Legal, of targeting firefighters, paramedics and police officers who rushed into the rubble of the World Trade Center.

“We allege that this company and its owner lined their pockets with funds intended to cover medical care and other critical expenses for people who are sick and sidelined,” Consumer Bureau  Director Richard Cordray said.

RD Legal’s modus operandi, according to the CFPB’s complaint, was to “swoop in” after victims had been awarded compensation but before they received it. The company would offer to “convert your settled cases into immediate cash,” and then charge illegally high interest on top of fees buried in the fine print of a long contract; some of its loans ended up costing the equivalent of 250% annual interest, the two agencies allege.

The Consumer Bureau was created after the 2008 financial crisis to do a simple job: get banks and lenders to treat people fairly. One way it does this is through enforcement actions which have so far delivered nearly $12 billion in refunds and relief to some 17 million Americans cheated by financial companies large and small.

In the RD Legal case, the Bureau is seeking to end the scam, impose monetary penalties, and force the company to return what could be millions of dollars to affected consumers. One of the potential beneficiaries is Elmer Santiago, a NYC police officer who was living in his jeep when he agreed to borrow $355,000. Eighteen months later, RD Legal handed him a bill for $860,000.

The company also pitched its services to former football players entitled to compensation from the NFL for neurological diseases such as CTE, Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s. Contracts labeled “assignments and sale agreements” did not disclose interest rates because, RD Legal claimed, “the transaction is not a loan.”

Some people may have been seduced by the company’s promises to “cut through the red tape” and speed up their compensation. In fact, RD Legal provided no such help, according to the lawsuit.

RD Legal is a hedge fund and a player in what is known as the litigation finance industry, using wealthy investors to bankroll cash advances for lawsuits and settlements.The owner and founder of RD Legal, Roni Dersovitz, was named in the action, along with two affiliate entities. Dersovitz was previously sued by the SEC for defrauding investors and exploiting Beirut bombing victims.

— Madison Moore and Jim Lardner

 

Five big arguments against a move to fire Cordray

They’re spinning hard.

​Lobbyists for big Wall Street banks and predatory lenders are pushing the Trump Administration to fire CFPB Director Richard Cordray, and they’re telling reporters it’s a done deal. They’re hoping their spin will make it so.

They don’t want the Trump team to think before they act. And that’s understandable, because firing Cordray would be a terrible idea, as well as an unlawful one. Here are five reasons why:

#1 The CFPB has done a world of good for consumers. Since it got up and running less than six years ago, this agency has been bringing basic rules of fair play to the financial marketplace. Through its enforcement actions and complaint system, the Consumer Bureau has delivered some $12 billion in financial relief to more than 29 million Americans cheated by financial companies large and small.

#2 Students, servicemembers, veterans, and seniors would raise hell. The CFPB has been steadfastly in the corner of our nation’s service members and veterans, working with the Defense Department to close loopholes and make sure that the 36 percent APR limit on consumer loans to servicemembers and their dependents actually works,  while taking enforcement actions against a succession of financial fraudsters who specialize in exploiting military families. The Bureau has also stood up for student loan borrowers with actions such as its recent lawsuit against Navient, charging the nation’s largest servicer of student loans with an array of deceptive practices. And it has been aggressive in combating the growing problem of financial exploitation of the elderly.

#3 The CFPB is hugely popular. By refusing to be cowed by the payday lenders, the big banks, and their Congressional buddies, Cordray and his agency have made quite a few powerful enemies. But they have also a vast number of devoted friends. Across party lines, voters have an overwhelmingly favorable view of the CFPB and its work. Trump voters are no different: by a margin of 55 to 28 percent, they oppose efforts to weaken or eliminate this agency.

# 4 The White House would have a vexingly hard time explaining a move to fire the CFPB’s Director. Many people voted for Donald Trump in part because of his countless promises to stand up to the power of Wall Street. Attempting to remove Director Cordray would be an obvious cave-in to the financial industry. It would not go unnoticed.

# 5 He would almost certainly not get away with it. The CFPB is by law an independent agency, and not part of the Administration. Director Cordray’s term runs through July 2018, and the law says he can be removed only “for inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office.” Despite their feverish efforts, hostile lawmakers have been unable to come up with any charge that would pass the laugh test, and  no president has ever yet succeeded in removing an appointee for cause.

Rep. Mulvaney is the Wrong Choice for OMB–Two Constituents Say Why

Rep. Mick Mulvaney, Donald Trump’s choice to oversee the federal budget, said he hears only complaints about the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB). That could be because he is listening to the financial services lobby, not the ordinary Americans the agency has helped.

The South Carolina Republican, whom Trump has nominated to head the Office of Management and Budget, went on a tirade during his confirmation hearing this week, calling the CFPB “the very worst kind of government entity.”

That was a surprise to South Carolinians who actually like the idea that there’s an agency in Washington fighting to make financial companies follow the law and treat people fairly.

The CFPB recently sued Navient, the nation’s largest student loan servicer, alleging that the company handled borrowers so unfairly that they ended up paying far more than was necessary. Having an ally against a big company, it turns out, is comforting to some South Carolinians.

Amanda Green of Rock Hill, South Carolina, said Mulvaney’s comment proves he’s “disconnected” from what worries people like her, a client of Navient.

“I am currently repaying my student loans to Navient, and having learned of the CFPB’s action against them, am comforted in knowing this happened.”

Standrick Jamarr Rhodes of Lancaster, South Carolina, has struggled to repay student loans as an elementary school teacher. He’d never heard of the CFPB until they sued Navient.

“To learn that I may have been cheated in that process and that there is an agency looking out for me is a relief,” he said. “Our representatives are not only wrong with comments attacking the consumer agency, but are the prime reason why I often feel government doesn’t work for people. This agency clearly does.”

The CFPB works. Rep. Mulvaney is wrong. #DefendCFPB and reject the #SwampCabinet