Recently, we've posted about the degree to which the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) should look out for the interests of the businesses it regulates (in a guest post by Rob Bramson) and the CFPB's assertion of jurisdiction over lawyers' activities in some situations (in a post noting the American Bar Association's opposition).
Now, in a guest post, CL&P Blog reader and consumer lawyer Nicole Mayer expresses her view:
GUEST POST
The work of the Consumer Financial Protection
Bureau over the past few months has sparked complaints about its seemingly wide-spread
jurisdiction. The complainants keep forgetting that this is the CONSUMER FINANCIAL
Protection Bureau. What’s in a
name? A lot!
One has to wonder if the same group of dissenters would find
it acceptable to limit other government agencies in the same manner they wish
to limit the CFPB. Would they take issue
with a decree that the Department of Justice could carry out justice in no cases except those involving murder? What would they
think about the Food and Drug Administration having authority to regulate food
but not drugs? What if we took away the
Federal Communication Commission’s ability to oversee anything except radio
broadcasting? Or, what would the reaction
be if the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives only had
authority to safeguard the public against tobacco? You catch my drift.
If government agencies did not have jurisdiction over the
fields their very name includes, we would find ourselves in need of a million
different agencies and would face a whole new host of complaints. The issues taken on by the CFPB all focus on
protecting consumers in consumer financial transactions and are therefore,
legally within its purview.