Senate Republicans End Their Opposition to Elizabeth Warren as Head of the CFPB -- Sorta

Over at CitizenVox, David Arkush (pictured on right) has this interesting essay on the Senate Republicans' decision to end their opposition to Elizabeth Warren to head the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. The tactic is not borne of a love for Warren. Here's an excerpt from David's piece:

Yesterday, 44 Senate Republicans signed a letter to President Obama stating that they will oppose any nominee to head the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) unless the Bureau is first weakened dramatically. This is an interesting development. Here’s what’s really going on, that the papers won’t be reporting: This letter signals that the Senate Republicans have surrendered their fight against Elizabeth Warren. In recent weeks there has been a strong, growing belief in Washington that the president will nominate Warren to head the CFPB. ... Warren is an outstanding champion for consumers. If the American public gets more exposure to her, they will love her. Wall Street and its congressional allies would be bruised and muddied by a nomination fight; she and the CFPB would be strengthened.

The American Banker has reported today on the same topic.

"Reverse Redlining" Suits Advance

We reported more than three years ago on the City of Baltimore's suit against Wells Fargo in which the city claims that it reviewed foreclosure data and concluded that Wells Fargo was unlawfully steering African-American Baltimoreans into subprime loans that they could not afford. Now, the New York Times is reporting that the courts in the Baltimore case and in a similar case in Memphis against Wells Fargo have rejected the bank's motions to dismiss, allowing the cases to proceed on their merits.

Diane Rehm Roundtable on the CFPB's Future

This morning, the Diane Rehm show on NPR hosted a roundtable discussion on "The Future of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau," featuring Travis Plunkett of the Consumer Federation of America; Maya Jackson Randall, a financial reporter for Dow Jones Newswires; and Mark Calabria, director of financial regulation studies at the Cato Institute.  The show also features a call-in interview with Rep. Barney Frank. Listen here.

The Onion on AT&T v. Concepcion

The Onion asks people on the street for their take:

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled last week that companies could force dissatisfied customers into individual arbitration and prevent them from banding together in a class-action lawsuit. What do you think?

Running Cars on Natural Gas

Natural gas fuel for cars costs about half of what conventional gas costs. Only one car manufacturer -- Honda -- makes a passenger car for sale in the U.S. that uses natural gas. Conventional cars can be retrofitted, but that's expensive. And, as you might imagine, you cannot generally pull into your local gas station and fill up with natural gas. And then there are questions about fuel economy and environmental impact. Read about it here in this article by Jerry Hirsch at the LA Times.

NYT Editorial Links Anti-CFPB Legislation to Campaign Cash

The New York TImes has this editorial, arguing that the true purpose of today's markup is to raise cash for the next election:

Republicans on the House Financial Services Committee are having a campaign fund-raiser this week.

Starting on Wednesday, the committee’s majority is expected to pass bills to cripple the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, one of the most important innovations in the 2010 Dodd-Frank financial reform law.

The bureau has one purpose: to shield consumers from unfair, misleading and deceptive lending. The purpose of the Republican bills is twofold. One is to deprive the agency of the power to fulfill its mission. Another is to attract campaign money. As long as the Senate and White House are controlled by Democrats, the bills are unlikely to become law. But by advancing them in the House, Republicans can demonstrate how thoroughly they would dismantle reform if they controlled Washington and, in the process, rake in Wall Street donations.

A Bit More on the Republican Efforts to Cripple the CFPB

Following up on our earlier post on today's House votes on legislation that would undermine the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, today's Washington Post has this story on the topic. Read the proposed legislation here and here.

House Subcommittee Votes Today on Proposals to Cripple CFPB

The House Subcommittee on Financial Institutions and Consumer Credit is scheduled to consider a number of bills today that would gut the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.  Among other things, the Subcommittee will consider HR 1121, which would turn the Bureau into a five-member commission, and HR 1315, which would allow the Financial Stability Oversight Council to veto CFPB rules by a simple majority. Consumer groups have, of course, come out strongly against these proposals. 

Keating Backtracks

MarketWatch has the story here.  Asked if he would oppose Warren if she were nominated, [Keating] said: "I don't think so." He added that it all depends on how the Senate confirmation process would proceed. "It's pretty hard to be definitive," Keating told Dow Jones.

 

More coverage of AT&T v. Concepcion

Despite the jam-packed news cycle -- the royal wedding, the birth certificate, tornadoes, Osama bin Laden -- there's been a flood of outraged coverage of the Supreme Court's decision in AT&T v. Concepcion. SCOTUSblog rounded up some of the coverage here and here.  Here's a small sampling:

• Byron Williams, While you were away, the Supreme Court did it again, San Jose Mercury News
• Nan Aron, The Corporate Court Does It Again, Huffington Post
• Sacramento Bee editorial
• San Francisco Chronicle editorial
• Times-Union editorial
• Kansas-City Star editorial
• Steve Berk, Consumers Lose Again, The Corporate Observer
• Jeff Gelles, Supreme Court takes a big step toward shutting consumers out, Philadelphia Inquirer
• Nathan Koppel, Will Federal Consumer Bureau Ride to the Rescue of Class Actions?, The Wall Street Journal
• Lawrence Cunningham,SCOTUS AT&T Opinion Par for the Rhetorical Course, Concurring Opinions