Key Democrats in the Senate — Chris Murphy, Jeff Merkley, and Chris Van Hollen — have sharply criticized the current version of the CLARITY Act. Their main demand: to prohibit the president, members of Congress, senior federal officials, and their immediate family members from receiving any financial benefit from the cryptocurrency business.
At a press conference on July 14, which also included representatives from the Americans for Financial Reform coalition, the Indivisible movement, and Ben McKenzie, author of "Easy Money," the senators stated that the bill creates a regulatory framework for digital assets but completely fails to address the conflict of interest issue related to Donald Trump's and his family's crypto empire.
"It makes no sense to create a new regulatory structure for cryptocurrencies if it cannot stop Trump's corruption in this industry," Murphy emphasized. According to his logic, the anti-corruption section should eliminate the very possibility of the head of state influencing the rules of an industry in which he has a direct financial interest.
Merkley proposed incorporating provisions from the MEME Act or the End Crypto Corruption Act into the CLARITY Act. These acts directly prohibit the president, vice president, cabinet members, high-ranking officials, members of Congress, and their families from owning a crypto business, promoting digital assets, or profiting from them. "It is not enough to simply prepare an amendment or a separate law against corruption. It must actually be stopped," he stated.
Van Hollen, who had already proposed similar restrictions during the CLARITY Act's consideration in the Banking Committee, added that the bill also fails to address consumer protection issues, limit illegal transactions, and eliminate insider trading. His amendments, including strengthening anti-money laundering measures through DeFi and expanding disclosure requirements, were rejected by the committee. "If you are going to develop a law on digital assets, it must protect consumers, limit illegal transactions, and eliminate conflicts of interest. The CLARITY Act does not address these tasks," the senator concluded.
As a reminder, the CLARITY Act aims to create a federal regulatory framework for the digital asset market, delineating the powers of the SEC and CFTC. According to the Banking Committee's version, the SEC will retain control over investment contracts, while the CFTC will receive primary authority over spot trading of digital commodities. The document also introduces a special disclosure regime for developers and registration of intermediaries.
Supporters of the bill argue that it introduces disclosure requirements and preserves authorities' powers to combat fraud. However, as events show, without anti-corruption barriers, this bill risks becoming a tool for legitimizing the personal financial interests of senior officials.
Analyst's comment: The current situation is a classic example of how a regulatory initiative intended to bring order to the market turns into a field of political struggle. The lack of clear anti-corruption provisions in the CLARITY Act not only undermines trust in the bill itself but also creates a dangerous precedent where the rules of the game for the entire industry could be written for a specific player. The consideration of the document next week, which will require 60 votes, promises to be extremely tense.