Three Democratic senators — Chris Murphy, Jeff Merkley, and Chris Van Hollen — sharply criticized the current version of the CLARITY Act. Their main demand: to prohibit the president, members of Congress, senior federal officials, and their families from profiting from the cryptocurrency business. This statement was made at a press conference on July 14, which also included representatives from the Americans for Financial Reform coalition, the Indivisible movement, and renowned actor and cryptocurrency author Ben McKenzie.
The senators emphasized that the bill, while creating a new regulatory system for digital assets, completely ignores the issue of conflicts of interest, especially in light of the cryptocurrency projects of President Donald Trump and his family. "There is no point in creating a new regulatory system for cryptocurrencies if it does not stop Trump's corruption in this industry," Murphy stated. In his view, the anti-corruption section should eliminate the possibility of the head of state influencing the rules of an industry in which he has personal financial interests.
Senators' demands: MEME Act and End Crypto Corruption Act
Merkley proposed incorporating provisions from the MEME Act or the End Crypto Corruption Act into the CLARITY Act. These initiatives directly prohibit the president, vice president, cabinet members, high-ranking federal officials, congressmen, and their immediate relatives from owning a crypto business, promoting digital assets, or deriving income from them. "It is not enough to draft an amendment or a separate law against corruption. It must actually be stopped," Merkley stressed.
Van Hollen, who had previously proposed similar restrictions during the CLARITY Act's consideration in the Senate Banking Committee, added that his amendments — banning officials and their relatives from being associated with digital asset issuers and crypto platforms — were rejected. Some failed to pass a vote, while others were deemed improperly drafted by committee chairman Tim Scott. Van Hollen also insisted on strengthening measures against money laundering, sanctions evasion, and terrorist financing through DeFi, as well as expanding disclosure requirements and restrictions on insider trading — none of which were included in the version approved by the committee.
What the CLARITY Act proposes
The bill itself aims to create a federal regulatory framework for the digital asset market. According to the Banking Committee's version, the SEC will retain control over operations related to investment contracts, while the CFTC will gain primary authority over spot trading of digital commodities. The document also provides a special disclosure regime for crypto project developers and the registration of intermediaries.
Supporters of the bill argue that it introduces disclosure requirements, preserves authorities' powers to combat fraud, and establishes uniform rules for the industry. However, as Democrats note, this is insufficient. "If you're going to draft a law on digital assets, it must protect consumers, limit illegal operations, and eliminate conflicts of interest. The CLARITY Act does not address these tasks," Van Hollen stated.
Political struggle and prospects
The CLARITY Act is expected to be considered next week, starting July 20, and will need 60 votes to overcome the procedural hurdle. Earlier, CFTC Chairman Michael Selig called for expediting the bill's passage, threatening that regulators would "write all the rules" for the crypto industry themselves. Trump himself also made a similar demand to the Senate.
Meanwhile, the White House administration denies any conflict of interest. Press Secretary Anna Kelly stated that neither the president nor his family members have allowed or intend to allow a conflict of interest, and that Trump's assets are managed by trusts. However, as practice shows, such statements rarely convince opponents. In my view, the current situation is a classic example of how political interests intertwine with the regulation of a new industry. Without clear anti-corruption norms, the CLARITY Act risks becoming not a market protection tool, but a loophole for personal enrichment.