This week, three Democratic senators — Chris Murphy, Jeff Merkley, and Chris Van Hollen — voiced categorical opposition to the current version of the CLARITY Act. Their main demand: to prohibit the president, members of Congress, top 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 actor Ben McKenzie, author of the book "Easy Money."
Murphy emphasized that creating a new regulatory system for digital assets makes no sense if it does not prevent corruption by the president. "We cannot allow the head of state to influence the rules of an industry in which he has personal financial interests," he stated. Merkley went further, proposing to include in the CLARITY Act provisions from the MEME Act or the End Crypto Corruption Act, which directly prohibit the president, vice president, cabinet members, and congressmen from owning a crypto business, promoting digital assets, or deriving income from them. "It's not enough to just prepare an amendment — corruption must truly be stopped," the senator concluded.
Amendments That Did Not Pass
Van Hollen had already attempted to introduce similar restrictions during the consideration of the CLARITY Act in the Senate Banking Committee. His initiative proposed a ban for officials and their relatives on owning, promoting, or being associated with issuers of digital assets and crypto platforms. However, some amendments were rejected by a vote, while others were deemed improperly drafted by committee chairman Tim Scott and were not allowed for consideration. Additionally, Van Hollen proposed strengthening measures against money laundering, sanctions evasion, and terrorist financing through DeFi, as well as expanding disclosure requirements and limiting insider trading. None of these provisions were included in the version approved by the committee.
Supporters of the CLARITY Act, on the other hand, argue that the bill introduces disclosure requirements, preserves authorities' powers to combat fraud, and establishes uniform rules for the industry. However, as practice shows, without anti-corruption provisions, the document risks becoming merely a facade for abuses.
What Will the CLARITY Act Change?
The CLARITY Act aims to create a federal regulatory framework for the digital asset market and delineate the powers of the SEC and CFTC. According to the Banking Committee's version, the SEC will continue to oversee transactions involving 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.
Consideration of the CLARITY Act is expected next week, starting July 20. To overcome the procedural barrier, the bill will need 60 votes. Earlier, CFTC Chairman Michael Selig urged speeding up the adoption of the document, threatening that regulators would "write all the rules" for the crypto industry themselves if Congress does not act. Trump 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 all assets are held in trusts. However, as my years of analysis show, such assurances rarely withstand practical scrutiny: when a head of state lobbies for a law that directly affects his financial interests, it inevitably undermines market trust.
My expert opinion: the CLARITY Act without anti-corruption provisions is not just a legislative gap but a direct threat to the integrity of cryptocurrency regulation. The market needs clear rules, but they must be the same for everyone, including top state officials. Otherwise, we risk creating a system where the law is written for specific interests rather than for investor protection.