A fundamental dispute is brewing in the U.S. Senate over the CLARITY Act, a bill designed to create a unified federal regulatory framework for digital assets. Three influential Democratic senators — Chris Murphy, Jeff Merkley, and Chris Van Hollen — have issued a categorical demand: the bill must not pass without strict anti-corruption provisions that block the president, members of Congress, and senior officials from profiting from the crypto business.
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 author of the book "Easy Money" Ben McKenzie, the senators clearly articulated their position. "There's no point in creating a new system for regulating cryptocurrencies if it doesn't stop Trump's corruption in this industry," Murphy stated, emphasizing that the anti-corruption section must prevent the head of state from influencing rules in which he has a personal financial interest.
Ban for Officials: A Key Demand
Senator Merkley proposed incorporating provisions from the MEME Act or the End Crypto Corruption Act into the CLARITY Act, which would directly prohibit the president, vice president, cabinet members, high-ranking federal officials, members of Congress, and their immediate relatives from owning a crypto business, promoting digital assets, or deriving income from them. "It's not enough to prepare an amendment or a separate law against corruption. It needs to be truly stopped," he stressed.
Van Hollen, who had previously proposed similar restrictions during the bill's consideration in the Banking Committee, added that his initiative would have prohibited officials and their families from being associated with digital asset issuers and crypto platforms. However, these amendments were rejected — some failed in a vote, while Committee Chairman Tim Scott deemed others improperly drafted. Additionally, Van Hollen insisted on strengthening measures against money laundering, sanctions evasion, and terrorist financing through DeFi, as well as expanding disclosure requirements and introducing restrictions on insider trading. None of these provisions were included in the version approved by the committee.
What the CLARITY Act Proposes and Its Weakness
According to the Banking Committee's version, the CLARITY Act delineates the powers of the SEC and CFTC: the SEC oversees transactions involving investment contracts, while the CFTC gains primary authority over spot trading of digital commodities. The document also introduces a special disclosure regime for crypto project developers and registration for intermediaries. Supporters argue this will create uniform rules and preserve authorities' powers to combat fraud.
However, as opponents rightly note, the bill completely ignores the issue of conflicts of interest at the highest level. According to Americans for Financial Reform, consideration of the CLARITY Act is expected next week, starting July 20, and it will need 60 votes to overcome the procedural hurdle. Meanwhile, CFTC Chairman Michael Selig previously called for speeding up the bill's passage, threatening that regulators would "write all the rules themselves" if Congress fails to act. President Trump himself has also made a similar demand to the Senate.
The White House, of course, denies any conflict of interest, stating that the president's assets are managed by trusts. However, as practice shows, such statements do not resolve the systemic issue. While banking associations demand clarification on stablecoin yield provisions, and law enforcement organizations support the law to combat crime, the key question remains open: can a regulatory system created with the direct participation of a person who has personal financial interests in the industry truly be independent and effective?
Expert Opinion: The situation surrounding the CLARITY Act is a classic example of how political and personal interests undermine trust in a regulatory initiative. Until the bill includes clear and unambiguous anti-corruption mechanisms, its passage will only create an illusion of order, leaving loopholes for manipulation. Investors and market participants should closely monitor developments: the absence of such provisions will be a troubling signal that the regulation is being written not to protect the market, but to serve specific interests.