We’ve all heard the phrase “Don’t bite the hand that feeds you.” It echoes today as bank reform peaks its head into American politics. Although in this case a more appropriate rephrase would be “Don’t ask for fundraising support from the banks you over-regulate.”
If spoken now to the American government, this advice might hold a lot of weight. Large banks such as Goldman Sachs have proclaimed they will have no involvement in the upcoming midterm elections and are unlikely to contribute funds to any accompanied fundraising efforts. When asked why, they replied with answers synonymous to the aforementioned metaphor. Does the proposed bank reform regulate banks too heavily and, even so, is it grounds for their hostile neglect of campaign support?
The bill is making its way through Congress and many banks are claiming that the current draft packs too many punches directed at financial institutions. Kirsten Gillibrand, junior United States Senator from New York, is one of the accused prepatrator of the neglect banks have faced. She is criticized for not standing up for banks in moments like these, but then turning around with a hand out asking for fundraising support. In response to these accusations from banks bent out of shape, she claims “the ink is not even dry on this bill.” Is she alluding to an ease-up on regulations before the bill hits the president’s desk?
Shedding further light on the banks’ plight may highlight possible affects the bill will have on consumers. Some analysts of the bill have indicated it imposes nothing more than what banks already comply with. If this is true then the majority of the bill’s effects will be negligible, as it is outlawing what most banks are not doing in the first place. Yet some critics of the bill disagree and fear consumers will suffer from the consequences.
If banks are given higher fees to deal with, say for credit card processing, they will have to reorganize how they bring money in. Consumer checking accounts may soon be subject to fees just like credit cards. If bank lose money in one place, it’s only logical that they will take in money from somewhere else.
This bill could affect consumers more than banks, yet they have no army of wallets to reach into if it does. So why do the banks continue to bicker while the majority of consumers don’t interject?
Shawn Keller, president and chief executive officer of Ohio State Bank, has a theory that welcomes the bank reform, but calls for ease on the regulation. Instead of the extra layers of regulation, he asks for layers of common sense. He thinks many consumers aren’t more active in the discussion because they don’t understand what it means — or the words it uses. And I agree.
Keller calls for simplification of the information provided, not convolution. Thus if banks impose more fees upon consumers, they will have a chance to avoid them.
Being a consumer myself, I plead guilty to skimming globs of fine print at times. In our generation it’s second nature. So if the unfortunate scenario occurs, I hope we are all warned — not in mouse print technical talk — in large print layman’s terms, preferably size 36 point font and all caps.
Maximillian Piras is a senior art major and a contributing writer for the Summer 49er.
Disclaimer: The Daily 49er is not responsible for Postings made on www.daily49er.wpengine.com. Persons commenting are solely responsible for Postings made on this website. Persons commenting agree to the Terms of Use of the website. If Postings do not abide by the Rules of Conduct or Posting Regulations as listed in the Postings Policy, the Daily 49er has all rights to delete Postings as it deems necessary. The Daily 49er strongly advises individuals to not abuse their First Amendment rights, and to avoid language suggestive of hate speech. This site also encourages users to make Postings relevant to the article or other Postings.
