Pence Breaks Senate Impasse in a Major Blow to Consumers

A razor-thin vote ensures customers still won’t be able to bring lawsuits against financial firms.

Then-President-elect Donald Trump with Vice President-elect Mike Pence in Cincinnati, Ohio in December. John Minchillo/AP

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.

In a major loss for consumers Tuesday evening, Vice President Mike Pence broke a tie in the Senate to allow banks and credit card companies to continue using mandatory arbitration agreements—in other words, ensuring financial companies can continue to block their customers from suing them as a group.

Back in July, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), the consumer watchdog created under the Obama administration, issued a rule blocking financial services companies from forcing customers into individual arbitration, which companies have long preferred in order to avoid costly class-action lawsuits. The Trump administration had fought to stop the rule from taking effect as planned, in March 2018. Tuesday’s vote now ensures that it won’t.

Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) said in a statement that “by voting to take rights away from customers, the Senate voted tonight to side with Wells Fargo lobbyists over the people we serve.”

The White House issued a statement Tuesday night saying that Congress stood “up for everyday consumers and community banks and credit unions, instead of the trial lawyers, who would have benefited the most from the CFPB’s uninformed and ineffective policy.”

In 2015, a New York Times investigation found that arbitration “often bears little resemblance to court.” Unlike open court, arbitration judges are generally hired by the company accused of wrongdoing and the decisions are usually not made public. “Private judging is an oxymoron,” Anthony Kline, a California appeals court judge, told the Times in 2015. “This is a business and arbitrators have an economic reason to decide in favor of the repeat players.”

The CFPB estimates the rule would have cost the US financial sector less than $1 billion per year. In 2016, banks alone made more than $171 billion.  

It has also found that class-action lawsuits provided about $220 million per year to 6.8 million consumers—in the cases it studied—which works out to just $32 per consumer, on average. Arbitration, meanwhile, has awarded customers more than $5,300 on average, but the CFPB identified only 16 people per year who benefited.

Proponents of mandatory arbitration have used that finding to argue arbitration is actually better for consumers. That, though, misses the point. Class-action lawsuits are often launched to right a wrong that costs a large group of people a small amount of money individually. As one judge wrote in 2004, “The realistic alternative to a class action is not 17 million individual suits, but zero individual suits, as only a lunatic or a fanatic sues for $30.” A CFPB study found that only 2 percent of consumers with credit cards would pursue legal action in a small-dollar dispute. Class-action lawsuits, rather, can benefit consumers by forcing a company to change its broader pattern of behavior.

Last year, Wells Fargo announced it would stand by its forced arbitration policy after a massive scandal came to light in which it had been creating unauthorized accounts for customers. In 2015, a judge dismissed a suit against Wells Fargo because of the arbitration clauses in customers’ contracts. As a result, customers have been left with fewer options to hold Wells Fargo accountable.

The Senate vote comes after an aggressive push from industry groups to stop the rule. Speaking on the Senate floor Tuesday evening, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) said repeal would amount to a “giant wet kiss to Wall Street,” adding that Congress had been crawling with lobbyists in the lead-up to the vote. 

To repeal the rule, Congress used an obscure law called the Congressional Review Act. The 1996 law gives Congress 60 working days to block rules issued by government agencies. It had only been used only once before President Donald Trump took office but has recently been invoked more than a dozen times to strike down regulations affecting everything from women’s health to state retirement plans.

Only two Republicans—Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and John Kennedy of Louisiana—voted to keep the rule in place. All Democrats voted in favor of the rule.

Before the Senate voted, Sen. Brown noted that Vice President Pence was in the Capitol building to break a potential tie. He correctly guessed what that meant: Equifax and Wells Fargo were about to win. 

AN IMPORTANT UPDATE ON MOTHER JONES' FINANCES

We need to start being more upfront about how hard it is keeping a newsroom like Mother Jones afloat these days.

Because it is, and because we're fresh off finishing a fiscal year, on June 30, that came up a bit short of where we needed to be. And this next one simply has to be a year of growth—particularly for donations from online readers to help counter the brutal economics of journalism right now.

Straight up: We need this pitch, what you're reading right now, to start earning significantly more donations than normal. We need people who care enough about Mother Jones’ journalism to be reading a blurb like this to decide to pitch in and support it if you can right now.

Urgent, for sure. But it's not all doom and gloom!

Because over the challenging last year, and thanks to feedback from readers, we've started to see a better way to go about asking you to support our work: Level-headedly communicating the urgency of hitting our fundraising goals, being transparent about our finances, challenges, and opportunities, and explaining how being funded primarily by donations big and small, from ordinary (and extraordinary!) people like you, is the thing that lets us do the type of journalism you look to Mother Jones for—that is so very much needed right now.

And it's really been resonating with folks! Thankfully. Because corporations, powerful people with deep pockets, and market forces will never sustain the type of journalism Mother Jones exists to do. Only people like you will.

There's more about our finances in "News Never Pays," or "It's Not a Crisis. This Is the New Normal," and we'll have details about the year ahead for you soon. But we already know this: The fundraising for our next deadline, $350,000 by the time September 30 rolls around, has to start now, and it has to be stronger than normal so that we don't fall behind and risk coming up short again.

Please consider pitching in before moving on to whatever it is you're about to do next. We really need to see if we'll be able to raise more with this real estate on a daily basis than we have been, so we're hoping to see a promising start.

—Monika Bauerlein, CEO, and Brian Hiatt, Online Membership Director

payment methods

AN IMPORTANT UPDATE ON MOTHER JONES' FINANCES

We need to start being more upfront about how hard it is keeping a newsroom like Mother Jones afloat these days.

Because it is, and because we're fresh off finishing a fiscal year, on June 30, that came up a bit short of where we needed to be. And this next one simply has to be a year of growth—particularly for donations from online readers to help counter the brutal economics of journalism right now.

Straight up: We need this pitch, what you're reading right now, to start earning significantly more donations than normal. We need people who care enough about Mother Jones’ journalism to be reading a blurb like this to decide to pitch in and support it if you can right now.

Urgent, for sure. But it's not all doom and gloom!

Because over the challenging last year, and thanks to feedback from readers, we've started to see a better way to go about asking you to support our work: Level-headedly communicating the urgency of hitting our fundraising goals, being transparent about our finances, challenges, and opportunities, and explaining how being funded primarily by donations big and small, from ordinary (and extraordinary!) people like you, is the thing that lets us do the type of journalism you look to Mother Jones for—that is so very much needed right now.

And it's really been resonating with folks! Thankfully. Because corporations, powerful people with deep pockets, and market forces will never sustain the type of journalism Mother Jones exists to do. Only people like you will.

There's more about our finances in "News Never Pays," or "It's Not a Crisis. This Is the New Normal," and we'll have details about the year ahead for you soon. But we already know this: The fundraising for our next deadline, $350,000 by the time September 30 rolls around, has to start now, and it has to be stronger than normal so that we don't fall behind and risk coming up short again.

Please consider pitching in before moving on to whatever it is you're about to do next. We really need to see if we'll be able to raise more with this real estate on a daily basis than we have been, so we're hoping to see a promising start.

—Monika Bauerlein, CEO, and Brian Hiatt, Online Membership Director

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate