Why Do Republicans Want to Unregulate Wall Street?

Let our journalists help you make sense of the noise: Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily newsletter and get a recap of news that matters.

I understand why Republicans want to repeal Obamacare. I understand why they want to cut taxes on the rich. I understand why they want to slash social welfare programs for the poor. I may not like it, but I mostly understand it.

But why do they want to repeal the Dodd-Frank financial reform bill? Their base doesn’t care about it. The banking industry is fighting over the details but seems mostly willing to live with it. Credit unions and small banks want relief from certain parts of the law, but that’s a fairly limited thing.

So what’s the point? Republicans would like to get rid of the Consumer Finance Protection Bureau because they historically hate consumer protection. That much I get. But why get rid of OLA, the provision that helps regulators perform an orderly liquidation of a big bank like Lehman Brothers? Why get rid of the provision that allows extra scrutiny and tighter rules for “systemically important” banks? Why exactly are Republicans opposed to that?

I’m sort of mystified about this. I mean, sure, these provisions are (a) regulations, (b) Democratic regulations, and (c) Democratic regulations on rich people. I guess that’s enough. But who’s pressing them on this stuff? It’s crazy on the face of it. The 2008 meltdown happened less than a decade ago. Why would even a Republican be opposed to raising capital requirements on big banks and insisting that the financial industry pay for any future bailouts?

IT'S NOT THAT WE'RE SCREWED WITHOUT TRUMP:

"It's that we're screwed with or without him if we can't show the public that what we do matters for the long term," writes Mother Jones CEO Monika Bauerlein as she kicks off our drive to raise $350,000 in donations from readers by July 17.

This is a big one for us. It's our first time asking for an outpouring of support since screams of FAKE NEWS and so much of what Trump stood for made everything we do so visceral. Like most newsrooms, we face incredibly hard budget realities, and it's unnerving needing to raise big money when traffic is down.

So, as we ask you to consider supporting our team's journalism, we thought we'd slow down and check in about where Mother Jones is and where we're going after the chaotic last several years. This comparatively slow moment is also an urgent one for Mother Jones: You can read more in "Slow News Is Good News," and if you're able to, please support our team's hard-hitting journalism and help us reach our big $350,000 goal with a donation today.

payment methods

IT'S NOT THAT WE'RE SCREWED WITHOUT TRUMP:

"It's that we're screwed with or without him if we can't show the public that what we do matters for the long term," writes Mother Jones CEO Monika Bauerlein as she kicks off our drive to raise $350,000 in donations from readers by July 17.

This is a big one for us. So, as we ask you to consider supporting our team's journalism, we thought we'd slow down and check in about where Mother Jones is and where we're going after the chaotic last several years. This comparatively slow moment is also an urgent one for Mother Jones: You can read more in "Slow News Is Good News," and if you're able to, please support our team's hard-hitting journalism and help us reach our big $350,000 goal with a donation today.

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