Speaker 1: Hello, and welcome to the Votes and Verdicts podcast, hosted
Speaker 1: by the litigation and policy team at Bloomberg Intelligence, the
Speaker 1: investment research platform of Bloomberg LP on the Bloomberg terminal.
Speaker 1: Bloomberg Intelligence has five hundred analysts and strategists working across
Speaker 1: the globe and focus on all major markets. Our coverage
Speaker 1: includes over two thousand equities and credits, and we have
Speaker 1: outlooks on more than ninety industries and one hundred market indices,
Speaker 1: currencies and commodities. This podcast series examines the intersection of
Speaker 1: business policy and law, and today we're recording our weekly
Speaker 1: check in on the litigation and policy catalysts that we're
Speaker 1: watching and that we think will impact companies across a
Speaker 1: number of different sectors. My name is Elliot Stein. I'm
Speaker 1: an analyst with Bloomberg Intelligence covering litigation in the financials sector.
Speaker 1: I'm joined today by three of my colleagues, Holly from,
Speaker 1: Matt Schuttenhelm and Nathan Dean. And today is May eighth,
Speaker 1: twenty twenty five. And because things move so fast, we
Speaker 1: should time stamp it as well. It's two pm Eastern time.
Speaker 1: You can find all of our research on the Bloomberg
Speaker 1: terminal at bi go and more specifically on our dashboard
Speaker 1: bi laws Go. That's for Bloomberg Terminal subscribers. But why
Speaker 1: don't we jump into the content, Holly, Let's start with you.
Speaker 1: You've been covering a lot of things related to tariffs,
Speaker 1: including the lawsuits, the several lawsuits at this point challenging
Speaker 1: the US tariffs on other countries imports from other countries.
Speaker 1: I know there's a hearing next week on May thirteenth
Speaker 1: in one of the lawsuits in the Court of International Trade.
Speaker 1: I know you're going to be watching that. I'm going
Speaker 1: to try to watch it as well. Definitely sort of
Speaker 1: in an area of law that we don't have a
Speaker 1: lot of precedent. Maybe tell us about the case and
Speaker 1: what you're expecting in the argument.
Speaker 2: Sure, thanks, Elliott.
Speaker 3: So the challengers, there have been about seven lawsuits filed,
Speaker 3: and most of them are filed in the US International
Speaker 3: Trade Court. Some of them are filed in other jurisdiction
Speaker 3: district courts around the country, but they mostly argue the
Speaker 3: same things. And what they're saying is that the President
Speaker 3: Trump's terroriffs are unlawful because the statute he relied on,
Speaker 3: which is the International Emergency Economic Powers Actor or AIPA
Speaker 3: doesn't authorize the terroriffs. To the emergency he's cited as
Speaker 3: a basis for the terriffs is not a real emergency
Speaker 3: who want, namely the trade deficit. They're saying that that's
Speaker 3: been in existence for fifty years, and the executive order
Speaker 3: which in which he imposed the tariffs even said that
Speaker 3: that's a persistent problems.
Speaker 2: So it doesn't.
Speaker 3: Arise to the level of emergency that prevents presents an
Speaker 3: unusual and extraordinary threat as the statute requires.
Speaker 2: And three, if AYIPA does authorize the.
Speaker 3: Tariffs, it's an unconstitutional delegation of power. So what we're
Speaker 3: watching now is that several of the challengers in the
Speaker 3: different lawsuits have filed separate motions for programming injunctions seeking
Speaker 3: to stay the tariffs, and one of those motions is
Speaker 3: going to be heard before the International Trade Court on
Speaker 3: May thirteen. So that's the next sort of catalyst that
Speaker 3: we're watching, and we think that that can inform probably
Speaker 3: the other pulmary injunction motions that are going to be
Speaker 3: heard by that court as well.
Speaker 1: Was this the case where there was a tro that
Speaker 1: was denied? That's right, and I mean does that give
Speaker 1: us any clues as to what's going to happen on
Speaker 1: the preliminary injunction motion.
Speaker 3: Not necessarily, because the grounds to the court relied on
Speaker 3: to deny the TIRO was that the challengers didn't present
Speaker 3: immediate irreparable harm. So the way the TIRO works is
Speaker 3: that it puts it restrains that it would have restrained
Speaker 3: the terffs for fourteen days.
Speaker 2: And what the court.
Speaker 3: Said is that none of these challengers have said that
Speaker 3: they've even paid a tariff yet or that they would
Speaker 3: have paid the tariff within the next fourteen days. So
Speaker 3: it didn't go to the merits of the argument. So
Speaker 3: in terms of the merits, it definitely doesn't speak to that.
Speaker 3: But in terms of irreparable harm, and because that's also
Speaker 3: required to get a preliminary injunction motion, the challengers may
Speaker 3: be able to say, you know, we're not able to
Speaker 3: show harm in this fourteen day period, but it's coming
Speaker 3: and so that may be, you know, an distinction that
Speaker 3: makes the outcome different.
Speaker 1: Right, they don't have to show as much of an
Speaker 1: emergency as it did on the t RO application, But
Speaker 1: I suppose it's it's possible that they still win on
Speaker 1: irreparable harm, and we still don't get much insight on
Speaker 1: likelihood of success of the merits, but I guess we'll
Speaker 1: see next week, right.
Speaker 3: That that could be the case. Yeah, we will see
Speaker 3: next week. They also file the summary judgment motion, So
Speaker 3: that's sort of like a belt in suspenders, like, if
Speaker 3: we can't if we can't show our repeable harm, at
Speaker 3: least we went on the merits, we should get a judgment.
Speaker 3: So so they've also filed that motion also.
Speaker 1: So it's more so that that does suggest still have
Speaker 1: to reach the merits, right, given the summary judgment motion?
Speaker 2: Right?
Speaker 1: And how long do you think so this is like
Speaker 1: a three judge panel, right, that's right? And and how
Speaker 1: quickly do you expect a decision?
Speaker 3: I think it's going to be relatively quickly because the
Speaker 3: country is, you know, watching for this decision. A lot,
Speaker 3: a lot depends on this decision, and it's impacting almost everyone.
Speaker 3: So I think they're going to push it out relatively quickly.
Speaker 3: So I think it could come as early as too
Speaker 3: Q and then and then you know, whoever loses, well,
Speaker 3: you know, we're anticipating that they're going to file an
Speaker 3: immediate appeal.
Speaker 1: And that goes to the Federal Circuit, right, that's right?
Speaker 1: All right, Well, that that's going to be a fun
Speaker 1: one to watch. You're going to go to court, you're
Speaker 1: going to you're going to live stream it.
Speaker 2: I'm going to watch the live stream.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I think I am too. Hopefully it works.
Speaker 2: Yeah, that's always dicey.
Speaker 1: And what about the other case. I mean there is like,
Speaker 1: well you said, at least a half dozen other cases, right,
Speaker 1: and are there any other catalysts in those cases?
Speaker 2: Yes?
Speaker 3: So there are there are seven cases total that we
Speaker 3: found some where there could be more, but there are
Speaker 3: at least seven, and four have filed I believe it's
Speaker 3: four at this point have filed motions for preliminary injunction.
Speaker 3: So we have the hearing that's coming up on May
Speaker 3: thirteenth in the Boss case, which is before the International
Speaker 3: Trade Court. Then we have there's a hearing on May
Speaker 3: twenty seventh before the court in Washington, d C. The
Speaker 3: Federal District Court there. And that's an interesting one because
Speaker 3: the challengers who file, who are challenging the terriffs, filed
Speaker 3: it there saying the US International Trade Court does not
Speaker 3: have jurisdiction to hear the claims. The lawsuit because they're
Speaker 3: saying the Court of International Trade only as jurisdiction to
Speaker 3: hear disputes arising out of a law that provides for
Speaker 3: terroriffs and that authorizes tariffs, and they're saying this law
Speaker 3: ayep IT does not authorize tarriffs, so the US International
Speaker 3: Trade Court does not have jurisdiction. So they filed they
Speaker 3: filed the motion for preliminary in junction, the government filed
Speaker 3: a motion to transfer, and those are being heard on
Speaker 3: the same day on May twenty seventh. And it makes
Speaker 3: sense because if the court finds that aep IT doesn't
Speaker 3: authorize the tariffs, that goes to the merits of the
Speaker 3: case as well, in.
Speaker 1: Which case in which case the transfer would be denied.
Speaker 2: In those cases, the transfer would be denied.
Speaker 3: And so the court would have decided something on the merits,
Speaker 3: which is that ayep IT doesn't authorize the terrorists.
Speaker 2: It would then just have to decide.
Speaker 3: Whether there's a reparable harm such that it grants a
Speaker 3: preliminary in junction or it has has a grant summary.
Speaker 1: Judgment in the case that's being argued next week. Has
Speaker 1: this issue, the issue of the court's jurisdiction come up,
Speaker 1: because I would I would think that the court has
Speaker 1: to determine that sort of in the first instance, it.
Speaker 3: Hasn't because the challengers sort of, you know, they filed there,
Speaker 3: so they're conceding that the court has jurisdiction. What they
Speaker 3: do is sort of like this nuanced argument that IPA
Speaker 3: may allow for some terrorists, but it doesn't allow for
Speaker 3: these terrorists. So they don't really say that, you know,
Speaker 3: very directly, but that's the implication, is that it allows
Speaker 3: for some terrorists, but it doesn't allow.
Speaker 2: For these terrorifts.
Speaker 3: This like wide skill application of terrorists, and it doesn't
Speaker 3: allow for terrorists when there's no unusual or extraordinary threat.
Speaker 3: Preliminary injunction motion file just yesterday May seventh, by twelve states,
Speaker 3: led by Oregon, that are challenging reciprocal terriffs and the
Speaker 3: tariffs Tanate of China and Mexico. They got the offer
Speaker 3: to opine on what's happening in the Bus case, which
Speaker 3: is the case that's.
Speaker 2: Being heard May thirteenth.
Speaker 3: So I think it's you know, it's likely that whatever
Speaker 3: happens on May thirteenth will affect this Oregon case as well.
Speaker 1: And inevitably all these cases at least one of them
Speaker 1: is headed to the Supreme Court. I think so some
Speaker 1: sort of official final ruling on this issue.
Speaker 2: I think so. I think that's a safe thing to say.
Speaker 1: Yes, yep, cool, anything else on these cases.
Speaker 2: No, that's it. We'll be watching.
Speaker 3: We'll be watching to see what happens on May thirteenth,
Speaker 3: and you know, hopefully we can get some sort of
Speaker 3: guidance about which way the court is leaning. They don't
Speaker 3: always show their hand oral argument.
Speaker 2: Sometimes they do.
Speaker 3: Sometimes the questions that they that they ask, can you
Speaker 3: show that you know, they're concerns about some things. But
Speaker 3: I think it will definitely be interestingly we'll be waiting
Speaker 3: for that decision.
Speaker 1: Yep. All right, great, thanks Holly, and I should plug
Speaker 1: now as well. For those of you who are on
Speaker 1: a Bloomberg terminal, you can access all of Bloomberg Intelligence's
Speaker 1: tariff related research at BIS based tariff Go and just
Speaker 1: recently we launched a bive Tariff Impact Matrix, which lists
Speaker 1: almost three hundred companies across twenty different industries and shows
Speaker 1: you how the tariffs will impact each of those companies.
Speaker 1: It shows you what their average tariff rate is based
Speaker 1: on their exposure to different countries and the rates of
Speaker 1: tariffs impose on those countries, and then it shows you
Speaker 1: how much the cost of goods for those companies would increase,
Speaker 1: how much their operating income would suffer as a result
Speaker 1: of the tariffs, and how much they would have to
Speaker 1: raise prices within the US and globally to offset the
Speaker 1: impact of the tariffs, sort of in a worst case
Speaker 1: scenario without taking mitigation efforts into account. All right, so
Speaker 1: let's move away from tariffs at this point. Matt, let's
Speaker 1: bring you in. Matt covers TMT litigation and policy for US. So.
Speaker 1: Last week, FCC Commissioner Simington I think wrote an op
Speaker 1: ed saying that the FCC needed to hit the broadcast
Speaker 1: networks quote where it hurts most financially end quote and
Speaker 1: to do so, he said, the FCC should cap how
Speaker 1: much local TV stations have to pay the big national
Speaker 1: TV networks for their programs. Can you tell us more
Speaker 1: about what this proposal means?
Speaker 2: What?
Speaker 1: Why is that coming up now? And you know, give
Speaker 1: us your overall view on it.
Speaker 4: Yeah, it's just going to be a fascinating chapter at
Speaker 4: the FCC for broadcasters for a number of reasons.
Speaker 5: Because this FCC is.
Speaker 4: There very aware of the need to deregulate in the space.
Speaker 4: Broadcasters have been regulated in ways that the Internet and
Speaker 4: new media aren't regulated, and it's and it's very difficult
Speaker 4: for that business. And so on one hand, the Republicans
Speaker 4: at the FCC want to ease those rules. At the
Speaker 4: same time, though President Trump is not thrilled with how
Speaker 4: the national TV networks are operating and and so there's
Speaker 4: frequent criticism of of their their content as fake news,
Speaker 4: and the the Republicans at the FCC are very conscious
Speaker 4: about making sure they don't offend President Trump on this,
Speaker 4: and so they want to go after the big networks,
Speaker 4: but they want to protect the local TV stations that
Speaker 4: that own it.
Speaker 5: So it's a fine line.
Speaker 4: And I think what you saw from from from Commissioner
Speaker 4: Symington last week with this proposal was very much aimed
Speaker 4: at the political side of keeping President Trump happy by
Speaker 4: going after.
Speaker 5: ABC, CBS, NBC.
Speaker 4: Fox, and UH and and with the proposal, that would
Speaker 4: be very good news for the local TV station owners.
Speaker 4: And here you're thinking about smaller companies next Star, Tegna, Sinclair,
Speaker 4: who don't produce that big national TV content, but they
Speaker 4: own TV stations in local markets all across the country.
Speaker 4: And so basically Simington's proposal would say, look right now,
Speaker 4: those ABC, CBS, NBC, Fox, those big guys are taking
Speaker 4: fifty percent of the cut in these deals, we're gonna
Speaker 4: cut We're gonna limit that only thirty percent they can get.
Speaker 4: So it's it's a big increase for those local TV
Speaker 4: station owners if the FCC can do this, and if
Speaker 4: the law.
Speaker 1: You were going to finish your thought, but good time
Speaker 1: to ask can they do this?
Speaker 4: That's exactly the problem. The FCC is confined by the
Speaker 4: Communications Act, which historic Brendan Carr is. He's made the
Speaker 4: point that look, there's there's this standard in the law
Speaker 4: called the public interest standard, and that broadcasters have to
Speaker 4: act in the public interest, and courts you can go
Speaker 4: back to the nineteen forties and find Supreme Court decisions
Speaker 4: that that read that clause in the statute to delegate
Speaker 4: very broad discretion to the FCC to regulate broadcasters in
Speaker 4: the public interest. And so what what I think the
Speaker 4: Republicans at the FCC are going to try to do
Speaker 4: as they defend proposals like this, is say those two
Speaker 4: terms public interests, we can squeeze into that some new
Speaker 4: novel regulatory approaches and go after the networks to try
Speaker 4: to do that. Now, is that going to work? I'm
Speaker 4: I'm really skeptical. To me, it's about the worst possible
Speaker 4: time to be doing that, as you know, Elliott, like
Speaker 4: with the with the rise of you know, the Lowe
Speaker 4: or Bright cutting into Chevron deference.
Speaker 5: This is a tough time.
Speaker 1: I was just about to ask, how's that going to
Speaker 1: square with lower Bright?
Speaker 5: Exactly?
Speaker 4: Do all the trends in the court are going the
Speaker 4: other way that to say that regulators can't take old
Speaker 4: statutes that have these vague terms and then squeeze in major,
Speaker 4: disruptive new regulation, and that that is precisely what what
Speaker 4: this is is taking the words public interest and and
Speaker 4: squeezing into it a whole new regulatory scheme in a
Speaker 4: statue where we're sitting next to it, there's specific language
Speaker 4: about what the FCC can regulate and what it can
Speaker 4: and and so when when the broadcast networks challenge this,
Speaker 4: they're going to have a very strong argument that this
Speaker 4: is the sort of major question, uh that that Congress
Speaker 4: could address if it wanted to, but it never has.
Speaker 4: And and if you you search for the law through
Speaker 4: the law there's nothing in the law that allows them
Speaker 4: to do this. So I think the FCC will probably
Speaker 4: push the envelope on.
Speaker 5: This and and stretches. It's at the already as far
Speaker 5: as it can go.
Speaker 4: It might even adopt, you know, vote to adopt these
Speaker 4: rules and take its chances in court.
Speaker 5: But will it get through the courts. Probably not.
Speaker 4: There's a chance they get a good draw on judges
Speaker 4: and they end up in a good circuit, but most
Speaker 4: likely with the Supreme Court sitting behind that. Even with
Speaker 4: this being you know, maybe fitting in some way sort
Speaker 4: of a deregulatory approach that at least the politics might
Speaker 4: might cut in a way that some justice is like,
Speaker 4: I still don't think that they're going to go for this.
Speaker 5: I think you got to go to Congress.
Speaker 1: It doesn't really sound irregulatory.
Speaker 5: It's really not. Yeah, it's good for the little it's
Speaker 5: good for the little guy.
Speaker 4: It's more of the politics, I think than it is
Speaker 4: the deregulation. It's it's regulation that that doesn't exist now.
Speaker 4: So I don't see see the justices allowing this.
Speaker 1: What's the composition of the FCC right now?
Speaker 4: Right now it is two to two, evenly divided and
Speaker 4: so we are awaiting. President Trump has nominated did Olivia
Speaker 4: Trustee to be his third Republican commissioner at the FCC.
Speaker 4: She cleared the Senate Commerce Committee. We're just waiting for
Speaker 4: a final vote on the Senate floor, which I think
Speaker 4: will probably happen this month, maybe maybe June. So I
Speaker 4: think the FCC is going to get rolling on all
Speaker 4: these momentous rulemakings regarding broadcasters, if not in the second quarter,
Speaker 4: early in the third.
Speaker 1: And you expect to vote at the FCC to sort
Speaker 1: of be along ideological lines on someone like this too.
Speaker 4: I would think so, I would think this is this
Speaker 4: is going to cut on party lines on something like this.
Speaker 4: You know, we've sort of clearly now moved away from
Speaker 4: the days of the FCC being an independent agency where
Speaker 4: they don't have to keep the president happy. They could
Speaker 4: they could act independently without risk of being fired. Brendan
Speaker 4: Carr at least is acting like he works for President Trump,
Speaker 4: and I think the other Republicans at the FCC, you
Speaker 4: can see the trend in the law, and for that reason,
Speaker 4: are very likely to support these sort of politically driven
Speaker 4: issues in the way that President Trump would want them to.
Speaker 1: Got it and so you think a rule finalization towards
Speaker 1: the end of this year.
Speaker 5: I think that's right.
Speaker 4: I think they're going to go through the full APA
Speaker 4: process on this and then so you would see the
Speaker 4: finalization toward the end of these year or maybe early
Speaker 4: next year, and then a legal fight mostly next year.
Speaker 1: Got it, all right? Well, be fun for you to
Speaker 1: cover the whole process absolutely. All right, great, thanks Matt. Yeah,
Speaker 1: all right, Nathan, let's bring you in. Let's round out
Speaker 1: today's discussion with some crypto talk in DC. I know
Speaker 1: Congress is taking up a stable coin bill, there's a
Speaker 1: build over crypto market structure. For a while, it looked
Speaker 1: like there was some bipartisan support for these, especially the
Speaker 1: stable coin bill. Now I'm not so sure. What's the latest.
Speaker 6: Yeah, so you know earlier you said your recording is
Speaker 6: it is currently two twenty and twenty three seconds according
Speaker 6: to my watch Eastern time. I don't know if it's
Speaker 6: standard or whatever.
Speaker 1: But it's daylight time.
Speaker 6: The reason why I bring that up, though, is that
Speaker 6: the Senate vote on cloture is happening as we speak,
Speaker 6: and this is on the stable Coin also known as
Speaker 6: the Genius Act. This is a bill that would require
Speaker 6: stable coins to be backed up by one hundred percent
Speaker 6: high quality liquid assets, and also give stable coin issuers,
Speaker 6: both bank owned and non bank owned issuers, the ability
Speaker 6: to register with appropriate regulatory authorities. And it looks like
Speaker 6: that vote is going to fail. As of our account
Speaker 6: right now, forty two senators have voted against it, and
Speaker 6: as a result, the bill's not going to move forward
Speaker 6: for now. The opposition coming from the Democrats is largely
Speaker 6: tied to AML Bank Secrecy Act other type of national
Speaker 6: security Plus you have the also opposition to the idea
Speaker 6: that President Trump is and his family is actively involved
Speaker 6: in the crypto space and then they would oversee the
Speaker 6: SEC and the CFTC and the regulators and so forth.
Speaker 6: So you know what we think is going to happen
Speaker 6: is is that Senator Thun, the majority leader, is going
Speaker 6: to try again next week. The reason why I'm still
Speaker 6: optimistic this bill can happen is because, unlike situations where
Speaker 6: they went into a vote and the vote failed, they
Speaker 6: had been negotiating. They be in the Republican's Democrats have
Speaker 6: been negotiating on that pretty much the entire day plus
Speaker 6: most of last night. And you know, you don't spend
Speaker 6: twelve hours negotiating with the other side if you don't
Speaker 6: think a deal can actually be made, and so I
Speaker 6: think they are still you know, I think this political
Speaker 6: hiccup doesn't derail the process. I think they do come
Speaker 6: together and they get something done. May not happen next week.
Speaker 6: You know, we've been telling our clients that we think
Speaker 6: it can get done before this summer. But again, we
Speaker 6: do think that the stable Cooin bill can pass. We're
Speaker 6: at a seventy percent chance. If it passes, the Senate
Speaker 6: will go to an eighty percent, and just remeinder folks
Speaker 6: like we do ours and increments in ten and for
Speaker 6: me to go to eighty percent, I actually have to
Speaker 6: feel really good that a bill is going to pass.
Speaker 5: So just go ahead.
Speaker 1: Well, I was just going to ask, how how do
Speaker 1: the Republicans delay the concerns of the Democrats on all
Speaker 1: those issues that the AML stuff, and then more importantly
Speaker 1: probably for them, the Trump issues.
Speaker 6: So the Trump issues, I don't think you're going to
Speaker 6: be able to get around. I mean, it's just at
Speaker 6: the end of the day, President Trump's family is active
Speaker 6: in the crypto space, and there's nothing that I think
Speaker 6: legislatively that they Republicans can do to get the Democrats
Speaker 6: on board when it comes to that, But I also
Speaker 6: don't think all the Democrats are united in that opposition
Speaker 6: due to President Trump's family as well as I'll talk
Speaker 6: about in a minute. There was another joint hearing this
Speaker 6: week of the House Financial Services Committee and the Agricultural
Speaker 6: Committee to discuss a crypto legislation on market structure. Ranking
Speaker 6: Member Maxine Waters voiced an objection, and most of the
Speaker 6: Democratic members stood up from the Financial Services Committee and
Speaker 6: walked out, But the Democratic members of the Agriculture Committee
Speaker 6: and few of the Democratic members the House Financial Services
Speaker 6: Committee stuck around because stable coin issuers in particular, and
Speaker 6: crypto is becoming more of a bipartisan affair than it
Speaker 6: was just even last year, and so there are going
Speaker 6: to be Democrats out there who are going to vote
Speaker 6: for this bill even with President Trump. You know, is
Speaker 6: family being involved. When it comes to am L and
Speaker 6: the system and safety and soundness stuff. We're talking about
Speaker 6: technical provisions here. We're talking about, you know, things that
Speaker 6: will most likely change under rule making, but we're talking
Speaker 6: about language to those regulators. And sometimes it even gets
Speaker 6: down to the differences of may versus shall and so
Speaker 6: I think, you know that to me says it can
Speaker 6: be resolved. They'll probably put in language in there that
Speaker 6: says that the Federal Reserve or the occ would have
Speaker 6: to constitute this rulemaking and that they would have to
Speaker 6: include language essentially for a bank you're going to have
Speaker 6: to follow bank secrecy rules AML rules anyway, So I
Speaker 6: think once they come out and they put language in
Speaker 6: there that says, you know, by you know, without a
Speaker 6: system of a doubt, you know AML. And I almost
Speaker 6: said system of a down because I was listening to
Speaker 6: them on a lunch break. But yeah, so without a
Speaker 6: doubt in the world, you know, I think they can
Speaker 6: get they come to an.
Speaker 5: Agreement on this.
Speaker 6: So I'm not saying it's going to pass next week,
Speaker 6: but I do think it ultimately passes. Now, the bigger
Speaker 6: question is this Crypto Market Structure Bill. Now, they haven't
Speaker 6: come up with a name yet yet for it. It's
Speaker 6: still just to quote a discussion draft. So this is
Speaker 6: obviously going to change between now and when it even
Speaker 6: gets a House Financial Services or a House agg vote.
Speaker 6: This is coming from both of the committees because remember
Speaker 6: Financial Services and the sec overseas Securities CFTC and the
Speaker 6: House Agg Committee overseeing commodities. Bitcoin as a commodity, but
Speaker 6: some of these tukens could be considered it securities. Now,
Speaker 6: the long story short in this bill is that it
Speaker 6: looks very similar to the Financial Innovation of Technology Act
Speaker 6: from last year. It defines what an SEC, and in
Speaker 6: a security is, what the CFTC and the commodity is.
Speaker 6: From most parts, the crypto world wants to be under
Speaker 6: the CFTC's jurisdiction. Commodity rules are a little bit more
Speaker 6: principle based as opposed to prescriptive base allows a little
Speaker 6: bit more flexibility, which is why the crypto world for
Speaker 6: the most part wants to be under the Commodity Futures
Speaker 6: Trading Commission. But it also allows companies to register as
Speaker 6: a digital commodity exchange or a broker or a dealer,
Speaker 6: and you know, will increase costs, but for a company
Speaker 6: like coinbase or Robinhood, you will gladly pay those costs
Speaker 6: if it means that a future SEC is not going
Speaker 6: to come three four years from now and hammer you
Speaker 6: with an enforce in action. Because even though the courts
Speaker 6: may rule on your side, you still got to spend
Speaker 6: money defending these things so it gives regulatory clarity. There
Speaker 6: are going to be some folks in the crypto world
Speaker 6: that don't like this, namely the people that feel that,
Speaker 6: you know, regulation is something that you know, shouldn't you
Speaker 6: know more of like the decentralized folks who really just
Speaker 6: you know, it shouldn't be an American thing. It should
Speaker 6: be a decentralized thing. There shouldn't be much government interaction.
Speaker 6: They may not like this, especially the small mom and players,
Speaker 6: because you are going to have to spend money. But
Speaker 6: I think this bill is going to take more time
Speaker 6: to cook. The short story long on this one is
Speaker 6: that I think it's going to take at least another
Speaker 6: six to nine months. You know, you'll see the House
Speaker 6: move faster, but the challenge is going to be in
Speaker 6: the Senate on this one. So I think you'll see
Speaker 6: the House move this summer on this. They could potentially
Speaker 6: pass this thing by the August recess, if not quickly thereafter,
Speaker 6: and then I think it's stagnates in the Senate for
Speaker 6: a while because if it's this challenging to get a
Speaker 6: simple stable coin bill, it's going to be even more
Speaker 6: challenging to get Senator Elizabeth Warren and another her allies on
Speaker 6: board with a bigger crypto bill.
Speaker 1: And right, and if for some reason the stable coin
Speaker 1: bill doesn't get past, then that really bodes ominously for the.
Speaker 6: Life if the Senate. If I'm wrong in the stable
Speaker 6: coin bill. First, if I'm wrong and you come into
Speaker 6: the office, I'll buy you a Bloomberg coffee. But if
Speaker 6: I am wrong about the stable cooin, not a great deal.
Speaker 6: And for what it's worth, Bloomberg coffees are free, you know,
Speaker 6: so good, but yeah, yeah they're good. But if I'm
Speaker 6: wrong about the stable coin bill, then this crypto bill,
Speaker 6: I just the odds of that's going to drop even dramatically,
Speaker 6: much more, because even though there are enough Democrats, there
Speaker 6: are Democrats out there that think that crypto legislation needs
Speaker 6: to happen. You still need sixty votes in the Senate.
Speaker 6: You got to get past the filibuster. And until then happens,
Speaker 6: you know, it's going to be a challenge.
Speaker 1: Got it all right? Great? Anything else?
Speaker 6: No, I'm just going to go listen to system of
Speaker 6: it down.
Speaker 1: That sounds great. So hopefully next week on this episode,
Speaker 1: we'll have some updates from our anti trust analysts Jenri
Speaker 1: and Justin Taresi. They have been in court the last
Speaker 1: couple weeks following both the FTC versus Meta case and
Speaker 1: also Justice Department against Google over search remedies, so we
Speaker 1: should have updates from both of those cases next week.
Speaker 1: But with that, I think we'll wrap up this episode
Speaker 1: of Votes and Verdicts. As always, thank you for listening.
Speaker 1: If you have any questions about any of the matters
Speaker 1: we discussed on this episode, please don't hesitate to reach
Speaker 1: out to us at your convenience with any questions. As
Speaker 1: a reminder, you can find all of our research on
Speaker 1: the Bloomberg terminal at big or on our litigation and
Speaker 1: policy dashboard at BI laws Go, and we also encourage
Speaker 1: you to listen to other episodes of Votes and Verdicts
Speaker 1: on whatever platform you like to get your favorite podcasts.
Speaker 1: Thank you for listening and have a great day.