Banks spend $200M to block CLARITY Act

TLDR

Major US banks are reported to have spent around 200 million dollars lobbying against the CLARITY Act, a flagship US crypto market structure bill that recently failed in the Senate.

1. Coinbases policy chief says large banks mounted a roughly 200 million dollar campaign opposing CLARITY, adding to other political and ethics disputes that derailed the bill.
2. Banks focused on blocking stablecoin yield and rewards they see as deposit competition, while state attorneys general attacked provisions they say weaken state fraud enforcement.
3. With CLARITY rejected, US crypto remains under fragmented, regulator led rules, and the next key signals are SEC/CFTC rulemaking and whether a post election Congress revisits market structure.

Deep Dive

1. Where The 200M Claim Comes From

Coinbase Chief Policy Officer Faryar Shirzad publicly argued that a coordinated campaign by major banks spent roughly 200 million dollars to slow and ultimately stall the CLARITY Act in the Senate, describing it as a well funded opposition campaign that hit late in the legislative calendar and helped block cloture on the bills vote to advance debate. That claim appears in interviews and coverage summarizing his remarks, including a report that banks collectively spent about 200 million lobbying against CLARITY as it moved through Congress.[](https://en.coin-turk.com/coinbase-policy-chief-points-to-200-million-bank-campaign-in-clarity-act-setback)

Lobbying disclosures are aggregated across many issues, so the precise figure is best treated as an informed estimate from an industry participant rather than a formally audited total.

2. Why Banks Opposed The CLARITY Act

Banking trade groups repeatedly warned that CLARITYs stablecoin provisions would let exchanges and issuers pay rewards on payment stablecoins that function like interest on deposits, potentially pulling funding away from community and regional banks. Letters from the American Bankers Association and other groups asked senators to ban interest like stablecoin rewards outright and criticized a proposed Treasury circuit breaker that would only activate after substantial deposit flight had already occurred.[]()

At the same time, a bipartisan group of 17 to 18 state attorneys general argued the bills preemption language would weaken state powers to pursue crypto fraud and securities violations, saying CLARITY could embolden scammers by muddying state authority.[](https://crypto.news/banks-and-state-attorney-general-challenge-clarity-act)

3. What CLARITYs Failure Means For Crypto

The Senate ultimately rejected CLARITY in a 49 to 50 procedural vote, short of the 60 votes needed to advance, effectively killing the bill for this Congress.? Reporting points to a combination of factors: bank opposition on stablecoins and deposit flight, state level enforcement concerns, and a separate fight over presidential ethics tied to Donald Trumps large crypto holdings.

Without CLARITY, the US still lacks a unified market structure statute. The SEC and CFTC remain the main rule setters through enforcement and agency rulemaking, while stablecoin reward models and exchange practices continue under existing, less specific rules, with future constraints more likely to arrive via the already enacted GENIUS Act and bank regulators.

Conclusion

The 200 million dollar figure reflects how aggressively parts of the banking sector tried to shape or stop CLARITY, particularly around stablecoin rewards and deposit competition, but it sat within a broader coalition of opponents that also included state regulators and ethics focused lawmakers. The bills failure keeps US crypto in a patchwork regulatory regime, where agency enforcement and incremental rules dominate, and any durable clarity will depend on a future political window where banks, states, and the crypto industry can live with the same compromise.