CLARITY Act Hits Final Stretch as Democrats Push Back Before Senate Vote

The latest stage of negotiations over the CLARITY Act has moved the bill toward a key vote while major disagreements remain. Senate Democrats sent Republicans their counterproposal late Monday after reviewing the newest Republican draft released a day earlier.

The timing came just before the legislation’s first scheduled Senate vote on Tuesday afternoon.

CLARITY Act Negotiations Heat Up

Much of the disagreement centers on its revised ethics language. Concerns were raised about a provision involving the Office of Government Ethics that could allow senior government officials to keep their existing crypto business connections.

Senator Cynthia Lummis, who is one of the Republicans leading the negotiations, said Monday that Democrats were continuing to seek additional concessions. She maintained that the legislation was still ready to move to a vote.

The White House has also defended the latest version. Patrick Witt, the White House’s top crypto advisor, spoke at a Solana Policy Institute summit in Washington and said the administration had worked to address the concerns that emerged during negotiations.

While expressing confidence about the Senate beginning its consideration of the highly anticipated cryptocurrency regulation, he said that the question of securing 60 votes would ultimately be political rather than a matter of policy since he viewed the bill as genuinely bipartisan and deserving of support.

His remarks come a day after a 635-page Republican draft that made changes to several provisions that had become contentious.

Banking Groups and States Raise Alarms

The changes have drawn complaints from different groups. For instance, banking groups are mainly focused on the rules for stablecoin rewards. Eight trade associations sent their concerns to Senate leaders John Thune and Chuck Schumer on Monday. The groups also asked lawmakers to make several changes to the bill.

Separately, New York Attorney General Letitia James and 17 other attorneys general urged senators to reject the legislation. They warned that federal preemption could weaken state anti-fraud, investigative, and enforcement authority, including administrative, civil, and criminal powers that form the basis of state police powers. They also claimed that it could leave the SEC with “broad preemptive power” to decide where the rules apply.

Despite those reactions, Witt said that it was the “best and final offer.”