Page 16 - The GSE Report March-April 2018

TRUMP ADMINISTRATION
MJARN.U-ARPYR.20210818
recommend that the Bureau consider the appointment and use of administrative law judges to decide the validity of petitions and provide guidance materials that include the important considerations the Bureau weighs when it determines whether a CID should be modified or set aside. (Correspondence to Monica Jackson, Financial Services Roundtable, Consumer Bankers Association and Consumer Mortgage Coalition, 04/26/18)
In an April 26 letter to Mulvaney, 16 Democratic state attorneys wrote that the BCFP’s investigative demand (CID) process shouldn’t be tampered with, arguing that the bureau’s CID mirror that of the Federal Trade Commission. They concluded:
Because of its wide acceptance as an indispensable law enforcement tool, the authority to issue civil investigative demands is prevalent throughout
all levels of American government. As our states’ chief law enforcement officers, we have witnessed the Bureau use its investigatory subpoena authority in a manner that minimizes burdens on recipients while still allowing the Bureau to protect consumers and promote fair and transparent financial products and services. We oppose any effort to curtail the Bureau’s civil investigative demand authority.
State AGs from California, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Maryland, Minnesota, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, and Washington signed on to the letter. (Bloomberg Law, Evan Weinberger, 04/27/18; Correspondence to Acting Director Mick Mulvaney, Xavier Becerrak, Matthew P. Denn, Russell A. Suzuki, Stephen H. Levins, Lisa Madigan, Thomas J. Miller, Brian E. Frosh, Lori Swanson, Hector Balderas, Eric T. Schneiderman, Joshua H. Stein, Ellen F. Rosenblum, Josh Shapiro, Peter F. Kilmartin, Thomas J. Donovan, Jr., Mark R. Herring and Bob Ferguson, 04/25/18)
© 2018 by Canfield Press, LLC. All rights reserved. www.canfieldpress.com 16