U.S. Senate Fails to Advance CLARITY Act as 49 Votes in Favor Fall Short of 60-Vote Threshold

On September 15, local time, a procedural vote in the U.S. Senate to advance consideration of the Digital Asset Market Clarity Act (CLARITY Act) failed. The bill would define the supervisory roles of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), as well as trading rules, in cryptoasset markets. According to the official roll call, the vote was 49 in favor, 50 against, and one not voting, short of the 60 votes required. This was not a vote on final passage of the bill. It was a vote on whether to end debate on the motion to proceed to the bill and move to the next stage. Some Republicans also voted no, but according to the Senate's record of proceedings, Thom Tillis cast his vote against it so that he could file a motion to reconsider. Immediately after the result was announced, Tillis filed a motion to reconsider the outcome of the procedural vote.

The Block reported that President Donald Trump's cryptoasset businesses and conflicts of interest involving public officials were key points of contention. According to The Block, Democratic Senator Mark Warner said he opposed advancing consideration of the bill because conflicts of interest surrounding the president's cryptoasset businesses remained unresolved. The outcome blocked further progress on the bill, but did not mean that it had been definitively rejected. The Block reported that another procedural vote could be held if Senate floor time became available.

Metanomia View

In the process of establishing rules for cryptoasset businesses, both market oversight and conflicts of interest involving public officials are becoming points on which agreement must be reached. Even when votes in favor are secured, some stages, such as this procedural vote, require a separate voting threshold to be met. Support for a bill therefore does not necessarily translate into actual legislative progress. This vote does not put new rules into effect; it shows that the political agreement needed to move deliberations forward has yet to be secured.

Sources