In a letter to the chief executives of Visa and MasterCard, Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) lambasted the companies for misconstruing his reforms of credit card interchange fees to small banks and small businesses. He also threatened that he might consider some card issuers’ practices anti-competitive, and requested a reply by June 14.
Durbin’s amendment to the Senate financial regulatory reform bill prevents big card issuers like Visa and MasterCard from charging high “swipe fees” — which netted $48 billion for credit and debit cards in 2008 — even though the cost of processing transactions has decreased. The amendment is targeted at lowering swipe fees for small businesses.
Here is the full text of the letter:
Dear Mr. Saunders and Mr. Selander:
I write in regard to the unfortunate coordinated campaign your companies have launched distorting the impact of my recently-passed interchange amendment on small banks and credit unions.
**It appears that, in an effort to frighten small banks and credit unions into opposing the amendment, your companies are threatening to make changes to your small bank interchange fee rates and to your network operating rules. These changes, which are not in any way required by the amendment, are unnecessary and would disadvantage small card-issuing institutions. **
**I ask you each to state unequivocally that you are neither threatening nor planning to take steps that would purposefully disadvantage small institutions, should the amendment become law. Further, I warn you that if your companies coordinate with each other or collude with your largest member banks to make changes to your fees and rules, it would raise serious concerns that you are engaging in an unlawful restraint of trade. **
The amendment I offered, which was passed by the Senate in a bipartisan vote of 64-33, would establish a reasonable interchange fee standard for transactions involving debit cards issued by banks with assets of over $10 billion. The amendment would also prevent your companies from punishing merchants who provide discounts to customers for use of a particular card network (e.g., Visa vs. MasterCard) or a particular form of payment (e.g., cash vs. debit card vs. credit card), or who set minimum or maximum dollar thresholds for use of a credit card.
This language was carefully drafted in order to avoid creating any disadvantage for small banks and credit unions, and I went to great lengths to protect the ability of these small institutions to successfully compete with big banks in offering payment cards to consumers.
As you know, the amendment does not in any way require changes to the interchange fee rates that your companies have established for small banks and credit unions. In fact, 99% of all U.S. financial institutions are exempted from the amendment’s debit fee regulations.
Nor does the provision in any way permit merchants to discriminate against cards issued by small issuers. It does not touch your current network operating rules that require that cards be honored in the same way regardless of the identity of the bank that issued the card.
The only way that small banks or credit unions could experience interchange rate reductions or be discriminated against is if your companies decide to cut small bank interchange rates and rescind your operating rules that currently prohibit discrimination between card-issuing banks. Sadly, it appears from your companies’ public statements and other communications that you are contemplating just such steps.
In a May 20 statement, Visa charged that the amendment “could especially harm community banks and credit unions that depend on interchange to offer competitive banking services to firefighters, police officers, teachers, veterans, congressional staffers and other customers.” Also in a May 20 statement, MasterCard said the amendment will “punish banks on Main Street because the ‘carve-out’ for banks with assets below $10 billion is a sham.” The simple fact is, however, that small banks would not be harmed or punished under the amendment unless your companies decide to harm or punish them.
If your companies were to coordinate such punitive actions in the same way that you appear to have coordinated your messaging tactics, serious concerns would be raised that you are engaging in an unlawful restraint of trade. Further, I would caution you not to collude with your largest member banks to change your fees and rules in an effort to protect the big banks against competition from smaller card-issuing banks. Such steps would also raise serious antitrust concerns.
I know that your companies strongly oppose the amendment that was adopted by the Senate, and I am not surprised by your opposition. The provision would correct anti-competitive aspects of a system that has brought enormous revenue to your companies and to the largest banks at the expense of America’s small businesses and consumers. Nevertheless, I urge you to commit that if this amendment becomes law, you will not take steps to purposefully disadvantage small issuers. By making such a commitment, you will provide much-needed reassurance that you are not attempting to protect the biggest banks you serve by threatening the smallest.
Please respond in writing to this letter by June 14. I look forward to receiving your responses.
Richard J. Durbin
United States Senator
$1.3 trillion in federal spending unaccounted for, report finds
Despite calls for independent bodies to keep government accountable, the Sunlight Foundation’s most recent Clearspending report has found the federal
$1.89 billion given to states to fight HIV
The federal government Monday announced more than $1.89 billion in funding to states to fight the HIV epidemic with access to care and with more cash for the failing AIDS Drug Assistance Program. According to an HHS press release , $813 million of that money will go directly to the ADAP programming. An additional $8,386,340 will be issued as a supplement to 36 states and territories currently facing a litany of unmet needs and access issues.
$1.3 Million for Brown
The GOP’s candidate in the Massachusetts special election raised more than one million dollars -- double the goal -- in a 24-hour moneybomb on the Ron Paul
1. Brian Schweitzer
As governor of Montana, Schweitzer doesn’t represent one of the most highly populated, high-profile electoral states in the country. But this
#1 in Conspiracy Theories
Andrew Young’s tell-all biography of John Edwards, hitting shelves next week, is surging in one Amazon.com category in particular. #1 in Conspiracy
1 Brigade and 1 Battalion
ISTANBUL – It’s 10 p.m. in the lowest level of the Istanbul airport. In 20 minutes I’ll be allowed to board my plane to Kabul, bringing me to the
1. Lindsey Graham
Sen. Graham (R-S.C.) is typically regarded as a reliable vote for his party, but he took the bold step of breaking with his fellow Republicans to join Kerry
$1 Million for Toomey
Pat Toomey, the former Club for Growth president and leading Republican candidate in Pennsylvania’s 2010 Senate race, has announced a $1 million haul in the
$1 Trillion for Fannie and Freddie?
That is the worst-case scenario, according to Egan-Jones Ratings Co., quoted in a Bloomberg article making the rounds. The agency says that if home prices
Bachmann uncomfortable over earmarks ban
Republicans appear to have boxed themselves into a corner with their portrayal of earmarks as wasteful spending, as many of them have backed a moratorium on
Troubled mine holds hope for U.S. rare earth industry
China currently controls 97 percent of the world’s rare earth production. The Mountain Pass Mine could change that -- if it can overcome serious environmental concerns.