Ben McKenzie Urges Senators to Oppose CLARITY Act as Vote Looms

CoinDesk reports that with the U.S. Senate potentially moving toward a vote on the CLARITY Act, actor and outspoken crypto critic Ben McKenzie traveled to Capitol Hill to press lawmakers to reject the bill in its current form. Critics say the proposal falls short on consumer protections and could open the door to conflicts of interest tied to senior government involvement in digital assets. McKenzie met with several lawmakers and appeared at a Capitol Hill press briefing Tuesday alongside Senators Chris Murphy, Jeff Merkley, and Chris Van Hollen, as well as representatives from Americans for Financial Reform and Indivisible. Opponents are calling on the Senate to pause consideration unless what they describe as major gaps are addressed. They have also pointed to former President Trump's financial ties to digital assets and are pushing for tighter limits to prevent senior officials and their families from profiting from industries they oversee. The CLARITY Act, now placed on the Senate agenda, would create a federal market structure for digital assets. It would more clearly divide oversight between the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, and set rules for cryptocurrency exchanges, token issuers, and other crypto-related firms. The Senate Banking Committee approved the bill on May 15 by a 15-9 vote, with two Democratic senators backing it. It has since been added to the Senate legislative calendar and is eligible for consideration by the full chamber, though as of July 15 no final vote date has been set. The bill needs 60 votes to clear a procedural hurdle, making Democratic support pivotal and compressing negotiating time as Congress nears its August recess. Disputes over ethics provisions have become the central barrier to a bipartisan deal. Lawmakers are also negotiating provisions covering decentralized finance and stablecoin incentive mechanisms. Supporters say the legislation would reduce long-running regulatory uncertainty, while opponents argue that stronger ethics rules and consumer safeguards should come first.