Does restricting such loans, or making them uneconomical to provide, help poor people or hurt them? It's an important question, and not an easy one. See, e.g., .

Senator Lummis  (R-Wyo.) has been a proponent of the Clarity Act from the early days. In this , she particularly praises Senator Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) for working as a partner with her on the Clarity Act. This bipartisanship strongly suggests that, notwithstanding the near certainty of opposition from Senator Warren (D-Mass.), the legislation will go through.

On the SEC side, Commissioner Hester Peirce has been a consistent critic of the pay-to-play rules.  

While measures like this have a feel-good, protect-the-little-guy sound about them, it is not obvious that their ultimate result is anything other than limiting lending to low-income borrowers. One could feel more comfortable with the rule if it were tied to some empirical study of the results: Do lenders stop making loans? Are potential borrowers injured?

As for the provision that lenders can apply to the Superintendent for permission to charge higher penalty fees, good luck with…