Will Congress hand more power to the liberal prosecutors who’ve spent years targeting President Donald Trump and his supporters?
That’s the burning question conservatives ought to be asking as Sen. Roger Marshall gears up to tack the Credit Card Competition Act (CCCA) onto a fast-tracked, unrelated cryptocurrency bill.
The amendment might be marketed as something straight out of Trump’s playbook — after all, he threw his weight behind the CCCA not long ago. But digging a little deeper, it seems clear that this amendment language is not the same as the legislative text that Trump championed.
Instead, it risks becoming yet another Trojan horse that supercharges the very liberal attorneys general who have made careers out of targeting Trump and his allies.
Let’s rewind for a moment.
Earlier this month, Trump voiced support for the CCCA. The basic idea of the bill is to mandate that credit card companies make each of their credit cards compatible with more than one network.
Not everyone agrees with the bill. Many conservatives oppose it, fearing that the new government mandate will raise costs on consumers. However, regardless of what your opinion of the legislation is, what is clear is that Trump’s intent is to help everyday Americans.
However, what’s now barreling through Congress via this new Marshall amendment is something very different than the CCCA that Trump endorsed.
The real concern with Marshall’s new amendment is who gets the power to enforce the CCCA.
HOUSE MOVES FORWARD WITH HOLDING BILL AND HILLARY CLINTON IN CONTEMPT OF CONGRESS
Under the amended version reportedly being added to the crypto bill, enforcement wouldn’t primarily rest with Trump, his executive branch, or his nominees at the Federal Reserve. Instead, it would hand sweeping authority to individual state attorneys general, some of whom answer to no president at all and often pursue their own partisan agendas.
A quick reminder of who they are: figures like New York Attorney General Letitia “Tish” James, who famously campaigned on a promise to “get Trump” and then followed through with years of headline-grabbing civil lawsuits against him and his family; Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison, a favorite of the activist left who is doing everything he can to stop ICE and Trump’s immigration crackdown.; and California Attorney General Rob Bonta, who has used his office to push aggressive progressive agendas through litigation, targeting industries from energy to firearms.
Why further empower political actors who have regularly turned legal enforcement into partisan warfare? If anyone should have this power, shouldn’t it be the president, his cabinet, and his trusted appointees and nominees?
Yes, Trump endorsed the CCCA in broad terms. But none of this enforcement nightmare seems to be what he supported.
There is no reason to believe that Trump would back a system that strips federal accountability, locks in permanent lawfare, and hands more power to prosecutors who openly despise him and his movement. He’s fighting for consumer relief, not for empowering the resistance through the courts.
Lawmakers should slow this down and strip out the dangerous amendment, which never belonged in a crypto bill anyway.
BYRON YORK: SANCTUARY CITIES ARE SANCTUARIES FOR CRIMINALS
Otherwise, this could become yet another “bipartisan” mistake conservatives regret for years – one that empowers the left’s favorite attack dogs while working Americans quietly pay the price.
I believe the stakes are too high for that.
Tim Young (@TimRunsHisMouth) is a conservative commentator and social media influencer
