Original ｜Odaily Planet Daily ( @OdailyChina )

Author｜Golem ( @web3_golem )

On May 14, the U.S. Senate Banking Committee, after several hours, finally passed the review of the "CLARITY Act," which will be advanced to the full Senate voting stage.

The committee's approval of the "CLARITY Act" is significant because the bill has been on hold for over four months due to disagreements between the banking and cryptocurrency industries regarding regulations on stablecoin earnings since January of this year. In the latest version of the bill, this core disagreement has been resolved: stablecoins are still not allowed to pay rewards similar to bank deposit interest, but are permitted to pay rewards based on real activities or transactions, leaving room for stablecoin companies to survive.

However, the removal of this major obstacle does not mean that the "CLARITY Act" will face no challenges in the future. In addition to the interests of the two major industries (banking and cryptocurrency), the "CLARITY Act" is also caught in the political tug-of-war between the two parties (Republicans and Democrats) in the U.S., and the outcome of this battle is determining whether the "CLARITY Act" can garner enough votes in the full Senate.

CLARITY Act's Difficult Passage

The U.S. Senate Banking Committee ultimately passed the "CLARITY Act" review with a vote of 15 to 9, indicating that the "CLARITY Act" was forcefully pushed through.

The current Senate Banking Committee consists of 24 members, including 13 Republicans and 11 Democrats. With the Republicans holding a majority in the committee, theoretically, even if all the Democrats oppose, the Republicans can still force the approval of the "CLARITY Act" with a vote of 13 to 11 due to their seat advantage. However, this would represent the worst-case scenario, as it essentially means that there was no consensus reached between the two parties on the "CLARITY Act." If the "CLARITY Act" is advanced to the full Senate for voting, it is highly unlikely to gain enough support.

Therefore, compared to the result of the "CLARITY Act" passing the committee review, the number of Democratic votes it received in the Senate Banking Committee is more important, as this serves as a strong signal of the "CLARITY Act's" support within both parties and reflects the difficulty of passing it in a subsequent full Senate vote.

The final vote result of 15:9 on May 14 is not much more optimistic than the worst-case scenario of 13:11. The voting camps are very clear: all 13 Republican members voted in favor, only 2 Democratic members crossed over to support it, and the remaining 9 Democratic members opposed it. The supporting Democratic members were Ruben Gallego from Arizona and Angela Alsobrooks from Maryland.

Before the review of the "CLARITY Act" began, the market anticipated that the votes of 5 swing Democratic members would be crucial, as the number of support votes Republicans could secure from them would influence the subsequent progress. These members are:

• Mark Warner: from Virginia, a member of the Securities Subcommittee and the Digital Assets Subcommittee, he voted in favor of both the GENIUS Act and SAB 121;
• Angela Alsobrooks: from Maryland, she co-led the compromise on stablecoin earnings with Thom Tillis and has been the most active representative within the Democratic Party in negotiating the bill's text;
• Ruben Gallego: from Arizona, the chief Democratic member of the Digital Assets Subcommittee, he voted in favor of the GENIUS Act;
• Catherine Cortez Masto: from Nevada, a member of the Financial Institutions and Consumer Protection Committee, she has reservations about the law enforcement-related provisions in the Blockchain Regulatory Clarity Act (BRCA) and has been urging modifications to address these concerns;
• Raphael Warnock: from Georgia, a member of the Senate Economic Policy Subcommittee, he has been advocating for strengthening anti-money laundering efforts and combating illegal finance, and voted in favor of the GENIUS Act.

Ultimately, among these 5 Democratic members, only 2 voted in favor, and their votes were essentially "hostage votes." Alsobrooks clearly stated after voting that her support was to keep the dialogue going in the full Senate meeting, and if issues were not ultimately resolved, she and Gallego could potentially retract their support during the full Senate vote.

Currently, the U.S. Senate has 100 senators, with the Republicans holding 53 seats, the Democrats 45 seats, and independents 2 seats. Given that the two independents (Bernie Sanders and Angus King) often vote with the Democrats, the actual camp ratio in the Senate is 53:47, with the Republicans being the majority party.

While the Republicans used their seat advantage to force passage in the committee, in the upcoming full Senate vote, the "CLARITY Act" needs to obtain 60 votes to pass. Without any Republican members crossing over, the Republicans still need at least 7 Democratic senators' support.

Gaining support from at least 7 Democratic senators appears challenging based on the current committee voting results, as they did not manage to gain full support from any Democratic members. Before the Senate Banking Committee review, Galaxy stated that if the "CLARITY Act" passes purely along party lines or close to it, the difficulty of obtaining 60 votes in the Senate will greatly increase, making its prospects for passing in 2026 even bleaker.

Political Tug-of-War Between U.S. Parties on the "CLARITY Act"

During the review of the "CLARITY Act" in the Banking Committee, both parties engaged in intense exchanges over numerous amendments. A total of over 100 amendments were submitted to the committee from the Senate, among which Elizabeth Warren, a Democratic member of the Banking Committee, submitted over 40 alone. However, many of the amendments proposed by Democrats were rejected by the Republicans due to their seat advantage. Many unmet demands contributed to the final vote result of the "CLARITY Act" passing with a score of 15:9.

Among these, the ethical amendment became the core battleground for the Democrats. They have been striving to include this provision in the bill and at the review meeting, Democratic member Chris Van Hollen reiterated his proposal to prohibit senior government officials, including the president and vice president, from having commercial interests in the cryptocurrency industry and to strengthen transparency requirements. He specifically mentioned the ties between Trump and his family with World Liberty Financial in his speech.

However, Republican member Bernie Moreno opposed the amendment on the grounds that "this does not fall within the Banking Committee's review scope," and ultimately, the amendment was not passed with a partisan vote result of 11 votes in favor and 13 votes against. The Democrats' insistence on pushing the ethical amendment is not merely about integrity; essentially, they view the cryptocurrency sector as a new capital alliance for the Republicans and believe that the current "CLARITY Act" will pave the way for a future new financial alliance for the Trump camp.

Though in recent years cryptocurrency lobbying groups (such as Fairshake Super PAC and its affiliated organizations) have shifted their funding strategies to no longer exclusively support one party but rather the specific pro-crypto lawmakers, most of their political donations still go to the Republicans. The Democrats are well aware that if the "CLARITY Act" passes without ethical constraints, senior Republicans can legally amass huge wealth through holding and promoting cryptocurrency assets.

Increasing the compliance difficulty for officials to hold cryptocurrency is essentially lowering the penetration of cryptocurrency as a "compliance-evading asset" among the elite class. In addition to traditional banks, unions and other foundational middle-class groups in the U.S. are also a solid voter base for the Democrats. Therefore, persistently promoting the ethical amendment logically translates to the Democrats leveraging the moral high ground of "anti-corruption" for political mobilization, aiming to win over traditional middle-class voters who feel uneasy about cryptocurrency volatility.

Of course, the Democrats know that completely opposing the cryptocurrency sector will inevitably cause them to lose some of the younger voter base. Thus, aside from the progressives led by Elizabeth Warren who fiercely oppose and obstruct cryptocurrency, there are also moderate and swing younger lawmakers within the Democratic Party who are open towards cryptocurrency.

In addition to the ethical amendment, the Democrats have different demands on anti-money laundering regulations and the Blockchain Regulatory Clarity Act (BRCA), but these amendments were equally rejected by the Republicans due to their seat advantage. Therefore, the committee's approval of the "CLARITY Act" did not resolve the issues between the two parties but was the result of the Republicans forcefully pushing the bill forward; all problems will accumulate for the full Senate vote.

This means that issues such as the anti-money laundering and ethical amendments, which were rejected in the committee today, will certainly become the ultimate weapon for Democrats to demand political leverage during the full Senate vote. Without substantial concessions or exchanges of interests, this crucial bill for the cryptocurrency industry is highly likely to face severe opposition.

Future Prospects of the "CLARITY Act"

The motivation for the Republicans to urgently push the review of the "CLARITY Act" is also very clear. Previously, Republican Cynthia Lummis repeatedly stated that if the "CLARITY Act" does not pass this year, it might be postponed until 2030 or later.

This is because the balance of power in the 120th Congress (which will convene in January 2027) may change, and new committees and new political motivations will affect the legislative process of the "CLARITY Act." If the Democrats hold a majority in the new session of both houses, and if anti-crypto figures like Elizabeth Warren or Sherrod Brown become chairpersons of the Senate Banking Committee, then the chances of the "CLARITY Act" passing will be further diminished.

Therefore, the Republicans must pass the "CLARITY Act" in the Senate before the environment becomes complex. Considering the Senate's August recess and the subsequent midterm election season, this requires the Republicans to schedule a full vote before July, with the White House's ideal goal being for the president to sign the bill before July 4 (the 250th anniversary of American independence).

However, taking into account the final voting results of the Senate Banking Committee on May 14 and the Democrats' hardline stance, it may require extraordinary "political capacity" and coordination from the Republicans for the "CLARITY Act" to smoothly pass in the Senate.

As of May 15, the probability of the "CLARITY Act" being signed into law in 2026 on Polymarket is 68%, but the actual probability may be much lower...

免责声明：本文章仅代表作者个人观点，不代表本平台的立场和观点。本文章仅供信息分享，不构成对任何人的任何投资建议。用户与作者之间的任何争议，与本平台无关。如网页中刊载的文章或图片涉及侵权，请提供相关的权利证明和身份证明发送邮件到support@aicoin.com，本平台相关工作人员将会进行核查。