ShareThis Page

Trib editorial: Is CFPB realistic — or rabid?

| Monday, Jan. 1, 2018, 9:50 p.m.
Sally Greenberg, with the National Consumers League, holds a sign that says 'Defend CFPB' outside of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau in Washington last November. (AP Photo)
Sally Greenberg, with the National Consumers League, holds a sign that says 'Defend CFPB' outside of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau in Washington last November. (AP Photo)

The fiscal watchdog created by the 2010 Dodd-Frank Act and hailed by liberals may turn out to be rabid, according to a whistleblower's unsettling allegation.

Cassandra Jackson, a former examiner for the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, is asking Attorney General Jeff Sessions to launch an investigation based on her complaint that CFPB superiors asked her to “change, remove and otherwise falsify” documents connected with Ace Cash Express, a Texas-based payday lender, according to a letter released by the U.S. Consumer Coalition, a consumer-advocacy group.

“Unfortunately her claims are all too familiar to the dedicated employees serving under the direction of CFPB management,” said Brian J. Wise, coalition president.

Ms. Jackson said she was asked to remove documents proving Ace Cash Express complied with CFPB rules. When she refused, managers “proceeded to modify the report.” Subsequently Ace Cash Express in 2014 was forced to offer $5 million in refunds and pay a $5 million fine, according to the Washington Free Beacon.

We're no defenders of any predatory lenders. But from its onset, CFPB has raised concerns over its unbridled power over lending institutions. The agency determines what business practices are abusive, deceptive or discriminatory and levies fines as it deems fit.

What's alleged by the whistleblower amounts to fraud. It demands a determination by the attorney general. And if CFPB, in its watchdog capacity, is playing fast and loose with the lenders it fines, it should be put down.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.

click me