Hey @Sen_Alsobrooks - along with every Democrat who argues they can’t vote for the Clarity Act unless state Attorneys General are in charge of the ethics enforcement: You’re suggesting is what’s unserious. I’ve never been shy about criticizing this President when I think he’s gotten it wrong, including on crypto policy, where I’ve pushed back on positions I believed were bad for retail investors and market integrity. But on this specific question, the Democrats’ insistence on state Attorneys General enforcement doesn’t hold up. The CLARITY Act is federal legislation establishing a federal regulatory framework for digital assets. The Department of Justice - not fifty different state AGs with fifty different political incentives and fifty different interpretations - is the appropriate body to enforce federal law. Handing enforcement to state AGs invites exactly the kind of inconsistent, patchwork application that makes it harder for legitimate market participants to know what the rules actually are, while opening the door to the kind of politicized targeting we’ve already seen state AGs use against industries and individuals they simply disagree with. If Democrats are serious about consumer protection in crypto markets, they should want uniform, predictable federal enforcement - not a system where enforcement varies depending on which state you’re in and which party controls that AG’s office. Currently, there are no restrictions on government officials issuing meme coins, NFTs, or other cryptocurrencies. FTX happened in part because of the lack of regulatory clarity in America and retail investors lost big time going offshore. Make no mistake about it: voting no comes down to not wanting Trump to take a legislative victory lap shortly before the midterms. Period. And it’s disgusting, un-patriotic and hurts the people you’re claiming to want to protect.(John E Deaton)