Isn’t Financial Reform Bill Supposed to be About Financial Reform?

Then why all the social policy? From Diana Furchtgott-Roth of the Manhattan Institute, “Racial, Gender Quotas in the Financial Bill?

I was searching the bill for a provision about derivatives. What did I find but Section 342, which declares that race and gender employment ratios, if not quotas, must be observed by private financial institutions that do business with the government. In a major power grab, the new law inserts race and gender quotas into America’s financial industry.

In addition to this bill’s well-publicized plans to establish over a dozen new financial regulatory offices, Section 342 sets up at least 20 Offices of Minority and Women Inclusion. This has had no coverage by the news media and has large implications.

The Treasury, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the Federal Housing Finance Agency, the 12 Federal Reserve regional banks, the Board of Governors of the Fed, the National Credit Union Administration, the Comptroller of the Currency, the Securities and Exchange Commission, the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau…all would get their own Office of Minority and Women Inclusion.

Furchtgott-Roth is referring not to the text of H.R. 4173, but rather to Section 342 of the House Committee Report: House Report 111-517 – DODD-FRANK WALL STREET REFORM AND CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT. 


The title requires the establishment of offices of Minority and Women Inclusion by the Treasury Department, and the financial regulators, to coordinate technical assistance to minority-owned and women-owned businesses and to promote diversity in the workforce of the regulators.

It takes a mighty circuitous argument to claim this provision has anything to do with strengthening oversight and regulation of the U.S. financial system.

Leave a Reply