Democrats price the CLARITY Act's missing seven votes at a divestment trigger

Ninety-nine of 100 senators voted on the 15th ^[1]. The chamber holds 53 Republicans, 45 Democrats and two independents who caucus with the Democrats ^[4], and if all 47 of that caucus voted no, as the sedaily report says the Democrats did ^[3], then three of the 50 no votes came from Republicans and one Republican did not vote at all ^[3]. The report names two of those three ^[3].

That report puts the measure 10 votes short of the 60 needed to advance ^[2]. Subtract 49 from 60 and the gap is 11 ^[2].

Recover the three defectors and the absentee and Republicans are at 53, still seven short of 60, and the 47 senators who would have to supply those seven supplied none on the 15th ^[4].

Democrats wanted an enforcement mechanism requiring the president to divest once his crypto holdings reached a certain level, and the negotiations broke down there ^[8]. Sen. Mark Warner of Virginia said Congress could not pass the bill while allowing the U.S. president to profit personally ^[9]. Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Banking Committee, said before the vote that lawmakers had to make clear they should not pass a bill that lets Trump keep collecting billions of dollars in crypto profits while working families struggle with rising prices ^[10].

The sums under negotiation are on the record. A disclosure filed with the U.S. Office of Government Ethics puts Trump's income last year above $2.2 billion, with crypto the largest share ^[11], including $588 million through World Liberty Financial, $636 million through the $TRUMP memecoin and $197 million from the sale of a stake in a stablecoin holding company ^[12]. Those three lines add to $1.42 billion, about 65 percent of the total ^[5]. The federal ethics law enacted in 1978 does not require a president to divest assets that could give rise to conflicts of interest ^[13], so the Democratic demand would impose an obligation current law does not.

From Nov. 9 to Dec. 31 is 53 days ^[6], and the report puts little chance on passage during the 119th Congress given the tight schedule that remains ^[16]. The House passed this text 294 to 134 in July of last year ^[6], which is 68.7 percent of votes cast; the Senate motion drew 49.5 percent of the 99 cast ^[7].

I think the divestment trigger is the binding item, because Republican leaders had already conceded a memecoin issuance restriction and state attorney general enforcement powers ^[7] and the motion still stopped at 49 ^[1]. Two other readings fit the record. The Republican no votes may be about the conflicts provisions alone, in which case a tighter conflicts title recovers them and leaves leadership hunting seven Democrats who may price the bill differently after the Nov. 3 midterms ^[14]. Or a lame-duck deal lands on divestment language with a threshold the White House can live with. That would mean the disagreement was about the threshold. If the Senate clears this bill between Nov. 9 and the end of the year with no divestment mechanism in the text, I am wrong.