H.R.5546 - Credit Card Fair Fee Act of 2008 Sponsor: John Conyers / 110th Congress

Title
110th Congress - To amend the antitrust laws to ensure competitive market-based rates and terms for merchants' access to electronic payment systems. hidemore...
Summary
To amend the antitrust laws to ensure competitive market-based rates and terms for merchants' access to electronic payment systems. (by CRS)
Status
The bill has passed through committee and has been put on a legislative calendar.

Customize

Customize the interests supporting and opposing this bill

To remove an interest, click the Remove button next to its name below this box.

To add an interest, choose one from this list:

To add an interest, click Support or Oppose.

You can share your customized pages with other people by sending them the URL for pages about this bill. Other MAPLight.org users will not see your customizations unless they use the URL you send them. To save your customizations for your next visit, create a free New Account, then Sign In.

Done

Interests who did want this bill to become law included these interests and specific groups:

Interests who did not want this bill to become law included these interests and specific groups:

Contribution data provided by the Center for Responsive Politics (OpenSecrets.org)

Comments RSS feed

Interchange Fees and the Credit Card Fair Fee Act by Milan Sundaresan, Jul 7, 2008 (6:55pm)

H.R. 5546, the Credit Card Fair Fee Act, is out to wage a war against nontransparent interchange fees in the Electronic Payment System. Set by credit card associations such as Visa and MasterCard, interchange fees are paid by a merchant’s bank to the customer’s bank whenever the merchant accepts a credit or debit card. The merchant then receives the amount of the transaction minus the interchange fee and the bank’s personal fee. Presently the average fee resides at about 2% in the US. This bill seeks to give merchants more freedom by permitting them to negotiate with credit card associations to agree upon rates that are accessible to both parties. However the provision receiving most opposition is the one that would create a panel of three EPS judges to formulate a schedule of rates and terms for three-year periods. Banks and credit unions feel that such government interference would go against the existing market patterns that are essential to a competitive free market system.

Reply to this comment
Reply to this comment close
[ Tags ]
[ Tags ] close
[ Spam ]
[ Spam ] close

HR 5546 by Joey Isenstadt, Jul 18, 2008 (10:22pm)

In the version that passed the Judiciary Committee, Department of Justice oversight replaced the three-judge panel in the original version of the bill.

Reply to this comment
Reply to this comment close
[ Tags ]
[ Tags ] close
[ Spam ]
[ Spam ] close