Four Republican senators who voted in favor of advancing the CLARITY Act on Sept. 15 are also listed as supporters of a bank-backed amendment that aims to impose stricter limits on stablecoin yield.
As Punchbowl News detailed on Sept. 21, John Cornyn, John Curtis, Cindy Hyde-Smith, and Lisa Murkowski each cast a “Yes” ballot on the procedural vote, which ultimately stalled at 49-50. Furthermore, all four put their names on Sen. Jerry Moran’s stablecoin amendment, which has been championed by the banking sector to revise wording originally drafted by the bill’s proponents.
| Senator | Sept. 15 CLARITY vote | Moran amendment status | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|---|
| John Cornyn | Yes | Named supporter | Part of the existing 49-vote coalition, but also backing tougher stablecoin-yield limits |
| John Curtis | Yes | Named supporter | Shows the amendment had support inside the pro-CLARITY Republican bloc |
| Cindy Hyde-Smith | Yes | Named supporter | Adds to the number of yes votes with unresolved stablecoin concerns |
| Lisa Murkowski | Yes | Named supporter | Another existing yes vote tied to the bank-backed language |
The math behind the CLARITY Act 11-vote gap
The cloture vote on Sept. 15 required 60 votes to pass but only secured 49, with one senator abstaining, leaving backers 11 votes short. If any of the four senators who backed the amendment decide to defect, that deficit will grow.
Should all four change their votes to “No” during a subsequent roll call, the “Yes” count would drop to 45, widening the gap to 15. This scenario remains a hypothetical calculation based strictly on arithmetic, given that endorsing an amendment serves as an official statement of policy.
Senators Moran and Susan Collins also sponsor the amendment, though both opposed the bill on Sept. 15, meaning their positions pose no additional risk to the current vote tally. Josh Hawley voted against the measure on Sept. 15 before signing on as a cosponsor the following day.
The four lawmakers to watch closely are those who supported opening debate on the CLARITY Act while simultaneously seeking more stringent regulations on how stablecoin issuers compensate their customers.
Moran’s amendment (SA 6771) takes aim at the legislation’s current benchmark for banned stablecoin rewards, which targets payments “economically or functionally equivalent to the payment of interest.”
The proposal replaces that criterion with broader phrasing encompassing anything “substantially similar to the manner in which depository institutions pay interest or yield.” It also removes the word “solely” from a key provision.
Additionally, a separate subsection that allows issuers to calculate certain rewards using account balances, the duration of holdings, or customer tenure would be entirely struck out.
Financial institutions worry that stablecoin rewards channeled through an exchange, affiliate, or loyalty program can economically mimic deposit interest under a wider definition. Community banks, in particular, fear losing deposits to such offerings.
| Scenario | Yes votes | Votes still needed to reach 60 | What changes |
|---|---|---|---|
| Actual Sept. 15 result | 49 | 11 | CLARITY fell short but kept its Republican yes bloc intact |
| One of the four switches | 48 | 12 | Negotiators must replace the lost vote before gaining ground |
| Two of the four switch | 47 | 13 | The gap widens beyond the public 11-vote problem |
| All four switch | 45 | 15 | The amendment becomes a material threat to the coalitionâs math |
Banks say the current safeguard reacts too late
The current text of the CLARITY Act attempts to resolve this through a regulatory circuit breaker, which would empower officials to intervene if the Treasury Department identifies harm to community banks within 18 months of the law taking effect.
The American Bankers Association and other banking coalitions have publicly dismissed this mechanism, contending that waiting to confirm damage after community bank deposits have already drained defeats the point of having a restriction.
This disagreement exists entirely separate from the ethics disputes that have dominated much of the public discourse surrounding the legislation.
Throughout negotiations, Democrats have pressed for stronger rules governing the financial holdings of public officials in cryptocurrency. A draft released on Sept. 14 featured updates on this front, including an expanded enforcement mandate for state attorneys general. Despite these changes, the following day’s vote failed to attract a single Democratic vote.
Persuading bank-aligned Republicans on the topic of stablecoin yield and winning over Democrats on ethics represent two distinct negotiations unfolding simultaneously within the same legislative vehicle.
Sen. Thom Tillis flipped his vote to “No” immediately after the totals were announced and filed a motion to reconsider. That procedural step keeps the CLARITY Act viable for another vote without requiring lawmakers to start the process over.
Banking associations have continued publicly advocating for the amendment’s adjustments since the vote, and any future iterations of the bill will reveal whether those demands were incorporated. The Senate is expected to remain in session through early October ahead of the pre-midterm recess, though a date for a new vote has not yet been scheduled.
The coalition is key
The optimistic outlook envisions Cornyn, Curtis, Hyde-Smith, and Murkowski maintaining their “Yes” votes on any upcoming cloture motion even if they do not secure every revision they desire. Concurrently, negotiators would peel off 11 or more senators who voted against the bill or sat out in September.
Under that trajectory, the amendment remains a documented policy disagreement that ultimately costs no votes, leaving the primary battlegrounds where they have always been: centered on ethics provisions and Democratic support.
| Negotiating front | Main issue | Who needs convincing | What would signal progress |
|---|---|---|---|
| Stablecoin yield | Whether rewards can function like deposit interest | Bank-aligned Republicans and banking groups | Revised text adopts, rejects, or narrows Moran-style language |
| Ethics provisions | Public officialsâ crypto-related financial interests | Democrats and ethics-focused holdouts | Stronger conflict-of-interest language or enforcement provisions |
| Procedure | Whether CLARITY gets another vote | Senate leadership and negotiators | Reconsideration motion used, new text released, or vote date set |
| Coalition management | Keeping current yes votes while adding new ones | Existing Republican supporters and potential new votes | No defections from the 49-vote base while new support is added |
Conversely, the pessimistic view sees bank-aligned Republicans treating the amendment as a hard condition, withholding their support on future roll calls until the stablecoin provisions are revised to their liking.
Under that outcome, any defection from those four members would drive the required vote threshold well beyond 11, compelling negotiators to resolve two separate disputes before the CLARITY Act can clear the 60-vote hurdle.
The public tally for the CLARITY Act has consistently centered on the additional votes it lacks. The Moran amendment highlights that some of the votes it currently claims come with strings that have yet to be tested.
