Business
$241M went to constituents of Republicans pushing CFPB changes: watchdog on August 9, 2023 at 5:01 pm Business News | The Hill

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) has returned hundreds of millions of dollars to consumers who are also constituents of Republican lawmakers who support changes to the bureau’s funding structure, according to a new report from watchdog Accountable.US shared exclusively with The Hill.
Accountable.US’ analysis focused on 10 states: Arizona, Kentucky, Michigan, Missouri, New York, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Texas and Wisconsin. It found that consumers in these states received more than $240.9 million through the CFPB’s Civil Penalty Fund from 2012 through 2022, according to Accountable.US’ analysis of data provided by CFPB.
“Republicans in Congress should be celebrating the fact the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has recouped billions of dollars for families who’ve been ripped off by bad actors in the financial industry,” Liz Zelnick, director of Accountable.US’s program on economic security and corporate power, told The Hill.
“Instead, many Republicans are rooting for efforts to defund and defang the nation’s top consumer advocate after they’ve taken millions of dollars from greedy big banks to predatory lenders that want no consumer protections at all,” Zelnick said.
The CFPB is currently funded by the Federal Reserve, an independency agency primarily funded by interest earned on its government securities.
But the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to take up a case brought by a payday lending group that would subject the CFPB to congressional appropriations, reviewing a lower court decision that found the bureau’s funding structure “violates the Constitution’s structural separation of powers.”
A slate of 132 bicameral Republican lawmakers signed an amicus brief in July urging the Supreme Court to affirm the ruling.
The funding structure “neutered” congressional oversight of the CFPB, meaning the agency’s funding will “continue in perpetuity without the CFPB ever needing to return to Congress, hat in hand,” the lawmakers argue in the amicus brief.
Republicans say the debate is about holding bureaucrats accountable, while critics including left-leaning Accountable.US say the case could threaten the future of the CFPB.
Republican presidential candidate, Sen. Tim Scott, R-S.C., jokes with a Trump supporter before walking in the July 4th parade Tuesday, July 4, 2023, in Merrimack, N.H. (AP Photo/Reba Saldanha)
Throughout their careers, Republican amicus brief signatories in these 10 states received more than $51 million from individuals and PACs affiliated with the financial industry players regulated by the CFPB, according to Accountable.US’ analysis of campaign contributions compiled by the nonpartisan money-in-politics organization OpenSecrets.
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, American Bankers Association, American Financial Services Association, Consumer Bankers Association and other industry groups filed their own amicus brief last month arguing the CFPB’s funding structure unconstitutional, as it is “‘double-insulated’ from the constitutionally-mandated check of Congress’s purse.”
There is some division within the industries regulated by the CFPB over how the agency should be regulated and funded.
“The CFPB’s funding structure is constitutional and critical to ensuring that it can carry out its consumer protection mission free from undue industry influence,” wrote community development credit unions and financial institutions in a May amicus brief.
Senate Banking Committee Ranking Member Tim Scott (R-S.C.), House Financial Services Committee Chair Patrick McHenry (R-N.C), House Subcommittee on Financial Institutions and Monetary Policy Chair Andy Barr (R-Ky.) and House Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations Chair Bill Huizenga (R-Mich.) spearheaded the amicus brief.
Scott, who is currently running for president, applauded the Supreme Court for taking up the CFPB funding, calling it “an agency that lacks transparency and seeks to operate beyond its jurisdiction.”
While some Republicans focus on the transparency and accountability aspect, others have gone further. Rep. Paul Gosar (R-Ariz.), who signed onto the amicus brief, has “vocally supported a full repeal of the CFPB as long as it exists in its current form,” according to his House website.
Huizenga told American Public Radio’s “Marketplace” in 2016 that the CFPB needs to look “needs to look much, much different” and wouldn’t rule out its elimination.
“The fact is the CFPB should be funded through the appropriations process. This ensures that taxpayers, through their elected representatives in Congress, have a say in how the bureau operates. Even the CFPB, and its current unconstitutional structure, must answer to the American people,” a spokesperson for Huizenga told The Hill.
Spokespeople for Scott, McHenry, Barr and Gosar did not return requests for comment.
“Leave it to a left-wing, dark money group to support an unaccountable federal bureaucracy that returns less than $42 per year to approximately 0.48% of Michiganders,” Huizenga’s spokesperson added.
Rep. Paul Gosar, R-Ariz., waits for a news conference at the Capitol in Washington, on July 22, 2021.
The liberal “dark money” group New Venture Fund disclosed contributing $2.7 million to Accountable.US on its 2021 Form 990, the most recent available. While Accountable.US makes its Form 990s public, it does not voluntarily disclose its donors.
“We’d be more than happy to join other 501(c)(3) entities in releasing more funding information should the law change,” Accountable.US Communications Director Jeremy Funk told The Hill, noting their support for transparency legislation like the DISCLOSE Act.
It remains to be seen how prominently politics, one reason the CFPB and other financial regulators were set up to operate independently of congressional appropriations, plays into the case.
The Supreme Court has scheduled oral arguments for when it returns in October.
Business, Court Battles, Andy Barr, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, Huizenga, Patrick McHenry, Supreme Court, Tim Scott The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) has returned hundreds of millions of dollars to consumers who are also constituents of Republican lawmakers who support changes to the bureau’s funding structure, according to a new report from watchdog Accountable.US shared exclusively with The Hill. Accountable.US’ analysis focused on 10 states: Arizona, Kentucky, Michigan, Missouri, New York,…
Business
How Trump’s Tariffs Could Hit American Wallets

As the debate over tariffs heats up ahead of the 2024 election, new analysis reveals that American consumers could face significant financial consequences if former President Donald Trump’s proposed tariffs are enacted and maintained. According to a recent report highlighted by Forbes, the impact could be felt across households, businesses, and the broader U.S. economy.

The Household Cost: Up to $2,400 More Per Year
Research from Yale University’s Budget Lab, cited by Forbes, estimates that the average U.S. household could pay an additional $2,400 in 2025 if the new tariffs take effect and persist. This projection reflects the cumulative impact of all tariffs announced in Trump’s plan.
Price Hikes Across Everyday Goods
The tariffs are expected to drive up consumer prices by 1.8% in the near term. Some of the hardest-hit categories include:
- Apparel: Prices could jump 37% in the short term (and 18% long-term).
- Footwear: Up 39% short-term (18% long-term).
- Metals: Up 43%.
- Leather products: Up 39%.
- Electrical equipment: Up 26%.
- Motor vehicles, electronics, rubber, and plastic products: Up 11–18%.
- Groceries: Items like vegetables, fruits, and nuts could rise up to 6%, with additional increases for coffee and orange juice due to specific tariffs on Brazilian imports.

A Historic Tariff Rate and Economic Impact
If fully implemented, the effective tariff rate on U.S. consumers could reach 18%, the highest level since 1934. The broader economic consequences are also notable:
- GDP Reduction: The tariffs could reduce U.S. GDP by 0.4% annually, equating to about $110 billion per year.
- Revenue vs. Losses: While tariffs are projected to generate $2.2 trillion in revenue over the next decade, this would be offset by $418 billion in negative economic impacts.
How Businesses Are Responding
A KPMG survey cited in the report found that 83% of business leaders expect to raise prices within six months of tariff implementation. More than half say their profit margins are already under pressure, suggesting that consumers will likely bear the brunt of these increased costs.

What This Means for Americans
The findings underscore the potential for substantial financial strain on American families and businesses if Trump’s proposed tariffs are enacted. With consumer prices set to rise and economic growth projected to slow, the debate over tariffs is likely to remain front and center in the months ahead.
For more in-depth economic analysis and updates, stay tuned to Bolanlemedia.com.
Business
U.S. Limits Nigerian Non-Immigrant Visas to Three-Month Validity

In July 2025, the United States implemented significant changes to its visa policy for Nigerian citizens, restricting most non-immigrant and non-diplomatic visas to a single entry and a maximum validity of three months. This marks a departure from previous policies that allowed for multiple entries and longer stays, and has important implications for travel, business, and diplomatic relations between the two countries.

Key Changes in U.S. Visa Policy for Nigerians
- Single-Entry, Three-Month Limit: As of July 8, 2025, most non-immigrant visas issued to Nigerians are now valid for only one entry and up to three months.
- No Retroactive Impact: Visas issued prior to this date remain valid under their original terms.
- Reciprocity Principle: The U.S. cited alignment with Nigeria’s own visa policies for U.S. citizens as the basis for these changes.
- Enhanced Security Screening: Applicants are required to make their social media accounts public for vetting, and are subject to increased scrutiny for any signs of hostility toward U.S. institutions.

Rationale Behind the Policy Shift
- Security and Immigration Integrity: The U.S. government stated the changes are intended to safeguard the immigration system and meet global security standards.
- Diplomatic Reciprocity: These restrictions mirror the limitations Nigeria imposes on U.S. travelers, emphasizing the principle of fairness in international visa agreements.
- Potential for Further Action: The U.S. has indicated that additional travel restrictions could be introduced if Nigeria does not address certain diplomatic and security concerns.

Nigeria’s Updated Visa Policy
- Nigeria Visa Policy 2025 (NVP 2025): Introduced in May 2025, this policy features a new e-Visa system for short visits and reorganizes visa categories:
- Short Visit Visas (e-Visa): For business or tourism, valid up to three months, non-renewable, processed digitally within 48 hours.
- Temporary Residence Visas: For employment or study, valid up to two years.
- Permanent Residence Visas: For investors, retirees, and highly skilled individuals.
- Visa Exemptions: ECOWAS citizens and certain diplomatic passport holders remain exempt.
- Reciprocal Restrictions: Most short-stay and business visas for U.S. citizens are single-entry and short-term, reflecting reciprocal treatment.

Impact on Travelers and Bilateral Relations
- Nigerian Travelers: Face increased administrative requirements, higher costs, and reduced travel flexibility to the U.S.
- U.S. Travelers to Nigeria: Encounter similar restrictions, with most visas limited to single entry and short duration.
- Diplomatic Tensions: Nigerian officials have called for reconsideration of the U.S. policy, warning of negative effects on bilateral ties and people-to-people exchanges.
Conclusion
The U.S. decision to limit Nigerian non-immigrant visas to three months highlights the growing complexity and reciprocity in global visa regimes. Both countries are tightening their policies, citing security and fairness, which underscores the need for travelers and businesses to stay informed and adapt to evolving requirements.
Business
Nicki Minaj Demands $200 Million from Jay-Z in Explosive Twitter Rant

Nicki Minaj has once again set social media ablaze, this time targeting Jay-Z with a series of pointed tweets that allege he owes her an eye-popping $200 million. The outburst has reignited debates about artist compensation, industry transparency, and the ongoing power struggles within hip-hop’s elite circles.

The $200 Million Claim
In a string of tweets, Minaj directly addressed Jay-Z, writing, “Jay-Z, call me to settle the karmic debt. It’s only collecting more interest. You still in my top five though. Let’s get it.” She went further, warning, “Anyone still calling him Hov will answer to God for the blasphemy.” According to Minaj, the alleged debt stems from Jay-Z’s sale of Tidal, the music streaming platform he launched in 2015 with a group of high-profile artists—including Minaj herself, J. Cole, and Rihanna.
When Jay-Z sold Tidal in 2021, Minaj claims she was only offered $1 million, a figure she says falls dramatically short of what she believes she is owed based on her ownership stake and contributions. She has long voiced dissatisfaction with the payout, but this is the most public—and dramatic—demand to date.
Beyond the Money: Broader Grievances
Minaj’s Twitter storm wasn’t limited to financial complaints. She also:
- Promised to start a college fund for her fans if she receives the money she claims is owed.
- Accused blogs and online creators of ignoring her side of the story, especially when it involves Jay-Z.
- Warned content creators about posting “hate or lies,” saying, “They won’t cover your legal fees… I hope it’s worth losing everything including your account.”
She expressed frustration that mainstream blogs and platforms don’t fully cover her statements, especially when they involve Jay-Z, and suggested that much of the coverage she receives is from less reputable sources.

Satirical Accusations and Industry Critique
Minaj’s tweets took a satirical turn as she jokingly blamed Jay-Z for a laundry list of cultural grievances, including:
- The state of hip-hop, football, basketball, and touring
- The decline of Instagram and Twitter
- Even processed foods and artificial dyes in candy
She repeatedly declared, “The jig is up,” but clarified that her statements were “alleged and for entertainment purposes only.”
Political and Cultural Criticism
Minaj also criticized Jay-Z’s political involvement, questioning why he didn’t campaign more actively for Kamala Harris or respond to President Obama’s comments about Black men. While Jay-Z has a history of supporting Democratic campaigns, Minaj’s critique centered on more recent events and what she perceives as a lack of advocacy for the Black community.
The Super Bowl and Lil Wayne
Adding another layer to her grievances, Minaj voiced disappointment that Lil Wayne was not chosen to perform at the Super Bowl in New Orleans, a decision she attributes to Jay-Z’s influence in the entertainment industry.
Public and Industry Reaction
Despite the seriousness of her financial claim, many observers note that if Minaj truly believed Jay-Z owed her $200 million, legal action—not social media—would likely follow. As of now, there is no public record of a lawsuit or formal complaint.
Some fans and commentators see Minaj’s outburst as part of a larger pattern of airing industry grievances online, while others interpret it as a mix of personal frustration and performance art. Minaj herself emphasized that her tweets were “for entertainment purposes only.”

Conclusion
Nicki Minaj’s explosive Twitter rant against Jay-Z has once again placed the spotlight on issues of artist compensation and industry dynamics. Whether her claims will lead to further action or remain another dramatic chapter in hip-hop’s ongoing soap opera remains to be seen, but for now, the world is watching—and tweeting.
- Business1 week ago
Pros and Cons of the Big Beautiful Bill
- Advice3 weeks ago
What SXSW 2025 Filmmakers Want Every New Director to Know
- Film Industry3 weeks ago
Filming Yourself and Look Cinematic
- News2 weeks ago
Father Leaps Overboard to Save Daughter on Disney Dream Cruise
- Health2 weeks ago
McCullough Alleges Government Hid COVID Vaccine Side Effects
- Advice2 weeks ago
Why 20% of Us Are Always Late
- Advice2 weeks ago
How to Find Your Voice as a Filmmaker
- Entertainment4 weeks ago
The Hidden Reality Behind Victoria’s Secret