¶ Anti-Consumer and Pro-Bank
Rep. Luetkemeyer is a longtime opponent of consumer protections, having frequently introduced legislation benefiting the financial and insurance industries, of which he was a part, even as a member of the Missouri state legislature. As a Missouri House Representative, Luetkemeyer introduced legislation making it more difficult to file insurance-related lawsuits while balking at a proposed ban against insurers relying on credit reports—a practice disproportionately harming low-income and minority consumers. As a member of Congress, Luetkemeyer has supported legislation eroding Dodd-Frank post-crisis reforms and legislation criticized as “prioritiz[ing] corporate profits over the health and safety of the American public."
¶ While In The State Legislature, Luetkemeyer Frequently Introduced Legislation Benefiting The Financial And Insurance Industries, Both Of Which He Was A Member Of.
¶ Blaine Luetkemeyer Served In The Missouri State House Of Representatives From 1999 Until 2005.
Luetkemeyer Served In The Missouri State House Of Representatives From 1999 Until 2005. "Member of the Missouri state house of representatives, 1999-2005." [U.S. Congress Biographical Directory, accessed 11/14/22]
November 2000: Luetkemeyer Was Elected As Republican Caucus Chair. [Springfield News-Leader, 11/10/00]
Luetkemeyer Appeared As The Minority Caucus Chairman In The Missouri House Of Representatives’ 2001 Leadership Directory:
[Missouri House of Representatives, accessed 11/18/22]
- Luetkemeyer’s Full Name Is William Blaine Luetkemeyer. [Legistorm, accessed 11/29/22]
¶ While In Missouri’s State House, Luetkemeyer Introduced Several Pro-Industry And Anti-Consumer Bills, Including Legislation Making It More Difficult To File Insurance-Related Lawsuits, Cutting Minimal Health Insurance Coverage For Small Business Employees, And Cutting The State’s Insurance Department’s Funding By 25%.
March 2003: Luetkemeyer Introduced HB 616, Legislation That Would Have Required An Individual To Exhaust "All Administrative Remedies Before Civil Court Action Can Be Maintained For Insurance-Related Lawsuits." [Missouri House of Representatives, accessed 11/18/22]
January 2004: Luetkemeyer Co-Introduced Legislation That Would Create Tax Breaks For Individuals Who Invest In "Other States' College Savings Plans," A Bill The State’s Treasurer Said, “Mainly Would Ben[e]fit Stock Brokers.” "Democratic State Treasurer Nancy Farmer on Thursday criticized legislation backed by two Republican candidates for treasurer that would offer tax deductions to Missourians who invest in other states' college savings plans. [...] Legislation by Sen. Anita Yeckel and Rep. Blaine Luetkemeyer - both seeking the Republican nomination for treasurer - would expand the tax break to cover all college investments, including mutual funds promoted by other states and special certificates of deposits offered by banks." [St. Louis NPR, 01/15/04]
- Then-Democratic Treasurer Nancy Farmer Criticized The Bill, Saying It "Mainly Would Benifit [sic] Stock Brokers" And "Could Jeopardize Missouri's Own College Savings Plan." "Democratic State Treasurer Nancy Farmer is criticizing Republican efforts to expand Missouri's college savings program. [...] But Farmer says it mainly would benifit [sic] stock brokers. And she says it could jeopardize Missouri's own college savings plan." [St. Louis NPR, 01/15/04]
- A Previous, Similar Version Of The Bill Was Estimated To Cost The State Nearly $45 Million In Lost Revenue By 2006, But Later Revised To "A Loss Of $57,814 To-Unknown" After Republican Objection. "Appearing with Farmer at a Lincoln University news conference were several Democratic legislators, including Senate Minority Leader Ken Jacob of Columbia, who led the effort to block similar legislation last year. Last year's bill initially was estimated to cost the state as much as $45 million in lost tax revenues by the 2006 fiscal year. After Republican lawmakers objected, the projection was revised to a loss of ‘$57,814-to-unkown [sic].’" [Associated Press State & Local Wire, 01/15/04]
February 2004: Luetkemeyer Introduced A Bill That Would Cut Minimal Insurance Coverage Offered To Small Business Employees—Including “Mammograms And Hospital Stays After Giving Birth”—Claiming That Mandates Have Raised The Costs For Insurance Premiums And That "Small Businesses Carry The Brunt Of These Costs." "Insurers would no longer be required to cover some services that currently must be provided by minimal health insurance plans, such as mammograms and hospital stays after giving birth, under legislation being considered by a House committee. [...] The House Financial Services Committee heard, but did not vote, Tuesday on the bill offered by Rep. Blaine Luetkemeyer, R-St. Elizabeth. [...] Luetkemeyer said the mandates had raised the costs of insurance premiums by between 18 percent and 28 percent. ‘That's a huge issue if you are an employer,’ Luetkemeyer said. 'This is for smaller companies. Thirty-eight percent of the people are covered this way. Small businesses carry the brunt of these costs."' [Associated Press State & Local Wire, 02/04/04]
- The Services Required By The State At The Time Were “Maternity Benefits, Childhood Immunizations And Infant Testing.” “Rep. Blaine Luetkemeyer, R-St. Elizabeth, had said more people could be covered with ‘bare bones’ health policies if coverage now mandated by the state were removed. Among the requirements that policies must cover are maternity benefits, childhood immunizations and infant testing.” [St. Louis Dispatch, 02/11/04]
- Luetkemeyer Eventually Removed The Language Eliminating The “State-Required Coverage For Mammogram, Child Immunization And Cancer Screenings.” “A House committee Tuesday approved a bill making revisions to Missouri's insurance laws but removed language that would have eliminated state-required coverage for mammogram, child immunization and cancer screenings. Rep. Blaine Luetkemeyer, a St. Elizabeth Republican and the sponsor of the bill, took out the language after complaints from the Missouri Department of Insurance and some lawmakers that it would hurt people with low incomes and few insurance options.” [The Kansas City Star, 02/11/04]
- The Bill, Sponsored By Luetkemeyer, Also Proposed Reducing The Fees Insurance Companies Pay To The State For Examinations—Missouri’s Insurance Department Director Said The Bill Would “‘Devastate The Department's Ability To Oversee The Operations Of A $21 Billion Industry.’” “Sponsored by Rep. Blaine Luetkemeyer, R-St. Elizabeth, the bill also reduces the fees that insurance companies pay to the Department of Insurance for examinations. Insurance Department Director Scott Lakin said that provision would eliminate the jobs of 11 people who check on insurance companies' operations. ‘These provisions would devastate the department's ability to oversee the operations of a $21 billion industry,’ Lakin said in a letter to Luetkemeyer.” [St. Louis Post-Dispatch, 02/04/04]
- According To The Missouri House, Luetkemeyer's Bill Passed Out Of Committee But Its Last Action Was Being "Placed On Informal Calendar." [Missouri House of Representatives, accessed 01/23/23]
Luetkemeyer Was Reported As Owning Luetkemeyer Insurance Agency As Early As June 2004:
[The Kansas City Star via Newspapers, 06/28/04]
¶ While In Missouri’s State House, Luetkemeyer Also Supported Other Anti-Consumer, Pro-Industry Efforts, Including Working To Lift Overdraft Fee Limits, Criticizing Car Title Loan Regulation, Opposing Police Reports Of Elderly Abuse At Nursing Homes, And Balking At A Proposed Ban Against Insurers Relying On Credit Reports—A Practice That Disproportionately Harms Low-Income And Minority Consumers.
As Of 2004, Missouri Did Not Regulate Bank Overdraft Fees After Luetkemeyer—A “Former Director Of The Missouri Bankers Association”—Co-Sponsored A Bill Lifting Overdraft Fee Limits In The State In 2003. “Neither Kansas nor Missouri regulates bank overdraft fees, which range from $20 to $35. Missouri lifted fee limits in a banking bill quietly passed a year ago at the urging of bankers. It was co-sponsored by Republican Reps. Blaine Luetkemeyer and David Pearce, both bankers. Luetkemeyer, a former director of the Missouri Bankers Association, is also running for state treasurer.” [The Kansas City Star, 08/01/04]
February 2000: As The Missouri House Banking Committee Considered Bills On Short-Term, High-Interest Loans, Luetkemeyer Criticized Regulation of Car Title Loans And Argued Consumers Can Afford Fees Associated With Them. “The House banking committee reacted on Wednesday with a measure of skepticism - even hostility - to three proposals to rein in companies that cash checks or provide short-term, high-interest loans. [...] But Rep. Blaine Luetkemeyer, a St. Elizabeth Republican, said he understood that the typical car title loan customer was 45 years old and earned $50,000 to $75,000 a year. They can afford to pay the fees they agree to, he said. That raises the question, Hosmer said, of ‘who needs our protection - the companies making these loans or the people taking them out?’” [The Kansas City Star, 02/10/00]
April 2001: Luetkemeyer Opposed Legislation To Require Nursing Home Staff To Promptly Report Elderly Abuse To Police—Instead Of Only Reporting “Substantiated” Cases, As Required By Law At The Time—Claiming It Would Increase “Red Tape” For Nursing Homes. “The House has given initial approval to legislation making more senior citizens eligible for Medicaid and targeting patient abuse at nursing homes. [...] The measure also would require nursing home staff to report any abuse of elderly patients promptly to police. Currently, only substantiated cases must be reported. Hosmer said that by the time abuse is substantiated the ‘trail is already cold,’ so that police have a hard time nabbing the offender. [...] A critic of the measure, Rep. Blaine Luetkemeyer, R-St. Elizabeth, said the bill would hurt already cash-strapped nursing homes by increasing the amount of red tape they must wade through. He said nursing homes already are heavily regulated.” [The Associated Press State & Local Wire, 04/10/01]
April 2003: Luetkemeyer, Then-Chair Of Missouri’s House Financial Services Committee, Stalled A Bill “He [Didn’t] Like” That Would Have Protected Consumers From Getting Dropped By Their Home Insurance Companies After Filing Storm-Related Damage Claims. “Help for Missouri consumers who risk losing their home insurance when they file storm-related damage claims got a boost last week in the General Assembly. The Senate Small Business, Insurance and Industrial Relations Committee voted 6-4 to send SB 539, which protects homeowners against nonrenewals, to the Senate floor for debate. If it passes, the bill will prevent insurers from dropping or surcharging homeowners who file storm-related claims or penalizing them for making mere inquiries about their coverage. [...] Rep. Blaine Luetkemeyer, a St. Elizabeth Republican who chairs the House Financial Services Committee, said he kept the bill in committee mainly because the House already has a heavy load of other bills to consider before it recesses in mid-May. But Luetkemeyer, who is also an insurance agent, said he doesn't like the bill.” [Kansas City Star, 04/06/03]
- Luetkemeyer Reportedly Claimed The Bill Would “Unfairly Place Restrictions On Insurers” And Would “‘Micromanage A Business Because Someone Got Upset When Their Insurance Was Canceled.’” “He said the bill would unfairly place restrictions on insurers that must make tough business decisions to remain financially sound. Insurance companies lost a lot of money last year. The bill, he said, improperly seeks to ‘micromanage a business because someone got upset when their insurance was canceled.’ He said that if the state squeezes insurers too hard, they won't be able to afford to offer protection to Missouri consumers.” [Kansas City Star, 04/06/03]
February 2003: While Missouri House Finance Committee Chairman, Luetkemeyer Criticized Then-Democratic Governor Bob Holden’s Call To Ban Insurers From Using Credit Records To Rate Customers, Which A State Study Found To Hurt “Poor People And Ethnic Minorities.” “A key state legislator who also happens to be an insurance agent reacted skeptically to Missouri Guy. Bob Holden's call for a total ban on insurer use of credit records to rate customers, which followed a state study finding that the process hurts poor people and ethnic minorities. [...] Questions about Guy. Holden's effort to secure a ban in Missouri came from Assemblyman Blaine Luetkemeyer, R-St. Elizabeth, who heads the House Finance Committee, which deals with insurance legislation. ‘Is there a problem or is this just a campaign issue he's trying to drum up?’ he mused.” [National Underwriter Property & Casualty, 02/09/04]
- Bob Holden Was Missouri’s Democratic Governor From January 2001 To January 2005. [National Governors Association, accessed 11/29/22]
July 2004: The Sponsor Of A Missouri House Bill To Regulate Auto Repair Shops Owned By Insurance Companies Said The Bill Was Blocked By Then-House Financial Services Committee Chairman Blaine Luetkemeyer—The Sponsor Noted That Luetkemeyer “‘Runs An Insurance Company.’” “In Missouri, Rep. Michael Daus (D-Mo.) is pursuing other means to pass the bill he introduced, HB 818, after it failed to reach a vote in the House Financial Services Committee. [...] Daus adds that HB 818 never reached a vote only because committee chairman Blaine Luetkemeyer (R-Mo.) never permitted it. ‘He runs an insurance company,’ says Daus. Luetkemeyer did not return messages left by ABRN.” [Vehicle Service Pros, 12/31/19]
- In 2003-2004, Several States Considered Legislation To Regulate Or Ban Auto Repair Shops Owned By Insurance Companies After Texas Passed The Nation’s First Law “Stopping The Growth” Of Such Shops. “Is legislation designed to stop the spread and, in some cases, outlaw insurer-owned shops at a crossroads? Supporters and opponents of this legislation are debating this point after several highly publicized bills died before reaching a vote at the end of their 2003-2004 legislative state sessions. During the latter part of 2003 and early months of 2004, proponents of legislation controlling the spread of insurer-owned shops seemed to have built up momentum for their cause. Texas had passed the nation's first law stopping the growth of these shops, and legislatures in states such as Michigan, Missouri, Maryland, Florida and Arizona began working on their own Texas-inspired laws.” [Vehicle Service Pros, 12/31/19]
¶ Rep. Luetkemeyer Was A Vocal Supporter Of The Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, And Consumer Protection Act, Which Was Criticized For Eroding Dodd-Frank Financial Reforms And Weakening Anti-Discrimination Housing Standards.
¶ Luetkemeyer Voted For And Was Vocally Supportive Of S. 2155, The Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act, A Bill To Weaken Dodd-Frank Financial Reforms “Designed To Tame Wall Street, Protect Consumers And Make Our Financial System Less Fragile."
May 2018: Rep. Luetkemeyer Voted For Passage Of S. 2155, The Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act, Which Became Law In May 2018. [Clerk of the U.S. House of Representatives, 05/22/18]
- S. 2155 Became Law On May 24, 2018. [Congress.gov, accessed 01/10/23]
May 2018: Rep. Luetkemeyer Expressed Support For S. 2155, Claiming “Financial Institutions Are Buried Under A Mountain Of Regulations” And “Deserve More Relief.” “Congressman Blaine Luetkemeyer (MO-03) addressed the Exchequer Club of Washington D.C. today to discuss his work as Chairman of the Financial Institutions and Consumer Credit Subcommittee and his perspective on the future of financial policy. [...] Luetkemeyer on S. 2155 [...] ‘Right now, financial institutions are buried under a mountain of regulations. So, any relief is better than no relief. In our committee, we are also looking to package a significant number of additional regulatory relief bills that passed the House, or committee, with big bipartisan vote margins to send over to the senate… Our financial institutions deserve more relief, and I will continue to advocate for our financial institutions, to deliver meaningful bipartisan reforms.’” [Rep. Blaine Luetkemeyer, 05/16/18]
S. 2155 Sought To “Considerably Weaken” Dodd-Frank Financial Reforms “Designed To Tame Wall Street, Protect Consumers And Make Our Financial System Less Fragile." "The bill, S. 2155, would considerably weaken the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, the law President Barack Obama signed in 2010, which was designed to tame Wall Street, protect consumers and make our financial system less fragile." [CNN, 03/05/18]
The Bill Raised The Threshold For A Bank To Be Considered Systematically Important From $50 Billion To $250 Billion In Assets. “The bill’s most controversial provision would increase the threshold from $50 billion to $250 billion for a bank to be considered systemically important. These so-called 'too big to fail' banks must undergo mandatory Fed ‘stress tests’ every year, complete a 'living will' directing how they could be wound down safely if they failed, and face other stricter safety rules. Just about everyone seems to agree that $50 billion was too low a threshold, inundating banks that don’t really pose systemic risks and don’t really need living wills with heavy compliance costs and headaches. But many experts believe $250 billion is too high.” [Politico, 11/08/18]
The Bill Also Weakened “Anti-Discrimination Standards In Housing By Raising The Number Of Loans A Bank Can Make Before It’s Required To Report On The Issue.” “[Former Congressman Barney] Frank also criticized a provision in the bill that he said weakens anti-discrimination standards in housing by raising the number of loans a bank can make before it’s required to report on the issue. Another provision that he singled out allows foreign megabanks, such as Deutsche Bank and HSBC, to put their American assets into a separate holding company to avoid US regulatory scrutiny.” [Vox, 03/14/18]
¶ In 2017, Rep. Luetkemeyer Voted For The Searching For And Cutting Regulations That Are Unnecessarily Burdensome Act (SCRUB) Act, Which Was Criticized For Prioritizing Corporate Profits Over Consumer Safety While Overriding Agency Expertise In Favor Of An “Unelected Commission.”
¶ 2017: Rep. Luetkemeyer Voted For H.R. 998, The Searching For And Cutting Regulations That Are Unnecessarily Burdensome Act (SCRUB) Act, An Anti-Regulatory Bill That Would “Prioritize Corporate Profits Over The Health And Safety Of The American Public" And Would Have Overridden Agency Expertise With An “Unelected Commission.”
March 2017: Rep. Luetkemeyer Voted For H.R. 998, The Searching for and Cutting Regulations That Are Unnecessarily Burdensome Act (SCRUB) Act. [Clerk of the U.S. House of Representatives, 03/01/17]
- H.R. 998 Passed The House On March 1, 2017. [Congress.gov, accessed 01/10/22]
Oversight Committee Democrats Argued That H.R. 998 "Would Prioritize Corporate Profits Over The Health And Safety Of The American Public." "Committee Democrats strongly oppose H.R. 998. We reject the view that this bill would be a panacea for eliminating regulations that have unnecessary regulatory costs on our economy. Through the creation of an unelected Commission, this bill would duplicate work agencies are already doing to review and repeal regulations— at a cost to taxpayers of $30 million—and it would prioritize corporate profits over the health and safety of the American public." [House Oversight Committee, 02/21/17]
H.R. 998 Would Have "Force[d] Agencies To Prioritize Between Existing Protections And Responding To New Threats To Health And Safety" "The bill establishes a regulatory 'cut-go'’ process that would force agencies to prioritize between existing protections and responding to new threats to health and safety." [House Oversight Committee, 02/21/17]
H.R. 998 Would Have Overridden The Expertise Of The Agencies With An "Unelected Commission." "The bill would take regulatory review out of the hands of agency subject-matter experts and place it in an unelected Commission. The Commission could devise any methodology for its review of rules, and no rules would be exempt." [House Oversight Committee, 02/21/17]
Consumer Advocates Argued H.R. 998 Would Have Made It "Significantly More Difficult" For Regulations To Be Issued. "H.R. 998 would establish a new bureaucracy empowered to dismantle long-established science-based public health and safety standards and would make it significantly more difficult for Congress and federal agencies to implement essential future protections." [Center for Responsible Lending, 02/27/17]