Stop the U.S. Chamber of Commerce from Endorsing an "Optional Federal Charter" for Insurance

Recently, an independent, bipartisan commission established by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce called for Congress to enact optional federal charter legislation for insurers as one of its recommendations for modernizing financial services regulation. The immediate backlash over the commission's recommendation caused the Chamber to backpedal a bit, saying that it has not yet made up its mind.

Please assist PIA in ensuring the U.S. Chamber of Commerce does not endorse the position of the commission.

What Can I Do? (1) Send a letter to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce now, before they make a decsion. Download PIA's sample letter and put it on your letterhead. Mail it as addressed or fax it to: Tom Donohue Chief Executive Officer U.S. Chamber of Commerce Fax: (202) 463-5836 (2) Talk to your local chamber of commerce. Ask the chamber to pass a resolution and ask your fellow chamber members to send the letter above. Download PIA's sample script.

Why is an "optional federal charter" for insurance bad for businesses, bad for insurance buyers, and bad for insurance agents?  There is an attempt now by a few large insurance companies and banks that operate nationwide to federalize insurance through what they call an “optional federal charter.” This would allow them the option of being chartered--and regulated--by the federal government, instead of the individual state governments, as is the case now. Because they don’t want to answer to states' Departments of Insurance, they are proposing that the federal government create an expensive new beuracracy with no history and experience in regulating insurance. A beuracracy that is less efficient and less responsive to insurance buyers, but serves their narrow interests. PIA believes that consumers and businesses are best served by an insurance system that is regulated by state Departments of Insurance.  These state departments are more knowledgeable than the federal government about the specific concerns of their state and region.  When urgent needs arise, a state regulator is able to respond in a more efficient manner than a federal regulator who may be subject to federal political pressures.  This helps ensure that insurance buyers, both individuals and businesses, continue to have access to a robust insurance marketplace to protect them, rather than one that is mired in bureaucratic red tape and leaves them with uninsured exposures. Additionally, nationally chartered insurers would not be subject to the many consumer protections that have developed over the years to ensure there is a balance between insurers’ need for profit and solvency and insurance buyers' right to be treated fairly.  These protections have developed at the state level and often differ based upon the unique experiences of a states’ insurance marketplace and the unique characteristics of America’s varying regions.