يعتمد تقدم ترميز قانون CLARITY الآن على هؤلاء المشرعين الديمقراطيين

The CLARITY Act is heading back to the Senate Banking Committee on May 14 after months of stalled negotiations, putting a small group of Democrats at the center of the crypto industry’s push for a federal market-structure law. The markup comes after the bill was slowed by disputes over stablecoin rewards, anti-money laundering safeguards and ethics provisions . Those fights have turned a committee vote that Republicans may be able to win on numbers into a broader test of whether the measure can attract enough Democratic support to remain viable on the Senate floor. Republicans hold 13 of the committee’s 24 seats, giving the bill a plausible path out of the panel if the party remains aligned. However, the more important signal will come from Democrats. A vote that attracts several Democratic members would give the bill stronger footing for the Senate floor, where major legislation usually requires 60 votes. On the other hand, a mostly party-line vote would leave the measure vulnerable to the same political resistance that has slowed crypto bills in previous sessions. These Democrats could shape CLARITY Act's path Galaxy Research has identified seven Democratic members of Senate Banking as the key votes to watch, including Ruben Gallego of Arizona, Angela Alsobrooks of Maryland, Mark Warner of Virginia, Catherine Cortez Masto of Nevada, Andy Kim of New Jersey, Raphael Warnock of Georgia and Lisa Blunt Rochester of Delaware. How Democrat Lawmakers Might Vote in CLARITY Act Markup (Source: Galaxy Research) The firm’s posture map classifies Gallego and Alsobrooks as constructive or pro-framework, Warner, Cortez Masto, Kim and Warnock as conditional dealmakers, and Blunt Rochester as a swing vote. Gallego has a central role as the top Democrat on the digital-assets subcommittee. His support would help give the bill a Democratic policy anchor rather than leaving it as a Republican-led effort. Alsobrooks has also become important after helping negotiate compromise language