The SAFE Banking Act: Will it Pass or Will it Be Left Under the Couch Until Next Session?

In the latest attempt to pass The SAFE Banking Act, it’s been attached to the COMPETES Act (Creating Opportunities to Meaningfully Promote Excellence in Technology Act). The central purpose of the COMPETES Act is to encourage semiconductor production in the US. It involves an aid package of approximately $52 Billion.  

It seems like the SAFE Banking Act has become the abused, often discarded dog’s chew toy that ends up either under the couch or tossed back and forth, in this case, between members of the U.S. House and Senate.  

The SAFE Banking Act has been picked up and attached to almost every piece of legislation imaginable without a clear strategy or logical connection. Like a chew toy that the House has just rediscovered under the couch, it gets pulled out, tossed around a bit, squeaked for several months giving the cannabis industry and the media something to get excited about.  

Then the Senate steps in and removes the offending, squeaky toy. As they have done several times now, the Senate removes the SAFE Banking Act and, in a scolding manner, stops the bill from moving forward. 

Why is this bill having such a hard time getting Congressional action? Several factors. First, the Senate has never cared about cannabis nor does it have a proactive record on cannabis-related legislation. Second, supporters of the bill don’t agree on its language or provisions – some believe it is too broad, others believe it is too narrow. They toss the bill back and forth demanding different things and not seeing that some movement is better than no movement. Third, so far, the strategy has been to attach the SAFE Banking Act to other bills because of the belief that stand-alone cannabis bills won’t pass. Yet, by attaching it to existing legislation it becomes a pawn for legislators to eliminate.

While many people believe that the best strategy is to attach the Safe Banking Act to bills that share popular, bi-partisan support, unfortunately, that strategy hasn’t worked either. It seems to only be removed and tossed aside while the “popular” bill passes with ease.

Perhaps it’s time to present The Safe Banking Act as a standalone bill and force the House and Senate to debate and vote on its merit. This process might result in meaningful changes that ensure not only bi-partisan support but the passage of the bill.