Four GOP senators back CLARITY Act but push for stricter stable‑coin yield limits

On September 15 the Senate cloture motion for the CLARITY Act fell short of the 60‑vote threshold, receiving 49 votes in favor and one senator abstaining. While the Republican bloc that supported the motion remains intact, four of those senators—John Cornyn, John Curtis, Cindy Hyde‑Smith and Lisa Murkowski—have also signed onto a banking‑sponsored amendment (SA 6771) that seeks to broaden the definition of prohibited stable‑coin rewards.

Why the amendment matters

The amendment, drafted by Sen. Jerry Moran, would replace the bill’s current language that bars rewards “economically or functionally equivalent to the payment of interest” with broader wording covering anything “substantially similar to the manner in which depository institutions pay interest or yield.” It also removes a subsection that allows issuers to calculate rewards based on account balances, holding duration, or customer tenure.

Potential impact on the vote count

The CLARITY Act needs 11 additional “yes” votes to reach the 60‑vote cloture threshold. If any of the four senators who backed both the bill and the amendment were to withdraw their support, the gap would widen—for example, a loss of all four would reduce the “yes” total to 45, creating a 15‑vote shortfall.

Separate negotiation tracks

Negotiators are simultaneously addressing two distinct issues: (1) stable‑coin yield language favored by banking groups and (2) ethics provisions pushed by Democrats to curb public officials’ crypto‑related financial interests. The Senate leadership has filed a motion to reconsider, keeping the bill alive for a future vote without restarting the entire process.

Next steps

The Senate is expected to remain in session into early October, but no new vote date has been announced. Success for the CLARITY Act will likely depend on retaining the current Republican supporters while persuading additional senators—potentially from the opposition or those who were absent—to vote “yes.”