As one who has worked in journalism and now works for the MPC, I can see what Ms. Struglinski is doing. First she outlines the particulars of the bill. And then she adds the But: "But credit-card companies and banks say..."

They merely "say" while the merchants "claim." So the banks and their representatives are not challenged. Why not? And why do they get the last word?

Well, of course the credit card industry opposes this bill. They're the ones whose unfair fee structure is targeted by this bill. So why are they being treated as the thoughtful contrarians?

Rep. Cannon is right on the mark when he says the current system hurts competition. Visa and MasterCard have price-setting power, so merchants cannot just stop accepting payment cards, not without bringing the entire economy to a halt. It's a broken market, and Cannon's bill is a fair remedy.

Mr. Madigan knows full well that interchange fees are much higher than they were even five years ago, that these fees only ever go upward. They aren't based in real costs for the banks that issue credit cards. They're a cash cow they're desperate to defend.

haha, then when the banks are forced to lower their interchange fees, they'll throw ads all over TV about how they decided to lower their fees to save YOU money...at the same time they bump up your interest rates

The other problem with all of the fees and interchange is that we are all forced to take and pay for the "rewards" cards and other incentives to entice people into going further in debt. I think more meaningful legislation would include provision for selective acceptance of cards rather than being forced to take all cards. Maybe then Visa and the rest would get the idea that we don't like paying for them to entice customers to higher fee cards and then pay the higher fees.

If the consumer wants to pay with a credit card let the consumer pay the fee. As a retailer I would then just be the middle man