> First, consistent with the current rule, if the number of commissioners in office is two or one, that number is sufficient for a quorum.

Luckily enough, the Supreme Court has given the administration the green light to fire members of commissions at will... save the Fed, because mumble mumble history and tradition mumble.

Not that innocuous when the commission is intended to be bipartisan but the two Democratic seats are vacant. This change formalizes uniparty rule.

You're missing important background here. Federal law requires the commission to be non-partisan, defined as no more than three of the five commissioners being from the same party. But the Trump regime has subverted this rule by simply refusing to appoint more than three commissioners. That's why these quorum shenanigans are necessary. The proponents of this rule are acting in bad faith and will immediately file a lawsuit when the next administration tries to apply it in the other direction.

Its a naked power play when placed in context, despite how inoccuous it may seem. Commissioners are appointed by the president and confirmed by the senate. They can be fired by the president unilaterally.

This new rule means that the president only have to get one of "his" guys in, and now you can own all of the SEC decisions if you want by just firing any dissenting commissioners.

In the past, that is the sort of norm that would not be broken. We are now in a world where the president trying to fire fed bankers is real, and that is arguably a much, much, more serious norm to have broken. I don't think this administration will have any issues playing to the letter of the law instead of the spirit.

So with this rule change, the effect is that a president only needs one commissioner and a lack of regard for norms to completely control SEC decisions.