The key change seems to be innocuous:

> The Commission is modifying 17 CFR 200.41, which establishes the Commission's quorum requirement. Three commissioners will continue to constitute a quorum of the Commission, with two important exceptions. First, consistent with the current rule, if the number of commissioners in office is two or one, that number is sufficient for a quorum. Second, if the number of commissioners in office minus the number disqualified from consideration with respect to a matter is two or one, then that number of commissioners constitutes a quorum for purposes of that matter.

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.

“Seems to be innocuous” is genuinely funny. It must be true for almost all types of corruption and evil that if you zoom in enough, and rob the action of all surrounding context, that it could be described as “innocuous”. How aptly technocratic.

Removing a requirement for quorum makes the bipartisan-intended commission into a singular role appointed by and serving at the pleasure of the president, like an agency head.

I can't edit my comment now but appreciate the responses I was indeed ignorant and this seemingly innocuous change is obviously not.

> 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.

From what I can tell, the only actual change is that the current rule says "two" instead of "two or one" in the last part about what happens if some Commissioners are disqualified with respect to a matter.

It's hard to tell if someone's oblivious or engaging in bad faith these days.

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.