The American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity (ACCCE) — a front group of big utilities and coal companies — is no stranger to fraud. During the summer’s House debate on cap-and-trade legislation, lobbyists working on behalf of the coal group sent forged letters to members of Congress, and lied under oath about it. Now, ACCCE is trying to exploit Veterans Day by misrepresenting veterans groups in an email to supporters:

With Veterans Day around the corner, we wanted to take a moment to reflect on all the military personnel who are involved in ensuring our country is protected.

Energy security is one issue that has become increasingly important to our veterans. In fact, national veterans groups Votevets and Operation Free are urging the government to become more energy independent and less reliant on foreign oil.

We can do this by using the abundant domestic fuels we already have. With more than 250 billion tons of recoverable coal reserves, the United States has more coal than the Middle East has oil.

The letter implies that VoteVets and Operation Free support ACCCE and its dirty energy agenda, but the the two groups are actually vocal backers of clean energy legislation. VoteVets excoriated ACCCE for citing them in the email, writing that VoteVets “will never advocate the continued use of carbon based fuels” and that ACCCE is trying “to hijack America’s Veterans” in “an act of despicable hubris.”

Operation Free — a veterans group which is dedicated to fighting climate change — was also quick to condemn ACCCE. In a blog post, Operation Free wrote that the email “dishonors Veterans day” and is “insulting to all of the Veterans who are fighting to protect America’s national security by supporting clean, American power.”

Will ACCCE acknowledge their continued misrepresentation and apologize for using Veterans Day as a prop to support an agenda that many veterans oppose?

Today, Senate Banking Committee Chairman Chris Dodd (D-CT) released a discussion draft of his bill overhauling the nation’s financial regulatory framework. At the bill’s formal roll-out, Dodd called it “sweeping, bold, [and] long-overdue.”

With this bill, there are now competing versions of regulatory reform in the Senate and the House, where the effort is being led by Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank (D-MA). Unlike Frank, who chose a piece-meal approach, Dodd is moving his legislation as one large package.

Overall, Dodd’s bill is more ambitious, and would go further in terms of blowing up and replacing the current system (but it also hasn’t been through mark-up, which is where some of the changes in the various pieces of House legislation originated). Below is a comparison of the major provisions in the two versions:

Provision	Senate Bill	House Bills
Consumer Financial Protection Agency (CFPA)	Includes a CFPA with rule-writing authority, with no federal preemption of state law. All financial institutions are subject to examination by the CFPA.	Includes a CFPA with rule-writing authority, and bank regulators can preempt state law on a case-by-case basis. Financial institutions with less than $10 billion in assets are not subject to CFPA examinations.
Consolidated Regulators	Consolidates all existing federal bank regulators into one super-regulator, the Financial Institutions Regulatory Authority (FIRA). Removes bank supervisory powers from the Federal Reserve and the FDIC.	Merges the Office of Thrift Supervision (OTS) and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), leaves other regulators in place.
Resolution Authority	Includes resolution authority, funded by an after-the-fact assessment on institutions with more than $10 billion in assets. Institutions must draw up a “living will,” to be used in the event they must be unwound.	Includes resolution authority, pre-funded by an assessment on institutions with more than $10 billion assets. Institutions must draw up a “living will,” to be used in the event they must be unwound.
Systemic Risk	Creates a new Agency for Financial Stability, composed of the federal bank regulators and two independent councilors appointed by the President. The council will make decisions regarding systemically risky firms.	A systemic risk council, composed of the federal bank regulators, will make decisions, to be carried out by the Federal Reserve. The Fed would be empowered to conduct “on site” examinations of any systemically risky firm.
Breaking up risky firms.	Gives federal regulators the authority to break up systemically risky firms on a case-by-case basis.	Gives federal regulators the authority to break up systemically risky firms on a case-by-case basis.

Both the House and Senate also have provisions aimed at reining in use of over-the-counter derivatives and regulating hedge funds and other non-bank entities. But politically, the two most contentious issues will likely be reconciling Dodd’s complete consolidation of regulators with Frank’s more limited approach, and trying to garner Republican support for the CFPA on the Senate side.