You, of course, have never heard of Cindy Schnacknel. She wrote to the fed, upset because "My husband and I pay our bills responsibly and have good credit and we're increasingly treated as if we're deadbeats by the credit card co's." I picked Cindy as a random -- but typical -- representative of the tens of thousands of consumers who've written letters and comments to the Federal Reserve complaining about credit card company practices. You can join Cindy by commenting on the Fed's proposal to ban these practices until Monday, August 4.

I had once debated Governor Kroszner, back when he was an economics professor at the extremely free market University of Chicago, on the issue of unfair ATM fees. At the time of that TV debate, he was, and probably still is, against banning ATM surcharges. Unless you saw that 4 minute debate, you've probably never heard of him either, but he is the Federal Reserve Governor who led the effort to propose banning unfair and deceptive credit card practices. In a recent phone call to me, he said that the letters from consumers mattered. Further, in her recent testimony before Chairwoman Maloney's subcommittee, Federal Reserve director of Consumer Affairs Sandra Braunstein said the same thing: that the letters from Cindy and other plain old consumers like her made a critical difference in their thinking. This was an extraordinary departure from the Fed's usual way of thinking, which for years has been to "interpret our authority as narrowly as possible and no matter what the banks are doing, if we must act, simply require a disclosure even if it kills trees without helping consumers."

Yet, instead, Kroszner and the Fed proposed to use all of their authority and to outright ban many of the business-as-usual fee and interest tactics of the nation's biggest credit card banks as inherently unfair and deceptive practices designed unjustly to keep consumers in perpetual debt servitude. So Cindy helped convince Kroszner to act on behalf of the consumers.

I would argue that Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-NY), helped push the Fed also. She had in February introduced legislation, HR 5244, the Credit Cardholders Bill of Rights, that turned out to be very similar to the later Fed proposal, which didn't come out until May. Yet just as Maloney helped convince the Fed what to do; it now turns out that the Fed, by filing its proposal, had Maloney's back on Thursday night, when she needed all the help she could get.

While she had long had the strong support of the consumer, civil rights and labor communities, she knew from the outset that she was up against the powerful credit card lobby on a committee where leadership of both parties routinely places members who need to raise campaign cash to hold their seats. Heck, she represents a district in Manhattan where most of the big banks are headquartered (their profit-center credit card units may be on the Delaware shore or South Dakota prairie, but the big bank CEOs are her constituents.) So she knew it would be a fight. It's a tough place for us to win.

Some committee members -- even those who share our views of unfair bank practices - would simply prefer not to offend the banks, because the bank lobbyists swarm the committee. The bank lobbyists get peckish -- very peckish -- when anyone suggests they need to clean up their act. And while there may not be a shipyard or car factory in every district, there are always banks, lots of banks. They swarm committee members, even when there are no threats.

So, Rep. Maloney worked hard. She started early last year and last summer she even held a "summit" meeting between consumer advocates and bankers. We agreed to disagree. She researched the issue and drafted a carefully-written bill, which she introduced in February. The Credit Cardholders Bill of Rights, HR 5244, didn't reinstate usury ceilings, it didn't fix or cap fees or interest, it didn't include all the reforms that U.S. PIRG or the Consumer Federation of America might want to rein in the credit card companies. It didn't do everything Senator Carl Levin's bill, already introduced, did. It was a Maloney bill, not a PIRG bill, not a shotgun blast but a rifle shot, but we could support it.

Starting early this year, she first gathered 45 original co-sponsors including several senior members of the House, and the full committee chairman, Barney Frank (D-MA). She's now at 155 co-sponsors, an impressive number on any bill. When Congress comes back, more members will sign on, now that the bill has new legs.

But it was a lot of work. After introducing the bill, she held numerous hearings that built a formidable record of those unfair bank practices and their impact on people. Her witnesses included U.S. Senators who shared her views, plain old consumer victims of credit card practices, iconoclastic or maybe even heretical professors (but all with impeccable academic credentials) who rejected the simplistic "what's good for Citibank and its ilk is good for America" view held by many fellow academics. She also heard from other bank regulators, such as the Chairman and Vice-Chairman of the FDIC, who also urged reform. Of course, she also heard from bankers and the head-in-sand regulators from the OCC (our archived site OCCWatch) who are loyal to the banks, no matter what. But, of course, she also heard from consumer, community and civil rights advocates including me and also my colleague Chris Lindstrom, who runs our campus credit card campaign.

Then the Fed's proposed rules came out in early May and two things happened. First, people were shocked to see that the Fed's proposal was similar to, and in some ways stronger than Maloney's bill. Second, that similarity gave Maloney cover. After all, how radical could your proposal be if the Fed's is pretty much the same? The bankers began to get worried. After all, one of their mantras to the hill had always been: "Don't ever legislate. Wait for the market, or at least, wait for the Fed, wait for the Fed." But in the past, this message was used because the banks could count on the Fed to do little or nothing, and take years and years to do it.

So Maloney made a strategic decision to change her bill to make it even more similar, in fact virtually identical to, the Fed proposal, and to ask Chairman Frank to bring it to the committee for a vote.

We knew that the banks reasoned that we could probably win a floor vote against them in an election year, so we also knew that the banks would fight doubly hard to kill the bill in committee to prevent that possibility. So, the committee would be the big lift. Maloney continued working hard and the reform community stepped it up a few gears.

The banks countered on Thursday with a substitute "Go, Fed" resolution. They were of course -- while mad at the Fed -- still saying "wait for the Fed," but their argument now had no clothes, since, after all, all Maloney was proposing was to legislate (which is what Congress does) the Fed proposal into law.

Congress routinely thanks Little League teams, Girl Scout troops, NCAA National Champion basketball teams and other civic groups and individuals for their services, but thanking a regulator was clearly designed merely to kill reform efforts.

And so, late Thursday, after a fairly depressing day of attacks on the bill that seemed to suggest its outlook was not so good, we finally got down to voting. There were a few sidebar amendments. Then came the roll call vote on the "Go, Fed" substitute. Every Democrat present, plus Republican co-sponsors Chris Shays (R-CT) and Walter Jones (R-NC), voted against that do-nothing, "Go, Fed" resolution thanking the fed for its efforts. This was a critical defeat.

But, after that stunning defeat of the bank-backed substitute resolution, the members could still have played both sides against each other, as they often do, and switched a few votes to defeat the bill on final. Yet, to their credit, that same group hung together and voted 39-27 to pass the Credit Cardholders' Bill of Rights, as championed by Carolyn Maloney. We expect floor action in September. While we will probably have to wait until next year for Senate action, change is in the air.

We'll still support the Fed proposal. The committee's action helps protect the Fed against efforts to weaken it before it becomes final. But, Congress should also approve the Maloney bill: If it does, it in effect codifies into law a good proposed rule, which would take away two key uncertainties of waiting for the Fed: (1) That the final rule ends up weaker than the proposed rule after industry comments (now perhaps less of a problem than before Thursday) and (2) that the banks sue to delay, harass and overturn the rule (definitely a problem).

The other defeat this year for the credit card companies? That was important, too. It was on merchant interchange fees, but it was in the House Judiciary Committee, what I have called an away game for the banks. Just three years ago, the banks owned that committee, too, when it sent to the floor and then to the president the most anti-consumer bill in history, the bank-championed Bankruptcy "Reform" Act.

Their last defeat? Twenty years ago, before I came to DC, the banks were forced to agree to some modest disclosures in credit card solicitations (creating the so-called "Schumer box"). That's the last time I remember them losing a home game in the banking committees. Already this summer, they've lost both home and away. Change is in the air.