It sought to address the moral hazard of too big to fail by breaking up the largest banks with limits on the size of financial institutions.
"[4] The New York Times called it a liberal initiative with pure "populist appeal".
[5] Economist Simon Johnson emphasized that only a handful of Republicans voted for the bill and that the Obama administration opposed the amendment.
"[7] The New York Times said the amendment was strongly opposed by Wall Street;[3] supporters included The New York Times' editorial page, the editorial board of The Christian Science Monitor, and Simon Johnson.
[4] Any one bank's non-deposit liabilities would have been capped at 2% of GDP and for non-bank financial firms, the amount would have been 3%.