Even though this legislation received broad bipartisan support, including support from the Obama administration, working-class and middle-class people should be alarmed by the doors this bill opens to rip-off artists and the lowered defenses to fraud. It is for not trivial reasons that what has been sold as the "JOBS Act" is referred to by OurFuture.org's Richard Eskow as the Jivers' Opportunity to Bilk Suckers Act.

The legislation has been opposed by the AFL-CIO, Americans for Financial Reform (the coalition that helped fight for the Dodd-Frank financial reform bill), the Consumer Federation of America, and the American Association of Retired Persons.

In their joint statement, the Consumer Federation of America and Americans for Financial Reform write, "Because it misdiagnoses the problem and proposes a sweeping reduction in investor protections, the JOBS Act risks exposing investors to a new round of damaging fraud and abuse while undermining market transparency. Less reliable and transparent capital markets risk driving up the cost of capital for precisely those companies this legislation purports to benefit. This will harm, not help, our fragile economy."

One stated intent of the bill is to help make it easier for small business owners to raise capital through such techniques as "crowdfunding," using mediums such as the Internet to raise money from individual investors. While crowdfunding has the potential of helping new entrepreneurs get around the barriers presented by banks and Wall Street investment houses, this legislation goes too far in lowering protections against fraud. As Jesse Eisinger writes in ProPublica, "The bill loosens decades-old investor protections so that companies can directly advertise to those who would like to be separated from their money. ... I.P.O. pitches next to "Lose Your Belly!" ads. Sounds like a great idea!"

It is critical to note that the regulations that this bill would relax to make such practices as crowdfunding presumably easier would apply to businesses that are doing as much as $1 billion worth of business in a year. According to Inc. magazine, that's more revenue than earned in 2011 by such companies as Sprit Airlines, the Go Daddy Group, Kimpton Hotels, the Euro-Pro appliance company, and Dunkin' Brands (the Dunkin' Donuts franchisee)—none of which fit what people normally consider "small businesses."

Opponents of this legislation have pushed for the Senate to amend this legislation with the INVEST in America Act, sponsored by Sens. Jack Reed of Rhode Island, Mary Landrieu of Louisiana and Carl Levin of Michigan. This amendment would limit the companies that would qualify as “emerging companies” to those with less than $350 million in gross revenue and by eliminating the House bill’s exemptions from accounting rules, say-on-pay and golden parachute vote requirements, and executive compensation disclosures. It would regulate the advertising and selling of "crowdfunding" offerings so that potential investors would have the resources and information to understand the risks. It would also prevent large companies, including banks that have billions of dollars in assets, from using the legislation as it was passed in the House to come out from under SEC regulations.

The "JOBS Act" as passed by the House is a scam-enabling bill that makes it easier for one-percenters to fleece working-class and middle-class people of whatever might remain in our bank accounts. It is true that Internet-enabled crowdfunding of small and local businesses democratizes investment and thus gives economically struggling people another option for climbing up the economic ladder. But the middle class insists on adequate protections to prevent them from being conned out of their money.