Ah, suppose I should open my eyes and look harder sometimes, I scrolled halfway down on phone, didn't see the description; cheers.

After reading through the description, and as flagamuffin said above, I really hope there is a second side to this.

OftenBen asked above for a non-insane, non-corrupt version of why this would be passed. I, by no means, am in anyway even remotely knowledgable on economics, but, I can imagine that a lobbying group with the gift of the gab would be able to utilise said skills, combined with the 'Baffle 'em with bullshit' methodology (use big words, jargon, scary graphs), then combine it with a fear-mongering if action isn't taken:

"If we don't repeal it, it'll cause another crises, and it'll be worse than 2008!"

Couple that with an appeal to a partisan and opposition mentality:

"Well see, Obama and the Democrats brought in this legislation, and it'll cripple America when the next crash hits. Repeal/bring in this law, and the Republicans will be the saviours for averting it".

Note: The last point is easily swapped around, depending which Party/President is in power.

That's my attempt to rationalise it, without bringing in confirmed/suspected corruption and other issues.

I'll finish with a rather apt quote from former VP Dan Quayle regarding banking dilemmas:

"Bank failures are caused by depositors who don't deposit enough money to cover losses due to mismanagement"