Here are my top five reasons:First, the critics misunderstand who promoted this bill. Kuttner, forexample, blames Obama for being "always eager to curry favor withWall Street donors..." Wall Street lobbyists played, at most a peripheralrole, it was small business owners and "makers" like Woody Neiss andPaul Spinrad who led the charge. Innovative thinkers in the WhiteHouse, like Doug Rand at the Office of Science and Technology Policy,played a pivotal role in shaping the president's views aboutentrepreneurship. Non-Wall Street insiders like IndieGogo, acrowdfunding web site, and the nonprofit Sustainable Economies LawCenter, pushed hard as well.Second, the critics, who are justifiably skeptical of wholesalederegulation, don't like to concede that any form of regulation has been afailure. But any honest assessment of the history of securities law wouldobserve that we essentially regulated local finance out of existence whilepermitting Bernie Madoffs to operate freely. For decades, the SEC hasheld annual meetings where small business owners have urged reforms -- modest deregulations that could open up capital to small companies,such as allowing small-dollar, local investments to be exempted fromsecurities filings. The SEC never implemented any of those suggestions-- even a recommendation that $100 investments be exempted.Third, the critics have tremendously exagerrated the dangers of fraud.The casual reader of the liberal critiques might conclude that the sale of fraudulent securities is now legal, and that "boiler room" operations willbe set up to bilk grandma of her life savings. Yet state and federal lawsagainst securities fraud remain in effect.