A U.S. senator from Oklahoma is targeting banks and other financial institutions that discriminate against those in the firearms industry and other groups not considered politically correct enough.
Republican Sen. Markwayne Mullin, along with Sen. Kevin Cramer, R-North Dakota, and 39 other Senate Republicans, introduced the Fair Access to Banking Act to ensure that banks and financial institutions offer services based on financial risk rather than political agendas.
This legislation specifically penalizes banks and credit unions with total consolidated assets exceeding $10 billion, along with their subsidiaries, if they refuse to conduct business with any legally compliant, creditworthy individual. It also prohibits payment card networks from discriminating against any qualified person based on political or reputational factors.
The bill requires qualified banks to provide written justification for any denial of financial services to an individual. Additionally, the act imposes penalties on providers who fail to comply with the law by disqualifying institutions from accessing discount window lending programs, revoking their status as an insured depository institution or credit union, or imposing a civil penalty of up to $10,000 for each violation.
“Banks should not be able to pick and choose winners and losers in the marketplace based on politics,” Mullin said in a released statement. “This legislation ensures that financial institutions operate fairly and provide services based on risk, not ideology.”
The bill is founded on President Donald Trump’s Fair Access Rule, introduced during his first term, which mandated financial institutions to conduct individual risk assessments instead of making sweeping decisions about entire industries or groups of customers. The Biden administration halted the implementation of the rule in early 2021.
According to a press release announcing the action, the senators’ legislation responds to U.S. banks and financial institutions that are increasingly using their economic power to discriminate against legal industries and conservatives outright. For instance, Citigroup implemented a policy in 2018 to withhold project-related financing for coal plants. In 2020, five of the largest banks in the country declared that they would not provide loans or credit to support oil and gas drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, despite explicit congressional authorization.
Such exclusionary practices also extend to industries protected by the Second Amendment. Capital One, along with other banks, had previously listed “ammunition, firearms or firearm parts” in the prohibited payments section of its corporate policy manual. Additionally, payment services like Apple Pay and PayPal have refused their services for transactions involving firearms or ammunition.
According to Sen. Mullin, the Fair Access to Banking Act is supported by several organizations, including the National Rifle Association (NRA) and National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF).
“This legislation will ensure financial institutions make decisions to offer services to lawful businesses based on objective and verifiable financial data and not the shifting of political or social views of banking executives that are unaccountable to the American voter,” said Lawrence G. Keane, NSSF senior vice president and general counsel. “For too long, banking institutions have arbitrarily denied services to legal and Constitutionally-protected businesses to advance a politically-driven agenda or yielded to inappropriate political pressure from ‘woke’ banking regulators. This includes denying critical financial services to the firearm industry that provides the means for law-abiding citizens to exercise their Second Amendment rights.”
even if it clears both, they’ll find a way.
While I don’t like the discrimination against the firearms industry, this is the same thing as forcing a baker to make a cake for a gay wedding when their personal beliefs think gay marriage is wrong. You’re forcing them to violate their conscience. I think this proposed legislation is unjust, just cutting the other direction against liberal banking institutions.
Maybe one of our resident attorney members can chime in here, but I’m of the opinion that if you’re a bank, you’re already being held to the requirements of the US Banking system.
Being a bank is not the same thing as being a bakery. Just like how being a landlord is different from being a wedding photographer. Banking, housing, and some other industries are different, and are regulated as such.
It’s a whole different level. You probably can’t deny banking to a family of two men who are legally married to each other. You probably can’t deny banking to a woman of a certain race. You probably can’t deny banking to a family who legally came to the US from Italy. Just like you can’t deny housing to those groups of people.
You CAN refuse to make a cake for whomever you wish to deny or reject.
BS. Name a privately owned bank.
That’s a good point.
So I guess my plans to found the 1st Bank of Osprey will require that I don’t discriminate against idiots, huh?
just make it a credit union.
I thought about that!
Jp Morgan is one
Old Glory Bank is a private/public bank.
I don’t know what that means, but I do know that you would not be discriminated against for buying anything that is a legal product, and/or ownership is protected by the Constitution.
I would need to do a decently deep dive on this before I agreed or disagreed.
While I’m generally receptive to the concept, I have to ask how free this market really is. Banking is tightly regulated and requires insurance that is also tightly regulated.
If the root cause of the behavior is .gov regulation on banks or on their insurers, then it’s different story.
Given what we’ve long suspected but recently have gained access to proof of, I wouldn’t be shocked to find that this is the case.
Below I noted that Big Tech has recently discovered that insurance and politics are, effectively, the same in many cases.
My meaning is that the recent changes in Big Tech policy since Trump took office are almost certainly due to their carriers telling them that their past/current behavior as encouraged by the Biden Administration is now illegal and that they must cease the behavior or lose their insurance. The behavior changes immediately, even when a 30 day window is given for compliance because no insurer is going to say “So, it’s illegal a month from now and you’re going to keep doing it? Sure, we’ll cover that!”.
Banks are creations of the government and must abide by the Constitution.
Just and FYI, I’ve done business to include multiple CC’s with Capital One and never had an issue.
I wonder if the reason banks block the sales is more about liability than politics?
The lawyers always go after the deepest pockets.
I don’t think it should be allowed since it blocks commerce and in this day and age it’s getting tough to pay for things without a CC.
The One World Government is coming……..
I’m afraid the day will come when it’s a cashless society.
Total control.
What you can purchase, where you purchased it and who you purchased it from.
Is your banking with Capital One done via a commercial account, or a personal one?
That could be the difference right there.
Liability and politics are deeply intertwined, so without a detailed analysis they’re effectively the same thing.
Just ask Big Tech these days.
Honestly, the only business news that I care about at this point is that the Libs are admitting, via Politico, to a 24% unemployment rate.
You want to bend the Dems over in public?
Here’s your talking point; They lied for years about a horrible unemployment rate and covered up the fact that 1 in 4 working age Americans was struggling to find a job while the Left claimed everything was amazing thanks to Bidenomics.
Until they fully admit to their failings and throw their 2020-2025 economics out the window, they’re liars who can’t be trusted. Hammer this constantly and you’ll produce a general set of wins with the Target Audience that also produces 2A bennies for decades to come.
That ……. actually looks about right. Did they start telling the truth for clicks after the fed money dried up?
If you look at the framing, they’re trying to blame Trump.
I first heard about this about 10 years ago when Bank of America dropped McMillian, noted for their making of rifle stocks, because they made big ugly guns too, like precision specialty rifles for the military and police. I had inherited 5000 shares of BoA that I sold that afternoon.
I just pay cash and don’t worry about it.
Seems like that’s exactly what Uncle Sam said about propping up, and even controlling, the entire narcotics trade from production through transport and even down to distribution and market making.