ILA | Trump Administration Counteracts Politically-Motivated Banking Discrimination

Gun News


In late November, the Trump administration took its firmest action yet to counteract ongoing banking discrimination against businesses that serve America’s gun owners. The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, a significant banking regulator, issued a proposed rule to prohibit politically-motivated service denials and to ensure large, nationwide banks would have to make offered products available to all law-abiding customers without ideological bias.

Of all the Obama/Biden administration’s attacks on the Second Amendment, Operation Choke Point (OCP) was one of the most insidious. Frequent readers of this page will recall how federal banking regulators, under the guise of shielding banks and the public from fraud, pressured financial service providers against doing business with lawful but politically-disfavored customers. These included sellers of firearms and ammunition, which were specifically singled out as “high risk” by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation in regulatory guidance provided to banks in 2011.

What made these firearm-related businesses high risk? In the circular reasoning of OCP, it wasn’t their creditworthiness or financial performance but the “reputation risk” they supposedly posed to banks that, so the story went, could anger third parties by serving the “high risk” clients. And the regulators made sure the banks understood that no one might be angrier than the regulators themselves: failing to heed their “risk-based” guidance could subject the banks to costly and embarrassing investigations. The simple solution was for the banks to avoid conducting business with “high risk” customers entirely.

The Obama/Biden administration retreated from OCP when Congressional investigators and other watchdogs revealed its obvious wrongdoing. The FDIC revised its infamous 2011 regulatory guidance in 2014, and issued further clarification in 2015, refocusing on case-by-case risk management, rather than debanking of entire industries. Nevertheless, the regulators portrayed the furor over OCP as a big misunderstanding, with banks supposedly overreacting to legitimate attempts to hinder scammers.

Subsequent events, however, confirmed that political activists were indeed deliberately trying to weaponize the financial services industry against the targets of their activism.

On February 18, 2018, the New York Times published an infamous essay by Andrew Ross Sorkin that called upon the financial services industry to adopt restrictions on relationships with gun companies to demonstrate its commitment to “moral responsibility.” The plan was for banks and payment processors to defund activities – like the making and sales of semiautomatic rifles – that anti-gun activists had unsuccessfully lobbied the political branches to ban.

Sorkin’s proposal, like OCP, recognized that financial services are the lifeblood of any successful business. But the pressure this time was to come from the social justice mob, not faceless government bureaucrats. The new OCC rulemaking actually cites Sorkin’s article as an example of how politics have infected the provision of financial services.

Even some in the government itself have retroactively embraced the tactics of OCP. After anti-gun Democrats took over control of the House Financial Services Committee following the 2018 midterms, the committee hauled a Wells Fargo Bank executive to a hearing to berate him for, among other things,  the bank’s transactions with gun companies.

Other banks, Rep. Carolyn D. Maloney (D-NY) lectured, had forced their firearm-related customers to adopt “best practices” that limited the scope of their lawful activities. These practices just happened to mirror unsuccessful legislative proposals pushed by anti-gun Democrats, that included such constitutionally dubious measures as refusing to sell otherwise-legal long guns to otherwise-eligible adults of military age. To his credit, the executive stood his ground, asserting, “We just don’t believe that it is a good idea to encourage banks to enforce legislation that doesn’t exist.”

The tenor of the hearing, however, made it unmistakably clear that certain committee members were unabashedly trying to pressure the bank to curb its business with certain customers, not because those customers were behaving illegally, but because the committee members found them objectionable.

All the while, firearm-related businesses were finding their options for financial services shrinking.

For its part, the Trump administration explicitly repudiated OCP, with the U.S. Department of Justice (which had participated in OCP under the Obama/Biden administration) providing written assurance to the U.S. House Judiciary Committee that the program had been terminated and would not be revived. Characterizing OCP as a “misguided initiative conducted during the previous administration,” the DOJ’s Aug. 16, 2017, letter stated: “the Department will not discourage the provision of financial services to lawful industries, including businesses engaged in … firearms-related activities.”

Still, whether from lingering doubts left by OCP or in the vain hope of appeasing the social justice grievance lobby, some of America’s biggest banks have continued to shun lawful, creditworthy, and financially sound businesses within the firearm and ammunition sectors.

The proposed OCC rule aims to end politically-motivated manipulation of the financial service industry and to require large banks to provide fair access to all the products they offer to law-abiding customers who are able to satisfy predetermined “quantitative, impartial risk-based standards.” It reiterates that the Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act requires “fair treatment of customers by . . . the institutions” subject to its jurisdiction. The rule would therefore establish enforceable standards of fairness for America’s largest banks. Those standards would prevent activists and banks from conspiring to deprive otherwise eligible customers of financial services for purely political reasons.

The rule, in other words, would refocus banks on doing their jobs of helping to promote lawful economic activity and managing financial risk while leaving policy decisions about what sorts of businesses are permissible in the first place to the political branches and the U.S. Constitution.

While some have questioned whether it is an appropriate role for government to tell private banks who they must provide financial services to, the major banks affected by the proposed rule have themselves been the beneficiary of support by American taxpayers. As Senator Kennedy (R-La.) pointed out last year, “[b]anks should not be able to discriminate against lawful customers on the basis of social policy. The banks should keep in mind that these lawful customers are the same hard-working taxpayers who bailed them out during the recession.”

Beyond bailouts during the recession, major banks regularly benefit from taxpayer dollars. We noted just this year that “[m]any of the same institutions that discriminate against lawful firearm activity are now the clearinghouses for the COVID-19 SBA loan programs, reportedly picking up billions of taxpayer dollars for processing fees along the way.”

If major banks get to benefit at the expense of the American taxpayer, especially at times when many Americans are struggling to make ends meet, then, at a minimum, they can be required to respect those same Americans’ constitutional rights.

The OCC is accepting comments on the rulemaking through the government’s online regulatory portals, (among other options) until Jan. 4, 2021. The NRA encourages all firearm-related businesses that have been harmed by political discrimination in the provision of financial services to provide their respectful and constructive feedback on the proposal.

We also thank the Trump Administration and acting Comptroller of the Currency Brian P. Brooks for their leadership in seeking to restore fairness and sanity to the nationwide market for the financial products. Ideological discrimination in the services businesses need to survive is a shameful, pernicious, and thoroughly un-American trend. The proposed OCC rule is a welcomed step toward eliminating it.



Source link

Articles You May Like

Gun Dealers Flee Blue State As Local Authorities Ratchet Up Red Tape
Newtown highschoolers protest NSSF headquarters in Shelton
23 GOP State Attorneys General Warn Firms to Stop Backing Efforts to ‘De-Bank’ Conservatives
Opinion: Who won the Republican debate
NRA response Schumer

18 Comments

  1. 874410 734602Hmm is anyone else having issues with the images on this weblog loading? Im trying to figure out if its a problem on my finish or if its the weblog. Any responses would be greatly appreciated. 295121

  2. 46312 159566What is your most noted accomplishment. They may possibly want very good listeners rather than good talkers. 728523

  3. 878401 552415This sort of wanting to come to a difference in her or his lifestyle, initial usually Los angeles Excess weight weightloss scheme is a large running in as it reached that strive. weight loss 991589

  4. 996990 538212My brother suggested I would possibly like this blog. He was once entirely appropriate. This submit actually created my day. You cant believe just how so considerably time I had spent for this information! Thank you! 629591

  5. 873255 928277Oh my goodness! a amazing post dude. Thanks Nevertheless My business is experiencing issue with ur rss . Dont know why Not able to sign up for it. Possibly there is any person obtaining identical rss difficulty? Anyone who knows kindly respond. Thnkx 587310

  6. 639697 408781Quite effectively written story. It will likely be valuable to anyone who usess it, including yours truly . Keep up the good work – canr wait to read a lot more posts. 748924

  7. 908423 768692Highest quality fella toasts, or toasts. will most undoubtedly be given birth to product or service ? from the party therefore supposed to become surprising, humorous coupled with enlightening likewise. very best man speaches 174195

  8. 139181 762325Hey there. I want to to ask a little somethingis this a wordpress web log as we are planning to be transferring over to WP. In addition did you make this template all by yourself? Numerous thanks. 105871

  9. 240441 92958Hi. Thank you for producing this site . I m working on betting online niche and have identified this site utilizing search on bing . Is going to be certain to appear much more of your content material . Gracias , see ya. :S 284448

  10. 24488 904577Some truly nice and utilitarian data on this web site , likewise I think the design and style holds wonderful capabilities. 122863

  11. 23558 559040Its like you read my mind! You appear to know so much about this, like you wrote the book in it or something. I believe that you can do with some pics to drive the message home a bit, but instead of that, this is wonderful blog. A great read. Ill undoubtedly be back. 168960

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *