Posted on 04/21/2024 9:29:55 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
A group of 15 financial officials from 13 states sent a notice to Bank of America, raising concerns about the institution’s “de-banking” of Christians.
“We write to express our concerns over Bank of America’s troubling track record of politicized de-banking. Bank of America’s de-banking policies and practices threaten the company’s financial health, its reputation with customers, our nation’s economy, and the civil liberties of everyday Americans,” the officials wrote in an April 18 letter to Bank of America CEO Brian Moynihan.
“We are especially troubled by Bank of America’s track record of discriminating against religious ministries. Notable examples include Memphis-based charity Indigenous Advance Ministries, the Timothy Two Project, and Christian author and speaker Lance Wallnau.”
In April 2023, Bank of America shut down the account of Indigenous Advance Ministries, which partners with groups in the African nation of Uganda to provide care and education for orphaned and at-risk children. The bank closed accounts of a Memphis church which donated to the organization.
Bank of America provided “vague reasons” for the closure of these accounts, claiming the organization’s activities exceeded the institution’s “risk tolerance” and that it no longer wanted to serve its “business type.”
“Months later—after being confronted by an international media organization—the bank then claimed that it closed the accounts because the for-profit business engaged in ‘debt collection.’ Neither Indigenous Advance Ministries nor the church collect debts, nor was the bank able to point to any policy prohibiting account holders from engaging in such activities,” the letter said.
“In other words that rationale was a ruse, and even if legitimate, would only apply to one of the closed accounts.”
In 2020, the bank closed the account of Timothy Two Project International, which trains pastors in more than 65 nations. In a letter to the group, the bank claimed the closure was due to Timothy Two operating “a business type we have chosen not to service.”
The financial institution also froze the accounts of author Mr. Wallnau, alleging he was suspected of money laundering. However, the bank failed to provide any evidence supporting such accusations.
While the bank eventually unfroze the account, they required Mr. Wallnau to answer a series of invasive questions.
“This pattern of religious de-banking strongly suggests that systemic drivers of religious and political bias may be at work within Bank of America,” the letter said.
“One objective indicator of such a problem is the bank’s egregiously low score on the Viewpoint Diversity Score Business Index, the premier benchmark for measuring corporate respect for free speech and religious freedom. Bank of America scored a meager 8 percent out of a possible 100 percent.”
The letter pointed out that Bank of America’s vague terms of service allow them to deny services for political or religious views. For instance, the company’s policy says it can refuse services to clients deemed to “promote intolerance … or hate.”
This policy can be weaponized by the bank against clients who express certain views, which are protected by the First Amendment, the officials wrote.
“Bank of America funds and partners with anti-free speech organizations like the Human Rights Campaign and the Center for American Progress while preventing employees from giving to faith-based groups in their employee gift match program.”
Bank of America, being the second largest bank in the nation and a recipient of a host of government subsidies, is obligated to ensure equal access to marketplace for all Americans and “not play politics,” officials wrote.
The letter was written by officials from Alabama, Arizona, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Nebraska, Nevada, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, and Utah.
They demanded that the institution implement certain recommendations, including eliminating “existing viewpoint discriminatory terms” governing customers, updating its terms of service to include a commitment to not discriminate on the basis of religion or politics, and taking part in a survey to assess how the bank’s policies impact the civil liberties of its customers.
The Epoch Times reached out to the bank for comment.
The issue of de-banking conservatives has been a hot topic in recent years. A November 2022 statement signed by 60 financial professionals alleged that banks like JP Morgan Chase, Wells Fargo, Capital One, and Morgan Stanley were engaged in political or religious discrimination.
“JP Morgan Chase refused to process payments for a GOP-aligned organization,” it said.
In addition, the bank “shuttered the National Committee for Religious Freedom’s account without explanation, demanding that the nonprofit disclose its donors and provide a list of the political candidates it intends to support as a condition of resuming service.”
Meanwhile, Morgan Stanley refused to do business with organizations that raised “significant human rights, environmental, health, and safety or social responsibility issues.”
Similarly, credit behemoth Visa mandated that merchants do not use its services in any manner deemed “hateful.”
“What these vague, unspecified terms mean in practice is subject to the arbitrary interpretation of each of your companies, or any one of thousands of employees charged with enforcing them,” the statement said.
“Policies like these place customers and clients at risk of being ‘debanked’ simply because a company employee disagrees with their point of view on any number of contentious social issues.”
Meanwhile, states are taking action to end financial discrimination against conservatives by the banking industry.
Iowa earlier this year introduced Senate Study Bill 3094, which bans financial institutions from discriminating against customers using a “social credit score.”
The bill defines “social credit score” as any evaluation of a person’s “speech, religious exercise, association, expression, or conduct protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.”
If a financial institution is found violating the law, the attorney general can bring a civil action against the institution. A court can order the institution to pay damages, restitution, or other compensation.
In February, State Rep. Jason Zachary (R-Tenn.) introduced a similar bill in Tennessee. “This legislation prohibits the 20 largest banks in our country from denying financial services to any Tennessean based on political speech, religious belief, or a social credit score,” he said at a state House Banking and Consumer Affairs Committee hearing.
I’m pretty sure that anywhere there is a BoA branch, there are branches of other financial institutions.
Eschew BoA, with prejudice.
This is all part of the plan to put Christians in the closet.
[B4 THEY eschew YOU!]
I believe it would be sufficient for banks to be required to provide reasonable advance notice before de-banking any customer based on religion, ideology, etc., but that they also be required to publish their criteria for determining who they consider to be that “detestable”.
This would allow those targeted organizations the time to move where they are welcome without undue disruption. It would also cost these liberal banks plenty of business.
bkmk
!
Just in general...for virtually everyone, this is probably an era where you ought to have a primary and a ‘back-up’ account (smaller no-name bank or credit union).
If you look at the de-banking going on....these all lead to top-ten type banks, where the newer board members have some agenda to punish individuals/organizations. As the debanking occurs...if you really dug into it, the entire board will be unaware of what happened and shocked that one of their folks carried on a political agenda.
New CRA and HMDA regulations seem designed to strangle smaller banks. Thankfully, they were kept by the courts from being fully implemented.
The FDIC could issue regulations on the issue. Broadly stated, financial institutions are vested with a public purpose that should limit their ability to discriminate against customers.
We have the nation we are willing to fight for.
One of my best clients runs a real estate investment company that was originally established by his grandfather as a lender for immigrants from Europe who didn’t trust banks. I’ve learned many lessons from him over the years, and I think the market is ripe for this kind of alternative financing institution in the U.S.
I personally find it prejudicial to use a social credit score to shutdown an
account. Race, religion, et al…. They could de platform every Republican.
That is not the spirit of the law. Put the bank in receivership and be done with
it.
BofA, you no longer have a bank. Others will take over from here.
Nigel Farage and a number of other prominent conservatives were debanked by Coutts Bank (owned by NatWest)
The Financial Conduct Authority “investigated” and found no wrongdoing.
(Note that this is all occurred under a “Conservative” Government. And the UK gov’t still owns approx 40 percent of NatWest).
NatWest and Coutts executives later resigned over illegal leaking of Farage private financial information.
People need to have a backup account in a State Chartered Bank. In the UK it is more difficult, the best they can do is a credit union.
BOA was a crappy bank in the 70’s....and they still are.
In Canada there are provincial chartered banks and credit unions, but one of the risks is that all the bank to bank payments clear thru Payments.ca, which is a member controlled entity.
In the USA there is more than one Automated Clearing House, but if all these entities act together, they can debank targeted institutions and groups, just like all the social media companies censored off election “deniers”, vax critics etc.
Don’t limit it to just Christians. There need to be laws enacted against de-banking anybody for non commercial reasons as defined by low credit scores, a history of delinquency, etc. Supposed “reputation risk” should be explicitly ruled out as a legitimate reason to de-bank anyone.
Banks found guilty of such a practice need to be fined heavily for each offense and forced to reverse themselves immediately. If a pattern of such behavior is found or if banks refuse to reverse their debanking decisions when caught, they need to have their charters to operate in that state revoked.
Only conservative states will support anti-discrimination laws protecting free speech and religion.
The discrimination will intensify in blue states and I would not be surprised to see debanking laws that promote discrimination based on DEI agendas.
I was surprised to learn that “debanking” was even possible. No bank should be able to refuse service to anyone unless they are the customer is doing something illegal.
Next, maybe utilities can refuse electric or telephone service to customers whose politics or religious beliefs they disagree with. (Or maybe they already can do this.)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.