Bank of America is facing serious accusations of involvement in discrimination based on politics, religion, and ideology (i.e., speech expressing this), with the targets of “debanking” allegedly being some Christian churches as well as supporters of Donald Trump.

These suspicions are expressed by over a dozen attorney-generals from Republican states who are behind a letter sent to Bank of America CEO Brian Moynihan, looking for answers – and documents – related to the accusations.

The initiative follows revelations that Bank of America was turning over financial data belonging to clients to the FBI and the Treasury, as they investigated January 6 suspects.

Kansas AG Kris Kobach is leading the effort now, which centers on clarifying, by providing the relevant documents, the policy based on which the bank cancels some accounts. AGs from Alaska, Arkansas, Indiana, Iowa, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, South Carolina, Texas, and Utah also signed the letter.

Another point made in it is that the bank’s policies must be updated to make sure that going forward, clients don’t continue to be discriminated against because of their politics or religion.

According to Kobach, the bank is imposing its own “preferred” political and religious stances when allowing clients access to services.

“Your discriminatory behavior is a serious threat to free speech and religious freedom, is potentially illegal, and is causing political and regulatory backlash,” reads the letter.

Kobach and the co-signers warned that Bank of America must assure both them and its shareholders in a transparent way that clients will no longer be “debanked” simply because of their opinions and beliefs.

The letter was first reported in the Daily Mail, which managed to get a reaction from the bank, which denied it was considering religious belief when deciding to close somebody’s account.

To prove this point, a representative said that “non-profit organizations affiliated with diverse faith communities” are happily served by the bank.

However, that does not mean that everyone “qualifies.” As the letter penned by the AGs states, when one of those affected, the Timothy Two Project International Christian ministry group was targeted, Bank of America said the account was closed because this client was “operating a business type we have chosen not to service.”

And when the same decision was taken regarding the account of Servants of Christ, the explanation being it was “the wrong business type.”

The practice of debaking, the letter continued, means that Bank of America is “opening itself up to potential legal liability under consumer protection and anti-discrimination laws, and creating substantial regulatory and political risk from states that are already taking action to stop debanking.”

  • some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    7 months ago

    These suspicions are expressed by over a dozen attorney-generals from Republican states who are behind a letter

    Actually, they’re attorneys general.

  • nymwit@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    edit-2
    7 months ago

    Texas will happily block banks on the banks’ own association/speech though. Hypocrites.

    https://www.texastribune.org/2022/08/24/texas-boycott-companies-fossil-fuels/

    Edit: same or similar law prohibits the state from doing business with anyone that (I guess publicly?) boycotts Israel. https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/news/releases/paxton-wins-major-case-defending-texass-anti-boycott-israel-law

    Yes, in the paperwork when bidding a state funded project you have to sign a paper saying you aren’t boycotting Israel. Madness.

    Edit 2: I just realized the name of this community. I have no idea on what side you’re supposed to be falling for on this. Just calling out what I see as folks trying to have it both ways.

    • Night Monkey
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      7 months ago

      Absolutely. Sure. Unless it’s a bakery that didn’t want to make a cake for two gay guys. Gotta love the justice system

            • Night Monkey
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              7 months ago

              Don’t matter. They were still fined a lot of money . And spent a considerable amount of time and energy defending themselves for no damn reason

              • soloActivist@links.hackliberty.org
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                7 months ago

                They were still fined a lot of money

                No they weren’t. Read the first line of your own referenced article. The fine was dropped. And the original payment came from other people’s crowd-funded donations toward the case anyway, which was returned.

                Also, precedence matters and court ranking matters. Lower courts in certain regions can have all kinds of bizarre judgments but higher courts take precedence. The Oregon Court of Appeals is not representative of the US. The US Supreme Court is. The Bank of America case would be in a federal court as many states are involved.

                And spent a considerable amount of time and energy defending themselves for no damn reason

                So you not only misunderstood the outcome, but you object to rights of one party being tried against rights of another party in court? Bizarre to have sympathy for bigots being dragged through the court system, despite getting off the hook.

                • Night Monkey
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  7 months ago

                  You started to make sense. Then used the B word.

                  So you had a bias in this whole comment thread the entire time. I should have known better.

                  You’re mad the big bad bigots were vindicated.

                  I guess you proved my point for me

  • TheOneCurly@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    7 months ago

    Maybe banking should be a public service instead of a necessary but entirely private, predatory industry. Will conservatives be able to see that now that they’re on the other side? Probably not…

    • soloActivist@links.hackliberty.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      7 months ago

      This is a double-edged sword. In the US, banking is really optional. You can live an unbanked life in the US and get paid in cash, if you want. And you can force creditors to accept your cash payment on debts. That’s an important freedom.

      In Europe, where banking is treated as a public service that all people are entitled to, they have created a system where you must use a bank. They have banned cash payment for wages. So you have a right to a bank acct but then you are forced to use it.

      #warOnCash #forcedBanking

  • soloActivist@links.hackliberty.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    7 months ago

    Love the irony and hypocrisy. What self-respecting conservative promotes regulation, particularly that would take control away from a business on who they do business with?

    There’s also quite a bit of hypocrisy from a privacy standpoint. It’s the conservatives to don’t value privacy and take the “if you have nothing to hide…” line of reasoning. When a giant corporation voluntarily shares sensitive information about customers, it’s always the right-leaning corporations who do that; ALEC members.

    Funnily enough, I boycott Bank of America for supporting conservative values (private prisons, xenophobia, fossil fuel investment, privacy-disrespect):

    https://git.disroot.org/cyberMonk/liberethos_paradigm/src/branch/master/usa_banks.md

    while the conservatives want to cancel Bank of America for essentially for being conservative. Apparently it’s not conservative enough for BofA to apply conservative values uniformly, as opposed to giving conservative individuals preferential treatment.