SNL’s Trump ‘De-Banking’ blunder boosts controversial topic

Saturday Night Live Sparks Conversation on De-Banking

Saturday ⁢Night Live made headlines this weekend for all the wrong reasons. During Weekend Update, a cast member suggested that Donald Trump‌ stumbled and introduced a “new ⁢term” to ⁤the debate called “de-banking.” What followed was a rather feeble ‍attempt at mocking the former president.

In reality,‌ de-banking ‍is no‍ laughing matter. It ‌means losing ⁣essential financial services, like ‍a bank account, payment processing,⁤ or even‌ insurance, because of your views. And it is on ​the rise — so much so that⁢ the U.S.⁢ Supreme​ Court is set to hear arguments involving the issue this⁤ term.

Funny enough, the case originates in ⁤the Empire State (“Live from New York,” anybody?), where the​ National Rifle Association ​is challenging New York’s attempt to coerce banks and insurance companies to withdraw services from the group. The NRA alleges⁣ that the Department of Financial Services ‌— at the behest of then-Governor Andrew Cuomo — used its vast power to ⁢regulate “reputational risk” along with back-channel ‍meetings, ‌public investigations, and threats of fines to ⁣punish the group for its Second Amendment advocacy.

This is not an isolated incident. A string of religious ministries and conservative ​groups⁢ have also been victimized ⁢by de-banking. As Alliance Defending ⁤Freedom points out in a friend-of-the-court brief⁤ filed in support of the NRA’s position, ⁢pro-life‍ group Heartbeat International was recently canceled by its insurance‍ provider over its “anti-abortion” advocacy.

Likewise, Bank of America de-banked Indigenous ‍Advance Ministries, an‍ ADF client that serves impoverished Ugandan⁢ widows and orphans. The bank closed Indigenous Advance’s long-standing account as well as the account of a local church that donates to the ministry. The bank claimed it no longer wanted to serve their ​“business type” and that Indigenous ⁣Advance⁢ exceeded the “bank’s risk tolerance.”

It did this right before a planned‌ mission trip to Uganda, sending Indigenous Advance⁣ scrambling to open new accounts and ⁢drastically reducing the funds for the trip.⁢ It couldn’t pay its Ugandan ministry partners ‍— who live⁢ meal to ⁢meal — for several​ weeks. And it⁢ had to temporarily reduce aid to ⁣the impoverished people they serve.

Similar instances ⁣of de-banking abound. Former‌ Brexit leader Nigel⁣ Farage’s high-profile ‍case resulted in the ouster of megabank NatWest’s CEO. Serial‌ offender JPMorgan Chase’s hit list ‌ includes the Arkansas Family Council, Defense of Liberty, ⁣and U.S Ambassador Sam Brownback’s National Committee ⁣for Religious Freedom.

The Rise ‌of De-Banking

There are many reasons ⁤for this phenomenon, but the root ‌cause is vague terms of service.

“Reputational” and “social” risk policies pervade ⁣financial institutions. Customers at⁣ all 28 commercial⁤ banks scored in Alliance Defending Freedom’s index ‌that measures corporate respect for free speech and religious freedom are currently vulnerable to de-banking.

Most‍ alarmingly, 7 of⁢ the nation’s 10 largest commercial banks ​— including⁤ the top 3 — have ​“reputational risk” or “hate speech” policies. These policies’ overly broad and⁣ subjective language permit⁢ employees to discriminate based on a customer’s ‌viewpoint and then hide their viewpoint-based actions behind opaque standards. They also allow ⁤abuse by government regulators.

A positive ruling in the NRA case — which, in a comedic twist that should provide fodder​ for SNL writers, ‌is being argued by the ACLU — would ‍affirm that the government ⁣cannot carry out its censorship schemes by co-opting third ‍parties as censors. ⁢That would help.⁣ But ⁤that does not address the‍ many de-banking decisions that can be ‍laid at the feet⁢ of private actors.

The Need for State ‌Action

The solution‌ to this problem may lie with the states. This state ⁣legislative season presents ⁤an opportunity for states interested‍ in protecting against politicized de-banking to act. Any such law should ​focus on⁣ the worst actors‍ –⁣ the‍ largest‍ banks and payment processors. ⁢Thanks to wide-reaching government benefits,‍ such⁤ as greater lending power, FDIC insurance rates, subsidies, bailouts, and an anticompetitive chartering system, these ‍institutions dominate ‌their markets over‍ state-level‌ competitors yet are responsible for the worst de-banking incidents.

At a minimum,⁢ the law should⁤ prohibit denial of services based on religious or political beliefs, ⁤give customers ‌the ​right to ⁤ask for a detailed explanation when services are denied,​ empower the attorney ⁤general to enforce ‌the statute, ⁣and provide aggrieved customers a private right of ‌action.

No one should have to worry that ‌they could lose⁢ their bank account, insurance coverage, or other⁣ essential financial services because of their religious or political ‌views. Yet it’s clear that ‌vague ​financial service policies abused by private and government actors⁣ pose a serious threat to everyone’s freedom ⁣of speech and religion.

So, an inadvertent thanks to our pals at SNL for bringing up de-banking. It’s ‍about time we talked about it. ⁤And it’s about time for the law to require viewpoint neutrality from the biggest banks and payment processors.

* * *

Jeremy Tedesco is senior counsel and senior ‌vice president of Corporate Engagement for Alliance Defending Freedom (@ADFLegal).

The views expressed in this piece are those of the‌ author ⁣and do not necessarily‍ represent those of the Daily Wire.

​ What clear and objective standards should be established ⁣for financial institutions to follow when it comes to de-banking decisions‌ related to customers’ political or ideological beliefs?

‍ Financial institutions that engage in viewpoint-based discrimination. These laws ⁣should prohibit de-banking‍ based on a customer’s political or​ ideological beliefs and provide clear and objective standards for financial ‌institutions to follow.

In addition, states can also ⁤require transparency and accountability from financial institutions. They can enact laws that require banks ‍to disclose their ⁢policies regarding de-banking and ‌provide a clear process for customers to appeal​ de-banking decisions. This would ensure that customers​ have the opportunity to challenge discriminatory actions and hold financial institutions accountable for their decisions.

Furthermore, state governments can also explore alternative ways to provide essential⁢ financial services to individuals‌ and organizations that have been de-banked.​ This could include establishing state-run banking programs or partnering with credit unions to ensure that these individuals and organizations have ​access ​to the basic financial services ⁤they⁣ need.

It is important to recognize that de-banking not ​only affects individuals and organizations directly targeted, but it also has broader implications ⁢for⁤ free speech and freedom of association. When​ financial institutions ⁣are able to arbitrarily deny services based on political or ideological ⁤beliefs, it hampers the ability of ⁣individuals and organizations to⁤ express their opinions and participate in public discourse.

The rise of de-banking is a concerning trend that must be addressed. ‌It is not a laughing matter and should ⁢not be dismissed as mere​ comedy fodder.‌ It is a⁢ real issue that requires serious attention from lawmakers‍ and policymakers. By taking action at the state level, we can protect ‍against ⁣politically motivated de-banking and uphold the principles of free speech and freedom⁤ of ‌association that are essential to a ⁢healthy democracy.