Congress should protect political and economic freedom
Banking is not a true "free market," and the federal government has a legitimate interest in criminalizing politically motivated de-banking.
In the aftermath of the January 6, 2021 riot, JP Morgan Chase forced President Trump to close his bank accounts and move them elsewhere. If the President of the United States can have his bank account canceled, everyone is vulnerable to malicious de-banking based on a calculation of "risk," even if that "risk" is totally fabricated.
This is not about the "free market." Banking is not a free market and has not been a free market for a century. President Franklin Roosevelt got the federal government involved to insure deposits with the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, or FDIC. This was to prevent a run on the banks and the financial crisis that deepened the Great Depression. The federal government bailed out failing banks after the 2008 financial crisis. Banks enjoy a wide variety of benefits and protections from the federal government.
Because of these protections, the federal government has a legitimate interest in forbidding political discrimination by banks, and preventing banks from closing accounts based on "offensive" political speech. It is not enough to rely on President Trump to direct his administration to issue regulations, as those could easily be reversed with the stroke of a pen on January 20, 2029. Congress needs to pass legislation criminalizing de-banking.
Christians should be especially concerned about de-banking. We are already in a post-Christian culture, and absent a revival sparked by an intervention from the Holy Spirit, this country will continue to slide away from its Christian roots. It is only a matter of time until banks start seeing orthodox Christian doctrine as a liability. This means churches, Christian charities and even individual Christians and Christian-owned businesses can and will be subject to malicious de-banking.
What about legitimate risks from bad clients? In some cases, the "risk" is exaggerated. That was the case with President Trump. Tens of millions of Americans still supported him even after the second impeachment, and he was re-elected three and a half years later with a margin of 2.3 million votes nationwide. In some cases, the "risk" is due only to vindictive authoritarians who want to punish banks for allowing people they despise to have accounts. Any reform to protect people from de-banking would also need to include protections for the banks following the new law.
Losing access to your bank can be a significant hardship, especially as people have auto-pay on various expenditures from bank accounts and bank-issued credit cards. This is not as simple as shopping at a different grocery store. Given how important a bank account is in our modern economy, having someone banned from multiple banks because they are a "risk" can shut them out of large swaths of economic activity. What happens if the bank that holds your home mortgage decides you are a "risk" because of your political speech?
One of the most serious risks to national unity is political polarization and the endless back-and-forth scalp collecting from cancel culture. It is very bad for the country to have parallel economies where Republicans only do business with Republicans and Democrats do the same. Congress can take a significant step to blunt political polarization by taking politically-motivated de-banking off the table.
Previously:
♣ - A radical, economy-destroying extension of liability -- March 19, 2019
♣ - Bank accounts, cancel culture and government benefits -- March 4, 2022
♣ - Do not be distracted by the low-hanging fruit -- January 18, 2023