FA+
Shop
Well this is an interesting turn
4 months ago
General
For those not closely monitoring: Apparently sick of waiting for lack-luster legislation to pass, Trump has signed an executive order that may be of interest to you: "Guaranteeing Fair Banking for All Americans".
My, this is an interesting read:
"Sec. 4. Removing Reputation Risk and Politicized or Unlawful Debanking"
"The term “politicized or unlawful debanking” refers to an act by a bank, savings association, credit union, or other financial services provider to directly or indirectly adversely restrict access to, or adversely modify the conditions of, accounts, loans, or other banking products or financial services of any customer or potential customer on the basis of the customer’s or potential customer’s political or religious beliefs, or on the basis of the customer’s or potential customer’s lawful business activities that the financial service provider disagrees with or disfavors for political reasons." (Hello Collective Shout!)
" Within 180 days of the date of this order, each appropriate Federal banking regulator shall, to the greatest extent permitted by law, remove the use of reputation risk or equivalent concepts that could result in politicized or unlawful debanking, as well as any other considerations that could be used to engage in such debanking, from their guidance documents, manuals, and other materials...used to regulate or examine financial institutions over which they have jurisdiction. "
"The SBA shall, within 60 days of the date of this order, give notice to all financial institutions with which it guarantees loans under its lending programs, requiring that each financial institution that is subject to the SBA’s jurisdiction and supervision:
(i) within 120 days of the date of this order, makes reasonable efforts to identify and reinstate any previous clients of the institution or any subsidiaries denied service through a politicized or unlawful debanking action in violation of a statutory or regulatory requirement...
(ii) within 120 days of the date of this order, identifies all potential clients denied access to financial services provided by the financial institution or any subsidiaries through a politicized or unlawful debanking action in violation of a statutory or regulatory requirement...
(iii) within 120 days of the date of this order, identifies all potential clients denied access to payment processing services provided by the financial institution or any subsidiaries through a politicized or unlawful debanking action in violation of a statutory or regulatory requirement..."
This all happened, of course, because of payment processors playing the "reputational risk" card on conservatives, gun owners and so on. But the order is broad enough that it will probably (and should) apply to everyone, and kill "reputational risk" dead as a doornail.
Visa/Mastercard etc are indeed private companies, and can indeed "do whatever they like", within the law. But Visa does not exist in a void. It relies on banks to act as the end points, and processing points, in its network. Banks that are FEDERALLY REGULATED. And by this executive order, those federal regulators are now, seemingly, going to tell the banks no, and that they need to knock it off. Which means that Visa and Mastercards FEEEEELINGS are no longer relevant. Government says no. Government says "show me where it's illegal or will cause you clear financial harm. You can't? Great. Process the payment."
This is optimistic of course, there are still any number of ways this could end up not having teeth, or being to limited in scope. But conservatives have been pissed that this debanking crap was being pulled on them for a while now, and now that they're in power it looks like they've set on taking their revenge on the banks and card companies. Hey, more power to 'em. The world is strange, but in this case, I'll take it.
The enemy of my enemy is...well, I'm not going to stop one while they're curbstomping the other, that's for sure.
My, this is an interesting read:
"Sec. 4. Removing Reputation Risk and Politicized or Unlawful Debanking"
"The term “politicized or unlawful debanking” refers to an act by a bank, savings association, credit union, or other financial services provider to directly or indirectly adversely restrict access to, or adversely modify the conditions of, accounts, loans, or other banking products or financial services of any customer or potential customer on the basis of the customer’s or potential customer’s political or religious beliefs, or on the basis of the customer’s or potential customer’s lawful business activities that the financial service provider disagrees with or disfavors for political reasons." (Hello Collective Shout!)
" Within 180 days of the date of this order, each appropriate Federal banking regulator shall, to the greatest extent permitted by law, remove the use of reputation risk or equivalent concepts that could result in politicized or unlawful debanking, as well as any other considerations that could be used to engage in such debanking, from their guidance documents, manuals, and other materials...used to regulate or examine financial institutions over which they have jurisdiction. "
"The SBA shall, within 60 days of the date of this order, give notice to all financial institutions with which it guarantees loans under its lending programs, requiring that each financial institution that is subject to the SBA’s jurisdiction and supervision:
(i) within 120 days of the date of this order, makes reasonable efforts to identify and reinstate any previous clients of the institution or any subsidiaries denied service through a politicized or unlawful debanking action in violation of a statutory or regulatory requirement...
(ii) within 120 days of the date of this order, identifies all potential clients denied access to financial services provided by the financial institution or any subsidiaries through a politicized or unlawful debanking action in violation of a statutory or regulatory requirement...
(iii) within 120 days of the date of this order, identifies all potential clients denied access to payment processing services provided by the financial institution or any subsidiaries through a politicized or unlawful debanking action in violation of a statutory or regulatory requirement..."
This all happened, of course, because of payment processors playing the "reputational risk" card on conservatives, gun owners and so on. But the order is broad enough that it will probably (and should) apply to everyone, and kill "reputational risk" dead as a doornail.
Visa/Mastercard etc are indeed private companies, and can indeed "do whatever they like", within the law. But Visa does not exist in a void. It relies on banks to act as the end points, and processing points, in its network. Banks that are FEDERALLY REGULATED. And by this executive order, those federal regulators are now, seemingly, going to tell the banks no, and that they need to knock it off. Which means that Visa and Mastercards FEEEEELINGS are no longer relevant. Government says no. Government says "show me where it's illegal or will cause you clear financial harm. You can't? Great. Process the payment."
This is optimistic of course, there are still any number of ways this could end up not having teeth, or being to limited in scope. But conservatives have been pissed that this debanking crap was being pulled on them for a while now, and now that they're in power it looks like they've set on taking their revenge on the banks and card companies. Hey, more power to 'em. The world is strange, but in this case, I'll take it.
The enemy of my enemy is...well, I'm not going to stop one while they're curbstomping the other, that's for sure.
I also hope this EO would create more momentum across the internet to combat the influence of banks and the duopoly of Visa/Mastercard.
And certainly this will be spun however others will spin it for thier own gain, but for now, cautious but optimistic.
Wheeeeeeeeeeee more of the Imperial Presidency! ( granted such has been a complaint of mine for going on nearly two decades so its not restricted to either side :P )
That said, I wonder how much this relates to something or other I thought I heard in the news relating to some investments or other of Trump's that got denied or shot down.
I just don't see it as being a high priority for the other side though, when/if they finally end up there. No an easy PR win.
Seems like it's designed to enable more crypto-bribery, among other things. This bill was previously introduced in 2023 and knocked back. My money's on this Collective Shout incident being organized to distract from other consequences of this bill. Plus to possibly pacify the base after the Epstein debacle, of course.
"If enacted, the Fair Access to Banking Act would have profound implications. It would create a new, litigious front in the culture wars, fundamentally alter the practice of risk management in the nation's largest banks, and raise complex questions of federal preemption over a growing patchwork of similar state-level laws. By intervening in the global trend of financial "de-risking," the bill could also inadvertently concentrate certain financial risks within the U.S. banking system."
Indeed it would (if it actually had teeth, and minus the goofy language here), that's the whole point, and that would be an enormous win for ordinary people. Banning people from commerce because you disagree with their political views is absolutely counter to the basic idea of a free society, and that's exactly what this "analysis" is arguing for. Also, no one who uses terms like "de-risking" in such a discussion can be taken seriously. This is pure propaganda for the banks, card companies, and the larger political machine than enjoys using them to suppress those they don't like. Don't like crypto? Fine, make a law. Don't like something else? Fine, make a law. That's how a functioning free society works. You don't do shadowy backroom deals with payment processors and just un-person your enemies. There are many words for that, but democracy and free are not among them.
I'll buy it easier if the IODA bill gets shut down. Until then, I think this is a smokescreen for their base to help bury the sudden Epstein flip.
An organization ran by a christian conservative creates a problem, a party ran by christian conservatives solves the problem while getting sneaky things they want pushed under the table too. Manufacturing consent. It's kind of their thing.
i feel about the same way that i felt when Elon Musk started poking his nose into this whole mess, also acting like he was against what Mc/Visa and Collective Shout were doing. i despise the guy and i know he's only interested in taking advantage of this situation to benefit himself somehow (read a few things about him wanting to start his own payment processor to combat Visa/MC's monopoly) but if he decides to use any of his resources to hinder the processors and the advocacy groups, i'm not gonna get in his way.
but Elon is always poking his nose and his wallet into things that he thinks will boost his clout, probably trying to boost his fake image as a "fellow gamer" with this as well as promote his own crap.
this executive order on the other hand... now this is interesting. i absolutely despise donald trump and automatically just know that he's doing this with himself and his allies in mind, not the good of the nation. but at least he's staying true to form in that he does not gave a CRAP about other rich jerks and will happily screw with laws and policies that screw over other rich douchebags.
he's definitely going after this from the direction of how payment processors refused to allow banking services for his fanclub after the Jan 6th riot, blocking transactions based on not wanting to be associated with the right wing after that fiasco. i doubt he gives a crap about adult games at all, other than the fact that the current outrage has pissed off enough people and garnered enough attention that his EO has a LARGE column of support behind it at this exact moment from both sides of the political spectrum.
hell, i cant even bring myself to be against this EO even though it's coming from someone i despise. if this actually benefits all of us i will quietly support it (provided they dont change it last minute to only benefit their side and not everyone somehow, wouldnt put it past him)