Shareholders Seek Accountability
A group of state attorneys general has challenged banks over their debanking practices, citing concerns about discrimination based on political or religious beliefs. Last year, shareholders sought to hold banks accountable for denying or restricting service to clients due to their ideological affiliations. The attorneys general argue that politicized debanking harms businesses and shareholders and undermines the freedom of every American to participate in the marketplace on equal footing.
Opposition to Shareholder Resolutions
According to a letter sent to banks, evidence shows that they oppose shareholder resolutions aiming to address these debanking policies, contradicting their claims of being apolitical and neutral. Banks often cite reasons such as “hate speech” or “reputational risk” to justify debanking organizations or individuals. The letter states that popular proxy advisory firms ISS and Glass Lewis have recommended voting against these resolutions, which raises concerns about their commitment to fairness and diversity.
Lack of Transparency and Legal Obligations
The letter also criticizes banks for their lack of transparency in their policies and disclosures. The attorneys general argue that viewpoint discrimination and lying in publicly available information have legal liabilities. They suggest that banks’ voting recommendations on debanking proposals may breach their legal obligations.
Grassroots Advocacy Group Sheds Light on Debanking Cases
Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), a conservative legal advocacy group, has provided information to the attorneys general about instances of alleged debanking. These cases involve individuals and organizations that have been suddenly informed that their banking services will be terminated without clear explanations. ADF’s senior vice president of corporate engagement, Jeremy Tedesco, describes these situations as suspicious, with clients who have had long-standing relationships with banks suddenly being cut off for vague reasons.
Bank of America’s Controversial Account Closure
Bank of America, one of ADF’s clients, made headlines in April when it banned the accounts of the Christian-nonprofit Indigenous Advance. The bank claimed that the organization was “operating in a business type we have chosen not to service,” providing no further explanation. In May, Bank of America stated that the organization’s risk profile no longer aligned with the bank’s tolerance. The nonprofit, which supports pro-life values and traditional marriage, had maintained accounts with the bank since 2015.
Banks Defend Their Actions
Bank of America defended its account closure, stating that it was due to an internal debt collection policy that does not support the services provided by the organization. However, the bank declined to provide a copy of the policy. A bank spokesperson emphasized that religious beliefs are not a factor in their account-closing decisions and that they are proud to provide banking services to non-profit organizations associated with diverse faith communities.
The Growing Issue of Debanking
The efforts by the state attorneys general come at a time when debanking has become a more frequent complaint. Notable cases include Nigel Farage, former leader of Brexit, having his account closed by Coutts, a private bank affiliated with NatWest. JPMorgan Chase also closed the bank account of the National Committee for Religious Freedom, a newly established nonprofit led by Sam Brownback, former senator and U.S. ambassador.
A Call for Viewpoint Neutrality
Jeremy Tedesco of ADF believes that banks should provide their services on a viewpoint neutral basis and avoid getting involved in cultural wars. The attorneys general’s challenge to banks highlights the importance of ensuring fair and equal access to financial services regardless of political or religious beliefs.
Response from Proxy Advisory Firms
Fox News reached out to proxy advisory firms ISS and Glass Lewis for comment on the matter but received no response at the time of reporting.
