Treasury Department Official Claims State Laws Against Debanking Could Hurt National Security

Last week a U.S. Treasury official reportedly wrote a letter to lawmakers criticizing state measures intended to combat “debanking.”

In recent years news outlets have reported how government policies encourage banks to designate conservative organizations as posing a “high risk” — giving the banks an excuse to close their accounts.

As a result, some states have passed laws prohibiting financial institutions from closing bank accounts based on an organization’s beliefs or who it chooses to associate with.

The U.S. Treasury Department apparently sees that as a problem. In his letter to lawmakers, U.S. Treasury Undersecretary Brian Nelson reportedly said, “State laws interfering with financial institutions’ ability to comply with national security requirements heighten the risk that international drug traffickers, transnational organized criminals, terrorists and corrupt foreign officials will use the U.S. financial system to launder money, evade sanctions and threaten our national security.”

But there is evidence that the U.S. Treasury Department has actually weaponized banks and other financial institutions against conservative organizations.

The U.S. House of Representatives Judiciary Committee and the Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government has released a report that found:

  • After the events of January 6, 2021, federal law enforcement officials from the Treasury Department’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) and the FBI initiated multiple discussions with financial institutions to discuss ways financial institutions could share customer information with federal law enforcement outside of normal legal processes.
  • Law enforcement and private institutions shared intelligence through a web portal run by the Domestic Security Alliance Council — a partnership led by the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security.
  • The U.S. Treasury Department gave banks and other financial institutions guiding “typologies” — patterns that could be used to identify suspicious people or activities — including search terms and patterns like “TRUMP” and “MAGA”, and encouraged financial institutions to comb through transactions for terms like, “Bass Pro Shops,” “Cabela’s,” and “Dick’s Sporting Goods” when looking for “Homegrown Violent Extremism.”
  • “Americans doing nothing other than shopping or exercising their Second Amendment rights were being tracked by financial institutions and federal law enforcement.”

In 2021 Family Council’s credit card processor terminated our account after designating our organization as “high risk.”

At 10:29 AM on Wednesday, July 7, 2021, our office received a terse email from our credit card processor — a company owned by JPMorgan Chase — saying, “Unfortunately, we can no longer support your business. We wish you all the luck in the future, and hope that you find a processor that better fits your payment processing needs.”

Within sixty seconds, our account was terminated and and Family Council could no longer accept donations online. All we can do is speculate that our conservative principles and our public policy work might have had something to do with the decision to close our account.

Unfortunately, other organizations have had similar experiences as well. In fact, corporate shareholdersstate attorneys generalcongressmen, and news outlets all have expressed concerns over conservatives being wrongly labeled as “high risk” or “hate groups” and subsequently debanked.

Banks that are too big to fail should also be too big to discriminate. Nobody should have their bank account closed for what they believe.

Articles appearing on this website are written with the aid of Family Council’s researchers and writers.

Group Backing Abortion Amendment Asks Arkansas Supreme Court Not to Dismiss Its Lawsuit

On Monday, the group working to write abortion into the Arkansas Constitution asked the state supreme court not to dismiss a lawsuit the organization filed against the Secretary of State.

On July 5, Arkansans for Limited Government submitted some 101,525 petition signatures to place the Arkansas Abortion Amendment on the ballot. However, Secretary of State John Thurston disqualified every petition signature, because Arkansans for Limited Government failed to provide affidavits from the measure’s sponsor as required by state law.

Arkansans for Limited Government filed a lawsuit, claiming Secretary of State Thurston unlawfully rejected its petitions. The group has asked the Arkansas Supreme Court to order the Secretary of State to count the petition signatures.

Arkansas Attorney General Tim Griffin has asked the state supreme court to dismiss the lawsuit and let the Secretary of State’s rejection of the petition remain in effect.

On Monday, attorneys for Arkansans for Limited Government responded to the A.G.’s motion, arguing that failing to file the sponsor affidavit should not disqualify the petitions, and saying that the group met the Secretary of State’s requirements.

Ultimately, it is up to the Arkansas Supreme Court to decide if it will dismiss the case or allow the lawsuit to proceed.

Legal experts have pointed out the abortion amendment would prevent the State of Arkansas from restricting abortion during the first five months of pregnancy — which is more extreme than Roe v. Wade — and would allow thousands of elective abortions on healthy women and unborn children every year.

The amendment does not contain any medical licensing or health and safety standards for abortion, and it does not require abortions to be performed by a physician or in a licensed medical facility.

It automatically nullifies all state laws that conflict with the amendment, jeopardizing basic abortion regulations — like parental-consent and informed-consent requirements that both sides of the aisle have supported in the past.

The measure also contains various exceptions that would permit abortion on demand through all nine months of pregnancy in many cases.

The lawsuit over the Secretary of State’s rejection of the abortion amendment petitions is currently before the Arkansas Supreme Court. Family Council will continue to monitor and report on the case.

Articles appearing on this website are written with the aid of Family Council’s researchers and writers.

Bud Light Still Suffering Fallout From 2023 LGBT-Endorsement

The Wall Street Journal reports that Bud Light is still suffering fallout more than a year after its pro-LGBT marketing disaster, writing, “The former favorite has tumbled to the No. 3 spot behind Modelo Especial and Michelob Ultra, recent sales data show.”

Bud Light has long been the bestselling beer in America. But in April of 2023 Bud Light managed to singlehandedly overthrow itself after Anheuser-Busch sent transgender social media influencer Dylan Mulvaney a novelty can of Bud Light with Mulvaney’s picture on it. Mulvaney posted a video of himself dressed like Audrey Hepburn showcasing the Bud Light can –which led to backlash and boycotts from Bud Light drinkers nationwide. The company’s subsequent backpedaling simply managed to offend customers and LGBT activists alike.

The latest report from the Wall Street Journal notes that as sales have dropped, Anheuser-Busch has lost between 5% and 7.5% of shelf space among alcohol retailers this year.

To be clear, none of this is intended to endorse alcohol, but it underscores how Anheuser-Busch has suffered long-term damage to one of its most iconic brands because some of its core customers—Bud Light drinkers—don’t support corporate, pro-LGBT pandering.

Some have speculated that this type of backlash is what prompted companies like Target to quietly reduce their Pride-themed merchandise this year.

It’s troubling to see multimillion dollar corporations use their wealth and influence to promote radical LGBT ideologies — but it’s encouraging to see consumers vote with their feet by choosing not to support this agenda.

As some of have said, it proves that the “silent majority” is real when it comes to the transgender issue.

All of that ought to show how out-of-step these corporations are with everyday Americans.

Articles appearing on this website are written with the aid of Family Council’s researchers and writers.