This is a tough nut to crack, but not impossible. On one hand, we do need to stop terrorist funding and crime based money laundering. On the other hand, targeting legit non-profits and using political bias to close accounts can't be tolerated. I hate to say it, but it appears banks may need to come under even tighter regulation to ensure fairness to consumers..
One mitigation that would partially alleviate the pain of capricious and often politically-motivated debanking (such as the multiple instances of JPM and conservative-leaning organizations) would be a full 'number portability' requirement akin to telephone numbers. Switch banks, and all of your automated transactions, from direct deposits to recurring payments would simply be rerouted. Of course we'd need significantly better security to avoid being scammed.
You have a good pt there but only because the NYT is gotten so much like the new Pravda. (also, the business part of the WSJ admittedly is hard to get into. And it's expensive. But I just wrote this in as a response to a multi-cultural production of Our Town - w/ a cast that is preponderantly black but has a white actor as the stage manager. And when I questioned that the majority of commenters lambasted me and thought a multi-racial cast w/ a mixed marriage in the middle of the period of that play was a real possibility. Go know. Here's what I responded to these people who are drooling to bring down the freedom of a market driven society:
Stephan Morrow
Manhattan Pending Approval
@Debra
Hayley Skylar
San Diego, CA
LeGEE
Savannah et al
IMHO some of the responses which some commenters took to be sarcastic is a pretty good example of the jumbled perception of the state of culture that we are in: indecipherable where we can't even agree whether someone is being sarcastic or not. Esp e.g. Emily Loris of Brooklyn my hometown where I thought she was being sincere. Straight ahead sincere. But what if I'm wrong? What if it was as taken by some - an example of acid sarcasm? Got me. I'm from Brooklyn too so maybe it's just us Blklynites & so in my what? limited perception (tho as someone who has worked w/A. Miller, N.Mailer, Mario Fratti et al (these are facts not epaulets or instances of virtue- signaling)& in the Off Off Bway arena: my bailiwick - won more than a few awards for my filmed theater productions (interestingly - in the film festival arena - & not here in the Apple) seems to me we are wallowing in archness, cynicism, constantly subversive takes on traditional art & which ultimately lead to utter confusion & ignorance (corporate elites want to sell to everyone.) So, if we don't reproduce a legible version of history (under the diktat of widening the tent & inclusivity) then history becomes whatever we want to make of it - as Stalin did. Nice to see all the different folks up there but what does it tell us about the trials & tribulations of J. Caesar? or Cleopatra? or Lincoln? or Washington. or e.g. J.W. Booth as a POC? : utter confusion
Stephan Morrow
Artistic Director
The Great American Play Series
an additional note: where not so long ago a version like this was an interesting experiment now, it's become de rigueur and if a director doesn't have a multi-cultural cast as in 'non-traditional casting' than woe is you. (finally, it's all because the minorities are becoming by the numbers closer to the majority or out of the guilt of the mainstream population - who are desperate to get the remnants of racism off their backs covered with a hair shirt. Read 'Decline of the West' by Spengler.
This is terrifying, not only because of the power of the government but the hypocrisy of governing by “rules for thee but not for me”. The same people happy to doxx and debank conservatives are horrified that it can be used for “Islamophobia”. It’s wrong no matter what. Meanwhile the narrative that Trump would go after political enemies was just a confession about what Obama did throughout his presidency.
Like Martin Gurri said this week, this election is about those who seek to control us and those who refuse to be controlled. Vote accordingly.
Now imagine that Ken Rogoff has gotten his way and we have eliminated cash. With no bank accounts you can't pay rent or mortgage. And your friends and family can't pay it for you without risking the same consequences. If we lose cash we will see authoritarian government that makes 1970s China look tame.
Yet terrorism and all-manner of fraud and financial crime are real existential treats to the national security and democracy and must be blocked. Maybe individual liberty has some limits.
Rupa, Thank you for a well written and researched article.
With respect to the following statement:
"Debanking, or, as some financial institutions prefer, derisking, refers to a bank cutting ties with a customer deemed politically incorrect, extreme, dangerous, or otherwise out of bounds."
From a business perspective, banks de-risk, offboard, de-market, etc. clients for numerous reasons. Adhering to the ever increasing levels of regulation and the high, growing costs of maintaining regulatory compliance, forces banks to make calls on which clients are profitable and which are not. De-risking is one option. Increasing pricing on those clients is another. Selling those clients to another financial institutions is also option where scale warrants. Each option has implicit costs and benefits which need to be weighed. Banks will seek the highest return and lowest risk option. This is the mandate from their Board and ultimately from their shareholders like any other business.
You can draw a direct line between the incentive structures established by Governments, through law, policy and the regulation, to the behaviour of financial institutions. Why would any rationale player want to bring greater police and regulatory scrutiny on itself?
A company I patronize recently had difficulties with Stripe and had to use another method of selling their goods. That company was not Muslim, but a US Patriot. This trend of controlling finances is making it hard for small businesses to make a living as well as all the other victims mentioned in the article. I welcome clearly written, effective laws to prevent the debanking as we are witnessing.
True, but it also keeps Alexei Navalny’s Anti Corruption Foundation going. Crypto is a tool, and like a hammer, it can be used to build a home or bash a man’s brains.
This is an outstanding article!!! I am a very new subscriber and have appreciated everything I have read. However, this is something I was completely unaware of.
To address the negative comment below…It’s completely unacceptable to not have a clear and immediate explanation of why actions have been taken against you…. Equal to being arrested for no reason…it’s unjust, undemocratic and may even be unconstitutional.
Thank you Free Press for your informative and intelligent reporting.
I think Rupa is a great journalist and I was excited for this article… but the Islamist charity example is a super poor example to start with. Especially, when just days ago the US and Canada sanctioned Samidoun over connections to Hamas. We know there are dozens others out there.
I agree that it's a poor example to start with but if they're not actually doing anything wrong they shouldn't have their account(s) closed.
I think part of the problem is that the government, seemingly, demands that the party whose account is closed is not allowed to know why it's happening.
I have been critical of The Free Press for some of their recent articles. They have represented journalism at its very worst. This article is quite the opposite. The author doggedly researched and explored areas to try to get at the truth.
If I were journalism professor, this is the journalism 101 article I would make my young students read. Congratulations to the author on some excellent journalism.
Congratulations to the Free Press getting back to its roots. Please stick with it. Quit publishing "journalism" beneath your purpose. Thanks for stepping up!
This is a tough nut to crack, but not impossible. On one hand, we do need to stop terrorist funding and crime based money laundering. On the other hand, targeting legit non-profits and using political bias to close accounts can't be tolerated. I hate to say it, but it appears banks may need to come under even tighter regulation to ensure fairness to consumers..
One mitigation that would partially alleviate the pain of capricious and often politically-motivated debanking (such as the multiple instances of JPM and conservative-leaning organizations) would be a full 'number portability' requirement akin to telephone numbers. Switch banks, and all of your automated transactions, from direct deposits to recurring payments would simply be rerouted. Of course we'd need significantly better security to avoid being scammed.
You have a good pt there but only because the NYT is gotten so much like the new Pravda. (also, the business part of the WSJ admittedly is hard to get into. And it's expensive. But I just wrote this in as a response to a multi-cultural production of Our Town - w/ a cast that is preponderantly black but has a white actor as the stage manager. And when I questioned that the majority of commenters lambasted me and thought a multi-racial cast w/ a mixed marriage in the middle of the period of that play was a real possibility. Go know. Here's what I responded to these people who are drooling to bring down the freedom of a market driven society:
Stephan Morrow
Manhattan Pending Approval
@Debra
Hayley Skylar
San Diego, CA
LeGEE
Savannah et al
IMHO some of the responses which some commenters took to be sarcastic is a pretty good example of the jumbled perception of the state of culture that we are in: indecipherable where we can't even agree whether someone is being sarcastic or not. Esp e.g. Emily Loris of Brooklyn my hometown where I thought she was being sincere. Straight ahead sincere. But what if I'm wrong? What if it was as taken by some - an example of acid sarcasm? Got me. I'm from Brooklyn too so maybe it's just us Blklynites & so in my what? limited perception (tho as someone who has worked w/A. Miller, N.Mailer, Mario Fratti et al (these are facts not epaulets or instances of virtue- signaling)& in the Off Off Bway arena: my bailiwick - won more than a few awards for my filmed theater productions (interestingly - in the film festival arena - & not here in the Apple) seems to me we are wallowing in archness, cynicism, constantly subversive takes on traditional art & which ultimately lead to utter confusion & ignorance (corporate elites want to sell to everyone.) So, if we don't reproduce a legible version of history (under the diktat of widening the tent & inclusivity) then history becomes whatever we want to make of it - as Stalin did. Nice to see all the different folks up there but what does it tell us about the trials & tribulations of J. Caesar? or Cleopatra? or Lincoln? or Washington. or e.g. J.W. Booth as a POC? : utter confusion
Stephan Morrow
Artistic Director
The Great American Play Series
an additional note: where not so long ago a version like this was an interesting experiment now, it's become de rigueur and if a director doesn't have a multi-cultural cast as in 'non-traditional casting' than woe is you. (finally, it's all because the minorities are becoming by the numbers closer to the majority or out of the guilt of the mainstream population - who are desperate to get the remnants of racism off their backs covered with a hair shirt. Read 'Decline of the West' by Spengler.
Rupa Subramanya is a gift. Excellent reporting about an extremely important issue getting little attention. Wake up, America!
This is terrifying, not only because of the power of the government but the hypocrisy of governing by “rules for thee but not for me”. The same people happy to doxx and debank conservatives are horrified that it can be used for “Islamophobia”. It’s wrong no matter what. Meanwhile the narrative that Trump would go after political enemies was just a confession about what Obama did throughout his presidency.
Like Martin Gurri said this week, this election is about those who seek to control us and those who refuse to be controlled. Vote accordingly.
Now imagine that Ken Rogoff has gotten his way and we have eliminated cash. With no bank accounts you can't pay rent or mortgage. And your friends and family can't pay it for you without risking the same consequences. If we lose cash we will see authoritarian government that makes 1970s China look tame.
So true!!!!
Yet terrorism and all-manner of fraud and financial crime are real existential treats to the national security and democracy and must be blocked. Maybe individual liberty has some limits.
Rupa, Thank you for a well written and researched article.
With respect to the following statement:
"Debanking, or, as some financial institutions prefer, derisking, refers to a bank cutting ties with a customer deemed politically incorrect, extreme, dangerous, or otherwise out of bounds."
From a business perspective, banks de-risk, offboard, de-market, etc. clients for numerous reasons. Adhering to the ever increasing levels of regulation and the high, growing costs of maintaining regulatory compliance, forces banks to make calls on which clients are profitable and which are not. De-risking is one option. Increasing pricing on those clients is another. Selling those clients to another financial institutions is also option where scale warrants. Each option has implicit costs and benefits which need to be weighed. Banks will seek the highest return and lowest risk option. This is the mandate from their Board and ultimately from their shareholders like any other business.
You can draw a direct line between the incentive structures established by Governments, through law, policy and the regulation, to the behaviour of financial institutions. Why would any rationale player want to bring greater police and regulatory scrutiny on itself?
Rupa is probably the best journalist The Free Press employs. Thank you for this thorough and incredibly important article.
A company I patronize recently had difficulties with Stripe and had to use another method of selling their goods. That company was not Muslim, but a US Patriot. This trend of controlling finances is making it hard for small businesses to make a living as well as all the other victims mentioned in the article. I welcome clearly written, effective laws to prevent the debanking as we are witnessing.
Honest ?
If such banking rigors are performed, how are funds getting from and to movements such as this?
Remember this Nov 14th FP article?
Again, I'm seriously questioning, any insight is appreciated.
https://www.thefp.com/p/american-marxists-funding-pro-palestinian-rage
But that’s not terrorism. Anyway actual terrorists like crypto. It’s been a godsend to them and drug smugglers.
True, but it also keeps Alexei Navalny’s Anti Corruption Foundation going. Crypto is a tool, and like a hammer, it can be used to build a home or bash a man’s brains.
Nigel Farage, was also debanked, though the UK moved on this discrimination.
This is an outstanding article!!! I am a very new subscriber and have appreciated everything I have read. However, this is something I was completely unaware of.
To address the negative comment below…It’s completely unacceptable to not have a clear and immediate explanation of why actions have been taken against you…. Equal to being arrested for no reason…it’s unjust, undemocratic and may even be unconstitutional.
Thank you Free Press for your informative and intelligent reporting.
So much for "being secure in you person and papers." I always assumed that included your finances, silly me
I think Rupa is a great journalist and I was excited for this article… but the Islamist charity example is a super poor example to start with. Especially, when just days ago the US and Canada sanctioned Samidoun over connections to Hamas. We know there are dozens others out there.
I agree that it's a poor example to start with but if they're not actually doing anything wrong they shouldn't have their account(s) closed.
I think part of the problem is that the government, seemingly, demands that the party whose account is closed is not allowed to know why it's happening.
I have been critical of The Free Press for some of their recent articles. They have represented journalism at its very worst. This article is quite the opposite. The author doggedly researched and explored areas to try to get at the truth.
If I were journalism professor, this is the journalism 101 article I would make my young students read. Congratulations to the author on some excellent journalism.
Congratulations to the Free Press getting back to its roots. Please stick with it. Quit publishing "journalism" beneath your purpose. Thanks for stepping up!