logo
State Resolution Backs Federal Remedy For Politicized Debanking

State Resolution Backs Federal Remedy For Politicized Debanking

Forbes2 days ago

Louisiana Senate, where lawmakers recently passed a resolution in support of federal efforts to end ... More political debanking.
The problem of non-criminal 'debanking,' in which financial institutions deny service to a client for what are perceived to be political reasons, continues to garner the attention of lawmakers and the media. During a June 25 Senate Banking Committee hearing in which Federal Reserve chair Jay Powell fielded questions, Senator Tim Scott (R-S.C.), the committee chairman, thanked Powell for upholding his 'commitment to remove reputational risk from bank examination at the Fed.'
That move, Senator Scott added, 'is a necessary first step toward ending the politicization of bank supervision.' Following that hearing, Senator Scott took to X to provide additional commentary on the matter.
'Debanking federally legal businesses is un-American, and I'm glad the @federalreserve followed through on their commitment to remove reputational risk from bank examination,' Scott posted, adding that he will 'continue pushing to end the politicization of bank supervision.'
Recent developments suggest that additional state regulation is not the optimal remedy to politicized debanking when it is existing federal regulations that are the root cause. Furthermore, additional attention to the matter appears to be resulting in voluntary corrective action.
'Financial firms are warming to customers they once shunned under progressive pressure, addressing conservative states lamenting the lack of 'fair access' to banks, and more recently, trying to avoid the wrath of a president bent on settling scores,' noted a June 5 Semafor article on Bank of America's recent decision to again offer their services to CoreCivic, the second largest private operator of prisons and detention centers in the US. That article was published two days after Citigroup announced it would resume doing business with gun makers and that it would 'conduct employee training to root out any political bias.'
On June 10, one week after that Citigroup announcement, the Louisiana Legislature passed the nation's first state resolution expressing support for efforts by the White House and Congress to end unjustified and politically motivated debanking. The language of that resolution acknowledges that banks are not to blame for unjustified debanking, explaining that 'the complexity of federal laws and regulations and the broad discretion of regulators have allowed federal regulators to weaponize banks for far too long.'
The Louisiana resolution goes on to explain that 'if a regulator decides a bank is not adequately managing risk, does not have a good enough system in place to detect and deter financial crimes, or is closing accounts too slowly, the bank can face significant monetary penalties and costly lawsuits, and potentially criminal charges.' Texas lawmakers filed a similar resolution this year, but it did not pass before the conclusion of their biennial regular session in early June.
Rather than seeking to thwart debanking through new state legislation or regulation, a resolution like the one passed in Louisiana that expresses support for a federal remedy is 'a better use of state legislators' time,' says James Erwin, director of innovation policy at Americans for Tax Reform. 'At the end of the day,' Erwin adds, 'this is a problem for federal regulators.'
If lawmakers in other states want to join Louisiana in urging their congressional delegation to end political debanking, Senator Tim Scott has a bill, the FIRM Act, that they can get behind. The FIRM Act removes reputational risk from the jurisdiction of regulators. Erwin says the FIRM Act, if enacted, would 'stop overzealous regulators from leveraging their authority to unjustly harm legitimate industries and individuals.'
Political Debanking, Like AI Regulation, Requires Federal Remedy
After House approval of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA), Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) and his colleagues are aiming to pass their version by July 4. Both the House-passed version of OBBBA and the Senate draft include provisions blocking states from regulating artificial intelligence (AI).
Despite some GOP blowback, White House officials and other preemption backers argue that a regulatory framework for AI must be established on a national basis. Likewise, many of those seeking to end political debanking contend that only a federal level reform can remedy the matter.
'While stopping political debanking is critical, it's ultimately an interstate issue that Congress must lead on—which is why Senator Tim Scott's FIRM Act is so important to prevent federal regulators from weaponizing the financial system,' says Vance Ginn, president of Ginn Economic Consulting who previously served in the White House Office of Management and Budget.
Governor Greg Abbott (R-Texas) recently announced he is calling the Texas House and Senate back for a special legislative session that will begin July 21. While the Texas resolution similar to the one recently signed by Governor Landry did not pass earlier this year, the special session presents opportunity to get it done this year.
'Louisiana got it right by passing a resolution defending financial freedom,' adds Ginn, who is also a staff economist at Americans for Tax Reform and who previously worked for the Texas Public Policy Foundation. 'Texas should have followed suit by passing Sen. Tan Parker's resolution, but since it died, Gov. Abbott should add it to the forthcoming July 21 special session. No American should lose access to banking because of their lawful business or personal beliefs.'
A 50-state patchwork of variable and contradictory state regulations aimed at ending political debanking would come with adverse economic effects. That would also be the case for a 50-state patchwork of state AI regulations. That goes to explain, even if it's confusing to some in Congress, why Republicans who typically support pushing most decisions down to the states believe that, when it comes to regulation of AI and ending political debanking, the federal level is the proper venue for reform.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Wind, Solar Credits Face Shorter Phase-Out in GOP's New Tax Bill
Wind, Solar Credits Face Shorter Phase-Out in GOP's New Tax Bill

Bloomberg

time11 minutes ago

  • Bloomberg

Wind, Solar Credits Face Shorter Phase-Out in GOP's New Tax Bill

Key tax incentives for US wind and solar projects would face a more aggressive phase-out in the Senate's latest version of President Donald Trump's spending package. The tweak, which follows pushback by Trump on the Inflation Reduction Act credits, would sharply limit the number of solar and wind farms that qualify for incentives, appeasing opponents while risking the ire of moderate members who argued for a slower phase-out.

Can PayPal Stock Hit $125 in 2025?
Can PayPal Stock Hit $125 in 2025?

Yahoo

time13 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Can PayPal Stock Hit $125 in 2025?

Digital payment giant PayPal's (PYPL) story has been anything but smooth. After soaring in 2020 and carrying the momentum into early 2021, PYPL stock stumbled, ending three consecutive years in the red. While 2024 brought a much-needed rebound, 2025 has seen shares slip once again. Much of PayPal's decline can be traced to rising competition. Newer, faster fintech rivals have outpaced the company with sleeker, more intuitive payment solutions. Still, PayPal isn't going down without a fight. In response, PayPal brought in CEO Alex Chriss in 2023 to reset its strategy. Under his leadership, the company has launched features like one-click and express checkout while sharpening its focus on profitable growth and operational efficiency. Dear Nvidia Stock Fans, Watch This Event Today Closely A $2 Billion Reason to Sell Super Micro Computer Stock Now 3 ETFs Offering Juicy Dividend Yields of 15% or Higher Tired of missing midday reversals? The FREE Barchart Brief newsletter keeps you in the know. Sign up now! PayPal's ever-expanding partner network — featuring giants such as Amazon (AMZN), Shopify (SHOP), Apple (AAPL), Alphabet (GOOGL), and Meta Platforms (META) — also remains a powerful asset. With Wall Street's highest target pegged at $125 for the stock, can PayPal rally hard enough to hit that mark before the year wraps? PayPal runs a global technology platform that connects merchants and consumers through a dynamic two-sided network. Whether shopping online or in-person, users can pay, get paid, transfer, or withdraw funds using a wide range of options, including bank accounts and cards, PayPal and Venmo balances, cryptocurrency, and more — making digital payments seamless and accessible worldwide. With its market capitalization currently hovering around $71 billion, PayPal remains a major player in the fintech space. However, its stock performance tells a different story. Delivering a 25% return over the past one year, the stock has taken a 14% hit so far in 2025, underperforming the broader S&P 500 Index ($SPX) by a wide margin, with the benchmark up 4.4% year-to-date (YTD). PYPL stock touched a YTD high of $93.25 in January but has since fallen more than 21% from that peak. Considering its sluggish price action, PayPal now appears to be a potential value play. The stock is trading at just 14 times forward earnings and 2.25 times sales, which is significantly below its five-year averages. For investors hunting for discounted fintech names, PayPal's current valuation could offer an attractive entry point. PayPal delivered its fiscal 2025 first-quarter earnings on April 29. The results were a mixed bag, showing a slight revenue miss but a strong profit beat. Sales rose just 1% year-over-year (YOY) to $7.8 billion, falling short of expectations. However, the company made it clear this was by design. PayPal emphasized its strategic pivot toward profitability, deliberately phasing out lower-margin revenue streams. That shift paid off on the bottom line. Adjusted EPS came in at $1.33, up 23% from a year ago and beating Wall Street estimates by an impressive 15.7% margin. PayPal continued to strengthen its financial footing in Q1, with transaction margin dollars — the company's core profitability metric — rising 7% to $3.7 billion. Active accounts grew 2% YOY to reach 436 million, reflecting steady user engagement. Backed by a strong balance sheet with $15.8 billion in cash, cash equivalents, and investments, PayPal also returned $1.5 billion to shareholders through share repurchases, underscoring its commitment to capital returns. Reflecting on the Q1 performance, Chriss noted, 'PayPal had a great start to the year and our strategy is working. This is our fifth consecutive quarter of profitable growth with progress across branded checkout, PSP, omnichannel, and Venmo.' Looking ahead, PayPal offered a dose of optimism with strong Q2 guidance, projecting adjusted EPS between $1.29 and $1.31, signaling continued momentum on the profitability front. For the full year, the company took a more cautious stance. Citing ongoing global macroeconomic uncertainty, PayPal reaffirmed its earlier guidance, expecting full-year EPS to land between $4.95 and $5.10. By comparison, analysts tracking PayPal project the company's profit to grow 9.3% annually to $5.08 per share in fiscal 2025, followed by an even stronger 11% rise to $5.64 in fiscal 2026. Overall, Wall Street sentiment toward PYPL stock remains cautiously upbeat, with analysts giving it a consensus 'Moderate Buy' rating. Of the 44 analysts offering recommendations, 16 give it a solid 'Strong Buy" rating, two suggest a 'Moderate Buy,' 22 give a 'Hold,' and the remaining four advocate for a 'Strong Sell" rating. PYPL stock's average analyst price target of $79.81 indicates 9% potential upside. But the Street-high target of $125 tells a more bullish story, implying a potential rally of 70% if the company's turnaround strategy hits its stride. On the date of publication, Anushka Mukherji did not have (either directly or indirectly) positions in any of the securities mentioned in this article. All information and data in this article is solely for informational purposes. This article was originally published on

Court Fans Fear of State Patchwork in Birthright Citizenship
Court Fans Fear of State Patchwork in Birthright Citizenship

Yahoo

time13 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Court Fans Fear of State Patchwork in Birthright Citizenship

(Bloomberg) -- A US Supreme Court ruling is stoking fears that the babies of many noncitizen parents could be treated differently depending on the state in which they're born, as legal challenges unfold against President Donald Trump's order ending birthright citizenship. Philadelphia Transit System Votes to Cut Service by 45%, Hike Fares US Renters Face Storm of Rising Costs Squeezed by Crowds, the Roads of Central Park Are Being Reimagined Sprawl Is Still Not the Answer Mapping the Architectural History of New York's Chinatown The justices didn't rule on the constitutionality of Trump's restrictions. But in a divided decision Friday, they paused nationwide injunctions in three cases that had blocked the policy from taking effect. That opens a potential path for Trump's ban on birthright citizenship to be enforced in the 28 states where no court order to block it is currently in place, many of them Republican strongholds from Texas to Florida and Wyoming to Oklahoma. State officials and legal experts warn the arrangement could lead to a patchwork quilt of outcomes, in which the children of people in the US unlawfully or on temporary visas would be recognized as citizens in some states but not in others. 'What we have is an unworkable mess that will leave thousands of babies in an untenable legal limbo,' said Connecticut Attorney General William Tong, who joined officials from 21 other Democratic-led states in suing to block the order. 'Will babies born in Connecticut have different citizenship rights than those born in Texas or Florida?' Nothing will change immediately — the justices said Trump's restrictions can't take effect for 30 days. Much will be in flux during that period as lower courts revise their rulings to align with the new precedent set by the high court. Justices also left open an avenue for opponents to continue trying to block Trump's order through a class action lawsuit. And they left key questions unanswered about the scope of relief that certain challengers — particularly individual states — are entitled to receive. Trump celebrated Friday's ruling as a 'monumental victory.' His administration has long sought to limit the ability of a single judge to block a federal policy across the country. Organizations including the American Civil Liberties Union, Democracy Defenders Fund and CASA Inc. have sued to block his order on birthright citizenship. They're already adjusting their legal strategy in light of the Supreme Court ruling, refiling their cases as class action lawsuits and seeking fresh court orders to block Trump's policy while their lawsuits proceed. 'Every court to have looked at this cruel order agrees that it is unconstitutional,' Cody Wofsy, deputy director of the ACLU's Immigrants' Rights Project and lead attorney in this case, said in a statement. 'The Supreme Court's decision did not remotely suggest otherwise, and we are fighting to make sure President Trump cannot trample on the citizenship rights of a single child.' Litigation will also proceed in cases filed by the 22 Democratic-led states that sued to block the order. Those states are Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington and Wisconsin. Amanda Frost, a law professor at the University of Virginia, emphasized the legal uncertainty and said lower courts will now have to determine the scope of relief available to states that sued in order to avoid running afoul of the Supreme Court. 'There's lots of unanswered questions,' she said. Some state attorneys general said language in Justice Amy Coney Barrett's majority opinion leaves open the possibility that the states could still successfully argue for a nationwide order. 'The rights guaranteed by the US Constitution belong to everyone in this country, not just those whose state attorneys general had the courage to stand up to this president's anti-democratic agenda,' California Attorney General Rob Bonta said in a statement. 'We remain hopeful that the courts will see that a patchwork of injunctions is unworkable.' America's Top Consumer-Sentiment Economist Is Worried How to Steal a House Inside Gap's Last-Ditch, Tariff-Addled Turnaround Push Apple Test-Drives Big-Screen Movie Strategy With F1 Luxury Counterfeiters Keep Outsmarting the Makers of $10,000 Handbags ©2025 Bloomberg L.P. Erreur lors de la récupération des données Connectez-vous pour accéder à votre portefeuille Erreur lors de la récupération des données Erreur lors de la récupération des données Erreur lors de la récupération des données Erreur lors de la récupération des données

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store