Anti-Gun Policies Cost Citibank & BOA $600,000,000 in Louisiana Road Projects

The two main banks that instituted a "NO LOANS" policy to gun manufacturers and gun-related businesses earlier this year, will now FEEL THE STING of that move themselves as the Louisiana State Bond Commission has banned them from being considered as underwriters for OVER a HALF- $$ BILLION in interstate highway projects in their state.


Anti-Gun Policies Cost Citibank & BOA $600,000,000 in Louisiana Road Projects

BATON ROUGE, La. (AP) - Louisiana officials blocked two of the nation’s largest banks Thursday from involvement in a $600 million road-financing plan because they have policies restricting gun sales and manufacturing by their commercial customers.

In a narrow 7-6 vote, the State Bond Commission refused to allow Citigroup and Bank of America to work as underwriters on the interstate highway financing deal.

The effort to ban the banking giants from the borrowing transaction was led by Attorney General Jeff Landry and Treasurer John Schroder, both Republicans, and opposed by Democratic Gov. John Bel Edwards’ administration.


Those pushing to exclude Bank of America and Citigroup from the financial work said by enacting firearm restriction policies for their corporate customers, the banks were violating Second Amendment rights.

“You’re in the banking business. Why have you all decided to enter the policymaking business?” asked Rep. Blake Miguez, an Erath Republican and competitive shooter.

Representatives of both banking firms defended the policies in Thursday’s meeting, saying they don’t believe the policies infringe on Second Amendment rights. Brandee McHale, with Citigroup, said the firearms still are available for purchase and customers can use their individual debit and credit cards to buy such weapons.

Still, conservative Republicans said the restrictions went too far.

“I don’t think we should punish good people for what bad people do,” Schroder said.




https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/aug/16/louisiana-bars-banks-from-600m-deal-because-of-gun/


Sweet.

 

lol..... governments locking out their own banks to lend money, to than wonder why it's so expensive to lend money.

 

Because those are the only two banks...der....umm...duh..

"lol" Banks aren't "the government's", and there are PLENTY MORE TO CHOOSE FROM.

Citi and BOA's asinine bullshit came back and bit them in the ass...to the tune of over half a BILLION DOLLARS...

 

They could have been the best bank for the job. And now they could be settling for 2nd grade.

I didn't say they were.

It's positive PR for those banks and free advertisement rolled up in one.

 

Shouldn't the fiduciary duty of the board members to the tax payer dictate that they get the loan form the bank with the best conditions, rather than basing the decision on politics?

 

Who says that they aren't?

Shouldn't banks be banking instead of trying to institute/affect policy?

They EXCLUDED TWO, for what they see as attacks on the 2nd Amendment.

I'm sure that there are comparable (if NOT BETTER) interest rates available...from the SCORES of OTHER BANKS ….

 

I LOVE how the Local Left is not happy that the ANTI SECOND AMENDMENT ACTIONS of these two ARROGANT LENDING INSTITUTIONS have now YIELDED "CONSEQUENCES".

 

That might have ben true in some day and age but, not in 21st century America.

 

Because those are the only two banks in the US.

Shouldn't banks be banking instead of trying to institute/affect policy?

The left ALWAYS hates to PAY THE PIPER, doesn't it?

 

The Louisiana State Bond Commission agrees....

 

These banks made their decision the second they tried using their power to dictate anti gun ideology. At that point they arent a bank anymore they are a political movement. Good for them....bout time banks understand the consequences of their actions.

 

Our govt. should not be using foreign banks anyhow.

 

Exactly. CONSEQUENCES....the left feels that they should be immune from them while trying to FORCE THEIR VIEWS, as those two banks have done.

 

Such as?

 

Or not.

Oh, you "didn't say that"?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
notme said: ↑
lol..... governments locking out their own banks to lend money, to than wonder why it's so expensive to lend money.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Interest rates are VERY LOW...at ALL BANKS.

 

Seems a bit petty but it’s to be expected in LA. It almost seems like a violation of the 1st Amendment, but I know commercial speech is not so heavily protected, usually rightfully so.

 

They do the same thing with free speech, they want players to kneel yet when we point at the players and say scum they recoil and say we are against free speech not grasping the concept in entirety.

 

Indeed. I did not say Banks aren't "the government's"

So what. All you say now that there is very little money to make in the first place.
While it's good PR and free advertisement of the bank

 

Leftist ALWAYS seek to allow only there views:

 

Look at you trying to dance away from the embarrassing facts.

Now, you're trying to claim that "banks aren't interested in $600,000,000 in loan business".

And, GETTING SCORCHED is "good PR".

 

Outstanding, when BOA made this policy I cancelled my CC with them and went with USAA. Also of note is I closed my savings account with them that I had since 1974......mowed many lawns to start that account.

Sure, it does not really effect the bank but at least I know I am not giving money to someone that works against me and our given right. Same goes for paypal, ****em. Paypal is one of the reasons I no longer donate to this forum.

 

Yep. Nice to see them being HELD ACCOUNTABLE for trying to insert themselves into PUBLIC POLICY, and our 2nd Amendment rights.

 

lol good pr!!! priceless

 

BTW: The title of the thread is wrong. The whole road project is $600 million. Thus, BOA loses the profit from financing the project, which is a lot less than $600 million.

Of course, posting threads with the purpose to mislead and to make cheap political points is nothing unexpected from the OP.

 

The AP created their headline with the purpose to mislead and to make cheap political points?