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

It is very simple. The operators of a bank have a fiduciary duty to stock holders to represent their interests. The CEO certainly has the power to do otherwise and do some moral grandstanding, even the right to do that, even though he is betraying the trust of stock holders. They can sell their stock and change banks if they object to management.

Government has the duty to serve taxpayers and voters, but office holders, once elected, can choose to do neither. That isn't illegal. The remedy is the next election. Is the government by disqualifying a certain bank from government business serving taxpayers & voters? Maybe not. But if the majority of voters support the action, why should government do otherwise?

And to suggest the Obama or any other previous administration never played favorites with corporations is actually a pretty good laugh line.

 

That would be illegal. So the government could just take their money and not worry about paying it back!

 

Got it. So we only uphold portions of the constitution?

I see the point. Business can make their own rules and policies related to the second amendment, it the government can also elect no to engage them in business

 

So I guess you are on record as beleiving that the government can and should punish companies guilty of no crime just on the basis that they don't like their policy. Picking the winners and loser on bids, not based on price, or service, but on beleif. Spoken like a true democrat. As I stated earlier, you have given up your principles just because you like the outcome.

BTW the bids just got less competitive for the state, as they just knocked out of contention 2 of the 5 biggest banks in the US

Wells Fargo was just fined 185 million for defrauding it's customers (breaking the law) and is still I assume eligible for this bid, but not BOA because of it's internal policy and business decision.

Maybe the government of Louisiana just politicized a thing that really didn't need to be (a loan). And it probably will cost the state.

 

punished?

I feel to see how the government is punishing a bank, they're just choosing not to do business with them.

I don't really care for posturing.

Not the people's liberties.

 

Deliberately keeping a business from making a bid, and stating specifically the reason for keeping them from making a bid is not punishing them?
That might be one of the most disengenuous answers I have read in a long time. When California chooses not to do send it's state employees to conventions in states they feel are practicing discrimination at least they are honest about it (i will remind you that there are tons of trump fans here who were OUTRRRRRAGED that a state would do that). When the government states that it will give preference to construction companies that hire minorities, they are clear about that. If you told Trump fans about that, they would froth at the mouth.
But because the shoes is on the other foot, you now have zero problem with that, and are trying to argue with blinders on that the government isn't in fact punishing behaviour that they don't approve of.
As I said earlier. The right wingers who argue in favour of this, have given up their moral ground. Sad

 

Not any more than me choosing not to go to Starbucks is punishment for Starbucks.

no idea whay you are talking about.

So in order to have the shoe oon three other for I'd have to be a Trump fan... am I?

News to me.

in favor of what? The phony narrative you spun?

 

Except you aint the government protecting free speech.

 

What part are we not upholding?

 

It’s so expensive to lend money because out of every dollar we print, a private bank gets a percentage of it. The Federal Reserve Bank isn’t actually a federal bank or part of our government.

Care to guess which side that giant pile of **** came from?

 

They have the right to speak

 

The government seem to object to companies who publish that they stand behind perfectly normal norms and values.
So that's attacking free speech by the government.

 

A bank saying it won't give loans to companies based on ideological reasons when the companies aren't doing anything illegal or morally reprehensible is not the norm. That's fiduciary activism. That is a bank attempting to Drive Social change.

So the bank ceased to be at bank when it did that, it became an activist organization. Governments do not have to hire activist organizations when they want banking organizations.

Nobody is saying that it's illegal for them not to give loans to businesses based on whatever activist views they hold. They just aren't considered in the bidding process black lives matter isn't considered in the bidding process neither is the March for Life these are activist organizations they do not have say in financial bidding.

 

There is nothing specifically odd about being against guns. That is perfectly normal in the US.

In this case it's stil a bank.

You say "not to give loans".... = ... it's a bank. And not an activist organisation like BLM. And you're not replying that the government is making a reprisal against companies who have a perfectly normal American value.

 

fair enough but when you make that your governing policy of your organization you become an activist.

Fiduciary activism is not the same as banking.

no it isn't if it was I could walk in there and get a loan for my gun manufacturing business if I can walk into a bank and get that that's a bank if I can walk in to Bank of America and they say some spiel about political nonsense they cease to be a bank and become a fiduciary activist organization.

I am not denying their ability to have an opinion. I am stating simply that if I walk in there to get a loan and I qualify for every reason other than my business is something they politically object to they have ceased to be a bank and have become a financial activist organization.

 

You right wingers who so love living in a perpetual war zone where approximately 100 are killed by guns every day and 200 wounded, including amongst them children,just so you can have your precious second amendment.Pathetic.

 

Their prime activity still remains banking. A price activity BY FAR, hence it's a bank.

Your way to dismiss it aint a bank anymore is a joke of an argument.

 

No it isn't, its activism. If it was banking they wouldn't have a problem giving a loan to a gun manufacturer. Banking takes a back seat to activism. They aren't a bank any more.

You are just saying that because you can't argue.

 

That’s the people’s job.

 

When 99% of what a company does is things that is related to a bank activities, than it's just moronic to claim it aint a bank.

 

Negative... the government is there to protect the rights, if their judicial system etc. No vigilantes allowed.

 

when baking takes a backseat to politics you become a fiduciary activist.

Just a certain that I claim is moronic because you don't like it or it ruins your argument isn't that an argument.

 

Refusing loans is an ACTION , not speech, DESIGNED TO ASSAIL THE SECOND AMENDMENT.

Stop trying to pretend that that was not the PRECISED PURPOSE of Citi and BOA's loan bans....

The State of Louisiana has DEFENDED the 2nd Amendment rights of Americans...no one's "speech" is effected in any way

 

It's refusing an action because of a opinion that was communicated.... that makes it an attack on free speech.

 

When banking is still 99% of it's primary activity, than it certainly not is taking a backseat.