4 ms·

I wrongly assumed this was a D bill, and would die in committee. Turns out it's actually an R bill, with exclusively R sponsors, and now I'm wondering what awfu

I wrongly assumed this was a D bill, and would die in committee. Turns out it's actually an R bill, with exclusively R sponsors, and now I'm wondering what awful shit is hiding in it. Though almost all of the sponsors are from almost 6 months ago, so it might die in committee anyway.

crooked-v 1y ago
The text is on there and is very straightforward. As far as I can tell it's a basically good bill.
- delecti 1y ago
  I agree that the text sounds good. I'm worried about the consequences I might not think of. What legal services are the Ds and Rs thinking of that currently have trouble with payment processors, and which are causing a lot of Rs to sponsor and no Ds? Because I'm sure it's not porn and video games.
  - _mlbt 1y ago
    Operation Choke Point is referenced by the proposed bill... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Choke_Point https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Choke_Point > Operation Choke Point was an initiative of the United States Department of Justice beginning in 2013 which investigated banks in the United States and the business they did with firearm dealers, payday lenders, and other companies that, while operating legally, were said to be at a high risk for fraud and money laundering. There's a whole list on the Wikipedia article of the kinds of legal businesses that were targeted by this. Some of them make sense, but others look like very serious 1A and 2A violations.
metalcrow 1y ago
Historically, payment processors were usually against republicans, which is why you see them acting in support of this.
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
AdmiralAsshat 1y ago
> and now I'm wondering what awful shit is hiding in it. Had to look into it a bit. From looking at the text of the bill, it looks like the sponsor did not like Operation Choke Point [0], which was specifically targeting banks that did business with Payday Lenders, Ponzi Schemes, and other shady vendors. This also included pornography, but I'm willing to bet that's not what Sen. Cramer was upset about. More likely, he's simply serving the interest of his donors. He also might have extremist "small business" constituents that are perhaps selling racist/sexist/homophobic merch, and they don't like being told that their bank/credit card processors are refusing to process payments on that swag. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Choke_Point https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Choke_Point
- vdqtp3 1y ago
  That's disingenuous. There were plenty of legit business types included also. Directly from your link: ammunition sales ATM operators cable box de-scramblers coin dealers credit card schemes credit repair services dating services debt consolidation scams drug paraphernalia escort services firearms sales fireworks sales get rich products government grants home-based charities lifetime guarantees lifetime memberships lottery sales mailing lists/personal info money transfer networks online gambling pawn shops payday loans pharmaceutical sales Ponzi schemes pornography[5] pyramid-type sales racist materials surveillance equipment telemarketing tobacco sales travel clubs
bigstrat2003 1y ago
> Turns out it's actually an R bill, with exclusively R sponsors, and now I'm wondering what awful shit is hiding in it. It seems to me like if you thought something was good and then switched to thinking it was bad based just on who proposed it, you need to stop being prejudiced. Evaluate ideas (or bills) for their merits, not based on who originated them.
- delecti 1y ago
  Being a member of a political party is cosigning their platform, and based on a consistent 60+ years pattern of behavior they do not deserve any benefit of the doubt. It's not prejudice if it's based on observation. It's entirely reasonable to wonder what ghoulish motives they might have for an idea I initially thought sounded good.
- zbentley 1y ago
  > Evaluate ideas (or bills) for their merits, not based on who originated them. Ideas? Sure. Bills? No. So much of how a piece of legislation affects society has to do with the agendas of the people behind it (no matter what it says in text) and the means by which the executive implements it (often hand-in-glove with the agendas of the legislation’s originators). https://www.eatingpolicy.com/p/understanding-the-cascade-of-rigidity https://www.eatingpolicy.com/p/understanding-the-cascade-of-...
perihelions 1y ago
Debanking is a form of social deplatforming that (for now) mostly targets right-wing causes. That's not at all to assert that the bill is wrong or that censorship is right—I'm just clarifying why it's Republicans on the side against censorship, in this context, when in other contexts the roles are flipped. You can read the bill's author (Kevin Cramer) discussing that bill and his motives for writing it: https://web.archive.org/web/20250715113010/https://fedsoc.org/events/de-banking-the-newest-threat-to-free-speech-and-religious-liberty https://web.archive.org/web/20250715113010/https://fedsoc.or... ("Debanking: The Newest Threat to Free Speech and Religious Liberty?) (2024) > [Senator Kevin Cramer] "...I've heard that one from some pretty big bank presidents - but they get a lot of noise in their left ear and you have activist investors and whatnot that are saying, hey, you know what? We don't like coal. We don't like oil, we don't like natural gas. We don't like private prisons, or we don't like ammunition shops or gun manufacturers or whatever the case might be, the entire category or industry and says, "Well, so we're not going to bank them. We're going to debank them. We're not going to bank them. You're disqualified from getting money from us.”, and they're starving these industries out. And all this really is, in my view, you guys is this is a political agenda where they're utilizing the leverage of the financial services sector to accomplish policy goals that they can't accomplish any other way."
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]

crooked-v 1y ago

The text is on there and is very straightforward. As far as I can tell it's a basically good bill.

delecti 1y ago
I agree that the text sounds good. I'm worried about the consequences I might not think of. What legal services are the Ds and Rs thinking of that currently have trouble with payment processors, and which are causing a lot of Rs to sponsor and no Ds? Because I'm sure it's not porn and video games.
- _mlbt 1y ago
  Operation Choke Point is referenced by the proposed bill... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Choke_Point https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Choke_Point > Operation Choke Point was an initiative of the United States Department of Justice beginning in 2013 which investigated banks in the United States and the business they did with firearm dealers, payday lenders, and other companies that, while operating legally, were said to be at a high risk for fraud and money laundering. There's a whole list on the Wikipedia article of the kinds of legal businesses that were targeted by this. Some of them make sense, but others look like very serious 1A and 2A violations.

metalcrow 1y ago

Historically, payment processors were usually against republicans, which is why you see them acting in support of this.

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]

AdmiralAsshat 1y ago

> and now I'm wondering what awful shit is hiding in it. Had to look into it a bit. From looking at the text of the bill, it looks like the sponsor did not like Operation Choke Point [0], which was specifically targeting banks that did business with Payday Lenders, Ponzi Schemes, and other shady vendors. This also included pornography, but I'm willing to bet that's not what Sen. Cramer was upset about. More likely, he's simply serving the interest of his donors. He also might have extremist "small business" constituents that are perhaps selling racist/sexist/homophobic merch, and they don't like being told that their bank/credit card processors are refusing to process payments on that swag. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Choke_Point https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Choke_Point

vdqtp3 1y ago
That's disingenuous. There were plenty of legit business types included also. Directly from your link: ammunition sales ATM operators cable box de-scramblers coin dealers credit card schemes credit repair services dating services debt consolidation scams drug paraphernalia escort services firearms sales fireworks sales get rich products government grants home-based charities lifetime guarantees lifetime memberships lottery sales mailing lists/personal info money transfer networks online gambling pawn shops payday loans pharmaceutical sales Ponzi schemes pornography[5] pyramid-type sales racist materials surveillance equipment telemarketing tobacco sales travel clubs

bigstrat2003 1y ago

> Turns out it's actually an R bill, with exclusively R sponsors, and now I'm wondering what awful shit is hiding in it. It seems to me like if you thought something was good and then switched to thinking it was bad based just on who proposed it, you need to stop being prejudiced. Evaluate ideas (or bills) for their merits, not based on who originated them.

delecti 1y ago
Being a member of a political party is cosigning their platform, and based on a consistent 60+ years pattern of behavior they do not deserve any benefit of the doubt. It's not prejudice if it's based on observation. It's entirely reasonable to wonder what ghoulish motives they might have for an idea I initially thought sounded good.
zbentley 1y ago
> Evaluate ideas (or bills) for their merits, not based on who originated them. Ideas? Sure. Bills? No. So much of how a piece of legislation affects society has to do with the agendas of the people behind it (no matter what it says in text) and the means by which the executive implements it (often hand-in-glove with the agendas of the legislation’s originators). https://www.eatingpolicy.com/p/understanding-the-cascade-of-rigidity https://www.eatingpolicy.com/p/understanding-the-cascade-of-...

perihelions 1y ago

Debanking is a form of social deplatforming that (for now) mostly targets right-wing causes. That's not at all to assert that the bill is wrong or that censorship is right—I'm just clarifying why it's Republicans on the side against censorship, in this context, when in other contexts the roles are flipped. You can read the bill's author (Kevin Cramer) discussing that bill and his motives for writing it: https://web.archive.org/web/20250715113010/https://fedsoc.org/events/de-banking-the-newest-threat-to-free-speech-and-religious-liberty https://web.archive.org/web/20250715113010/https://fedsoc.or... ("Debanking: The Newest Threat to Free Speech and Religious Liberty?) (2024) > [Senator Kevin Cramer] "...I've heard that one from some pretty big bank presidents - but they get a lot of noise in their left ear and you have activist investors and whatnot that are saying, hey, you know what? We don't like coal. We don't like oil, we don't like natural gas. We don't like private prisons, or we don't like ammunition shops or gun manufacturers or whatever the case might be, the entire category or industry and says, "Well, so we're not going to bank them. We're going to debank them. We're not going to bank them. You're disqualified from getting money from us.”, and they're starving these industries out. And all this really is, in my view, you guys is this is a political agenda where they're utilizing the leverage of the financial services sector to accomplish policy goals that they can't accomplish any other way."

deleted 1y ago
[deleted]