Banks, member banks under the Federal Reserve system, which are pretty much all of them we consider important and major players to commerce, are in some way already under oversight by Congress. The problem is that the whole Federal Reserve system was set up to to be arms-length and free of government, while at the same time be under government oversight. It is a quasi-governmental institution. There's good reason for this. Government having direct control of a central bank can be very problematic in running amok, as well as inefficient. There's a bad reason in this, too. Banks run amok, as with the examples of this posting. Given the powerful monopoly these banks hold on payment systems, this slippery-slope is going to turn avalanche in practice on other things in the future. Yes, corporations and banks can and will collude to drive/overstep legislation, and they won't need as many lobbyists to Congress to move their agenda as before.bblhd672 wrote: ↑Fri Aug 17, 2018 11:06 amAt what point would a working US Attorney General (who knows where the current one is) open an investigation into companies appearing to collude to deny certain legal businesses access to financial systems?Charles L. Cotton wrote: ↑Fri Aug 17, 2018 10:55 am It wouldn't pass constitutional muster to dictate what businesses banks must accept as customers. However, I advocate a law that denies FDIC insurance coverage to any bank that refuses to accept customers or otherwise do business with any person or entity engaging in a lawful activity, including but not limited to business activity. A bank without FDIC coverage would go under in a matter of hours.
Chas.
It is obvious that certain corporations have decided to use their power to infringe upon both the 1st and 2nd amendments.
This isn't another "evil banking system conspiracy theory". This is happening just as we see it.