The Justice Department's improper political agenda
Overreaching yet again, the Obama administration's Justice Department is perverting a fraud-prevention effort by pressuring banks to deny basic financial services to legitimate businesses it finds politically unpalatable.
Justice leads the Operation Choke Point partnership of federal agencies. It's supposed to protect consumers by keeping fraudulent businesses from accessing financial services. But a hearing held by a House Judiciary Committee subcommittee shows it is harassing legal businesses that “line up squarely against the political leanings of the current administration” in 24 industries, including ammunition, fireworks and payday loans, according to The Daily Caller.
Committee Chairman Robert Goodlatte, R-Va., cited an example of a Justice official allegedly threatening to immediately audit a bank providing services to a payday lender. Also revealed were more than 50 subpoenas that Justice has issued to banks serving disfavored businesses in what committee member Spencer Bachus, R-Alabama, called administration attempts to pressure banks to drop such customers or face protracted, expensive litigation.
Rep. Blaine Luetkemeyer, R-Mo., has introduced the End Operation Choke Point Act to stop such outrages by providing “safe harbor” for banks' dealings with legal businesses. But ending this administration's broader penchant for twisting laws and law enforcement for political gain requires massive public pressure — and well-cast ballots.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- The Arneson firing: Legally dubious
- Pittsburgh Tuesday takes
- Greensburg Tuesday takes
- Alle-Kiski Tuesday takes
- Jesse White’s chutzpah
- U.N. Watch: Climate games
- Benchmarking questions: Fueling perversion
- A hunting question: A Pennsylvania proposal to limit the game that mentored youth hunters can take appears to be a solution in search of a problem
- Piercing the media’s shield: Muzzles & slopes
- Saturday essay: The thumb itches
- The Box