Often, it’s not the crime, but the coverup that gets a politician into trouble.
But it’s not just elected officials who need to grapple with this basic truth. It also applies to leaders at major institutions like the nationally chartered banks you and I depend on every day.
U.S. Bank recently held its annual shareholder meeting. One proposal asked company leaders to explain why U.S. Bank abruptly canceled the Constitution Party of Idaho —where I serve as state chairman—at the beginning of the 2024 election cycle.
It all started last March when I received an envelope from U.S. Bank. At first, I thought it was an advertisement. The next morning, I opened it to find a check and a small note that read, "Refund of Account." In the corner, in very small print, were the words "Account Closure."
I was shocked. I immediately called the bank's helpline, where I spent nearly two hours trying to figure out why our account was closed.
The representative suggested I visit my local branch for answers. I took time off work, only to spend hours with the branch manager, who was equally puzzled. Despite escalating the issue, I eventually received a call informing me that the bank had decided to stop doing business with us—with no explanation.
Imagine the impact if this had happened to your state party right before a primary. While larger political parties may have fallback resources, the disruption was devastating for us. I had to end up opening an account at a local bank almost 60 miles away from the U.S. Bank branch our organization had done business with since 2006.
While I can't conclusively say this was due to our political affiliation, closing a long-standing account without reason certainly raises questions.
Those are questions U.S. Bank has consistently refused to answer*. When shareholders represented by Inspire Investing and the American Conservative Values ETF filed a proposal calling for the U.S. Bank to explain its actions, c-suite leaders advised shareholders to vote against this needed first step in transparency.
During the annual meeting, incoming U.S. Bank President Gunjan Kedia was asked three separate questions from shareholders about my cancelation. All three times, Ms. Kedia responded with irrelevant boilerplate that came nowhere close to addressing shareholder concerns.
Unfortunately, over 95 percent of U.S. Bank shares will likely reflect Ms. Kedia’s disinterest in dealing with the issue. Why would so many shareholders oppose basic transparency that is squarely aimed at protecting their own fiduciary interests and the good name of U.S. Bank?
The answer lies in the quagmire created by the duopoly of proxy advisory services ISS and Glass Lewis, paired with monolithic institutional investors Blackrock, State Street, and Vanguard. Together, this cartel controls the overwhelming majority of votes within companies like U.S. Bank, robbing its true owners (i.e. shareholders) of their ability to weigh in on important issues that affect their long-term financial futures.
That doesn’t mean the resolution process is hopeless. Major brands like U.S. Bank have an enormous interest in protecting against the sort of negative publicity that comes from having to answer to even a small percentage of actual shareholders in real-time at an annual meeting.
Two years ago, that’s exactly what JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon experienced firsthand. After Dimon was pressed to give answers on a debanking incident that involved former U.S. Ambassador Sam Brownback, the nation’s largest bank has responded by making major strides under his leadership to protect against future instances of viewpoint-based debanking.
U.S. Bank should follow Chase’s lead. So should other large, nationally chartered banks. That’s especially true as states like Idaho, Tennessee, and Florida have recently enacted laws that ban viewpoint discrimination in banking and President Trump has put big banks on notice after he, members of his first administration, and his own family have been debanked in recent years.
Rather than hiding behind vague policies, evasive non-answers, and a rigged voting process, U.S. Bank should make the courageous choice to explain its decisions and adopt policies that prevent discrimination in banking.
It’s clear that U.S. Bank made a mistake when it canceled my party’s account. There’s no reason for U.S. Bank to make the situation worse by doubling down on policies that leave the door wide open to discrimination.
The “crime” in this case is clear enough. Now it’s time to quit covering up and fix the problem for good.
* When asked for a comment, a representative at U.S. Bank responded with the following: “We do not comment on specific cases or clients, but we have strong anti-discrimination policies and would not close an account based on a client's race, color, religion, sex, or political affiliation. We understand that it can be frustrating for a customer to learn that a relationship is exited, but we are often limited in what we are allowed to share with customers and we are even further limited on what we can share with third parties.”
