The parent comment is an ad hominem attack, plain & simple.

Nothing has been said by the parent about the message: Instead, the messenger is marked as the target in order to take down the message via association.

"Give me the man and I will give you the case against him"

------

About the legislation itself:

https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/senate-bill/401...

It's mainly 3 semi-related parts stapled together. If the person/business/bank is complying with the law:

- 1a) Banks with > $10 billion are blocked from (i) the Fed's discount window lending program, & (ii) the Automated Clearing House Network, if they refuse to do business with them,

- 1b) Banks are required to accept deposits from them & law-complying member banks,

- 1c) The board of directors of banks/credit unions have to notify the state/fed if said access blocking happens,

- 2) (Section 5) Payment networks can't refuse service to them, &

https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/senate-bill/401...

- 3) Banks & payment networks have to give them access to financial services

The middle part (2) is what's being focused on in the article.

I'm mostly in agreement that (1) the penalty's too low, & (2) restricting dispense of the law to only the Comptroller renders it ineffective.

(1) is easily solvable with regards to editing the text alone: raise the limit to 50% & $100k respectively.

(2) is also solvable, by striking out "by the Comptroller of the Currency".

Fair Access to Banking