The executive order is not expected to be specific to the “the president's friends and allies”, but just politically motivated bank actions in general. But I agree, legislation is preferable. And I wouldn’t support such an executive action if it were one sided.

What about customers that slide into unsavory activity, or customers who you think are doing illegal things, but don't have evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt? Are citizens not allowed to decide not to associate with someone?

I otherwise applaud your commitment to the rule of law.

Yep. Next in line is going to be debanking political opponents and opposition PACs, preventing them from campaigning effectively. And from the news yesterday, Texas has already taken a step ahead and has begun trying to arrest Democrats who are out-of-state.

William Dudley Pelley and George Rockwell would be so proud of the Republican party today.

> Would this prevent banks from targeting marijuana companies?

The EO isn't out yet-- it might. Might not.

Right now the incentives are such that banks are likely to crap on anything they think the federal government may not like, because there are infinity penalties available for displeasing the government and nothing but losing a customer on the other side.

So anything that shifts the balance at all may have a fairly broad effect at improving access to banking.

Unless the employee is in a union, unless you're a landlord in a state that protects political ideology in housing, unless you're an employer in a state that protects political ideology, unless you're a hospital that takes Medicare.

Lots of government rules that force you to do business with nazis

Why would I feel conflicted? One is about cakes from a small business with lots of alternatives for customers to choose from. The other is about large banks which are few in number, have privileged access, immense power, and provide a public utility.