Bill Description: Senate Bill 1027 would clarify that very large financial institutions cannot condition access to financial services based on non-financial information that might be included in a "social credit score."
Rating: +1
NOTE: Senate Bill 1027 is similar to House Bill 669, introduced in the 2024 legislative session.
Does it promote the breakdown of the traditional family or the deconstruction of societal norms? Examples include promoting or incentivizing degeneracy, violating parental rights, and compromising the innocence of children. Conversely, does it protect or uphold the structure, tenets, and traditional values of Western society?
Senate Bill 1027 would create Chapter 38, Title 26, Idaho Code, called the "Transparency in Financial Services Act." This new chapter applies to financial institutions with assets of more than $100 billion, as well as payment processors, credit card companies, credit card networks, payment networks, payment service providers, and payment gateways that have processed more than $100 billion in transactions in the last calendar year.
Under this legislation, these large institutions would be prohibited from "utilizing a social credit score to directly or indirectly decline to provide full and equal enjoyment in the provision of financial services" to a current or prospective client.
The bill contains a lengthy definition of "social credit score," which includes "any analysis, rating, scoring, list, or tabulation that evaluates" a person's constitutionally protected exercise of religion, speech, expression, or association.
The definition also encompasses a person's failure or refusal to "adopt any targets or disclosures related to greenhouse gas emissions beyond what is required by applicable law"; "conduct any type of racial, diversity, or gender audit or disclosure or to provide any sort of quota, preference, or benefit based, in whole or in part, on race, diversity, or gender beyond what is required by applicable law"; or "facilitate or assist employees in obtaining abortions or gender reassignment services."
The definition also includes participation in "lawful business associations or business activities" involving "the exploration, production, utilization, transportation, sale, or manufacture of fossil fuel-based energy; or the manufacture, distribution, wholesale, supply, or retail of firearms, firearm accessories, or ammunition" if such activities do not involve "quantifiable financial risks of a person based on impartial, financial risk-based standards" that have been "established in advance by the financial institution and publicly disclosed to customers and potential customers."
The bill provides that a customer who is denied service has up to 90 days to request "a detailed explanation of the basis for the denial or termination of service, including a description of any of the customer's speech, religious exercise, business activity with a particular industry, or other conduct that was, in whole or in part, the basis of the financial institution's denial or termination of service."
A violation of this law by a financial institution will be regarded as a violation of the consumer protection act.
In recent years, there has been a growing push to implement, either directly or indirectly, a "social credit score" system to discourage certain protected speech and behavior that goes against the "woke" agenda. This has included calls to "de-platform" and "de-bank" certain individuals.
It appears that Senate Bill 1027 is intended to protect certain constitutionally-protected rights, which a "social credit score" system might try to discourage, and to prevent large financial institutions from using their position in society to silence certain viewpoints in pursuit of an alternative social agenda.
(+1)
Does it give government any new, additional, or expanded power to prohibit, restrict, or regulate activities in the free market? Conversely, does it eliminate or reduce government intervention in the market?
All anti-discrimination laws involve a certain degree of government interference in the market. Chapter 59, Title 67, Idaho Code, governs the Idaho Commission on Human Rights and prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, or disability.
Senate Bill 1027 would modify this chapter by prohibiting discrimination on the basis of one's constitutionally protected exercise of religion, speech, expression, or association — but only by large financial institutions with assets (or transactions) over $100 billion.
If the underlying principle is that a business cannot deny service to customers based on their exercise of constitutionally protected rights, why wouldn't that principle apply universally, as do other anti-discrimination laws? Instead, the protections the bill extends to consumers are limited to large financial institutions.
Is the argument for singling out these institutions that once a firm reaches a certain size, its relationship and responsibilities to the consumer change? Is it because large financial institutions are seen as atypically necessary or unavoidable in modern society?
Applying different standards to different types and sizes of businesses risks becoming arbitrary and capricious, with those in power targeting institutions they dislike or distrust. If there is a justification for having different standards based on the size and purpose of a business, it should be plainly articulated in law.
(-1)
Does it violate the spirit or the letter of either the United States Constitution or the Idaho Constitution? Examples include restrictions on speech, public assembly, the press, privacy, private property, or firearms. conversely, does it restore or uphold the protections guaranteed in the US Constitution or the Idaho Constitution?
The core issue that Senate Bill 1027 addresses is the interplay between the free market and the exercise of constitutionally protected rights. These issues become increasingly complex in a society where individuals are effectively compelled by government to do business with nominally private businesses. Health care, utilities, insurance, and banking are just some examples of heavily regulated industries whose use by individuals is often less than fully voluntary.
As an overly simplified example, imagine that you have the constitutionally protected right to display a controversial bumper sticker on your vehicle, but doing so lowers your social credit score to the point where no automobile insurance company will do business with you. And yet you are legally required to maintain automobile insurance to drive on a public road.
A less theoretical example would be a nominally private hospital threatening to fire any employees who don't receive an experimental vaccine the government has decided to push.
In some cases, government directly violates individual rights that are recognized and protected by the Constitution. In other cases, indirect violations are perpetrated by external entities that may be under the influence of or beholden to government. In some cases, government can leverage its private sector allies to implement an agenda it cannot legally impose directly.
Senate Bill 1027 is not a perfect bill, but it is directionally correct in its efforts to protect individual rights.
(+1)
