Southern Poverty Law Center - Tennessee

Debunking ADF’s ‘Debanking’ Conspiracy Theory

rudy.isaza_2663 — Thu, 15 Aug 2024 14:33:47 +0000

Hatewatch

Anti-LGBTQ+ hate group Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) is engaged in an ongoing crusade to force private businesses to adhere to conservative Christian theology, in part by spreading the false narrative that private sector banks have been dropping conservative religious clients since the Obama administration. The conspiratorial claim, which ADF calls “debanking,” has arisen out of an ongoing effort from ADF to ban or disrupt private sector investments in diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) and environmental sustainability.

Debunking ADF’s ‘Debanking’ Conspiracy Theory

Despite the lack of evidence for any broad-based, anti-conservative Christian banking conspiracy, the idea has been gaining traction in the right-wing political sphere, even finding a sympathetic audience with some lawmakers.

Making a conspiracy

ADF’s senior vice president for corporate engagement, Jeremy Tedesco, testified about debanking at a March 7 hearing before the House Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government. His testimony largely centered on ADF’s yearslong legal, lobbying and public relations efforts to coerce boards of publicly traded companies to vote on anti-DEI policies, characterized as “viewpoint diversity” advocacy.

ADF claims that “debanking” is the result of government and corporate collusion to silence – and close the bank accounts of – conservative Christians. The government and banks, Tedesco claimed in his testimony, have shown an “unsettling willingness” to monitor “customers’ speech and religious exercise.”

By conflating the market consequences for supporting hate and extremism – such as customers choosing not to patronize and shareholders not investing in corporations that do business with extremist groups – ADF has perpetuated a false conspiracy theory that claims big government and big corporations are victimizing conservative Christians.

“The government can and will weaponize the financial marketplace against Americans for political benefit,” Tedesco warned. At the same time, he implored the committee to adopt a bill, the “Fair Access to Banking Act,” that would coerce banks and financial institutions to violate their corporate DEI values, forcing them to do business with hate and extremist groups.

In 2024, ADF has devoted significant resources to pushing the idea of “debanking” into the public sphere, even as the group claims that its own donations have suffered in the past five years as large, donor-advised funds question the group’s record of spreading anti-LGBTQ+ hate and extremism.

Tedesco’s public appearances suggest ADF is drawing on both Christian right and white nationalist themes to build its case for government regulation to stop what it characterizes as an anti-white and anti-Christian conspiracy.

In a May 16 interview with former Trump adviser Steve Bannon, who is now in federal prison for defying a congressional subpoena, Tedesco described “debanking” as an Obama-era “collusion” by banking regulators to secretly pressure financial institutions to drop conservative clients. “It’s definitely a newer phenomenon that really started under President Obama,” Tedesco claimed, describing a “secret” process in which “they can go to the banks and say, hey, you know, you’ve got this client that has some pretty negative publicity, we think it’s risky for you guys to continue to bank them. You should think about that.”

Tedesco claims that financial institutions, spurred on by federal regulators, use “reputational risk” policies that “ban hate speech or intolerance” to “restrict or deny service based on a customer’s speech or religion.” The claim is consistent with ADF’s attempts to link anti-LGBTQ+ extremism with the concept of “religious freedom” in international law and American foreign policy.

In both cases, ADF argues that the private sector and even other private religious groups should not be allowed to hold hate groups accountable for their extremist views. Instead, they assert, banks should be punished when they choose not to do business with groups that promote hate and extremism.

Other Christian-right personalities and conspiracy theorists have given ADF’s debanking claims even more urgency by amplifying perceived threats to conservative Christians and situating the “debanking” conspiracy theory within apocalyptic Christian theology.

“Debanking Christians is literally apocalyptic,” reads the headline of John Zmirak’s March 11 article in the Christian-right publication The Stream, in which Tedesco’s March 7 testimony to Congress is heavily featured. Debanking, Zmirak says, “closely parallels the text of [the New Testament Book of] Revelation.”

During a March 15 interview with Christian-right commentator Eric Metaxas, Tedesco described debanking as an “Orwellian” system of “collusion” between banks and the federal government to silence Christians.

“Are you paying attention that we’re in a war?” Metaxas asked his audience. “So, if you love God and the United States of America, you’re the bad guy according to these evil actors.”

As Hatewatch previously reported, Tedesco discussed debanking with far-right commentator Tim Pool in June. Tedesco described ADF’s work as “trying to stop the Biden administration weaponizing the federal government and private corporations against our First Amendment rights.” Pool replied: “I do also feel that it’s not just about white people, but also, it’s like if you’re a white Christian, it’s fair game. If you’re a white Christian man, good luck.”

Questionable claims

At the center of many recent ADF debanking narratives is a Tennessee-based nonprofit called Indigenous Advance Ministries, which also operates a for-profit debt collection service and call center in Uganda called Indigenous Advance Customer Center. In Tedesco’s March 7 testimony to Congress, he insinuated that Bank of America closed the accounts of both groups because it engaged in “viewpoint-based de-banking.”

However, ADF senior counsel Matt Sharp told the Chattanooga Times Free Press in February that it “remained unclear why the accounts were canceled.” The Times Free Press also quoted a Bank of America spokesperson who said the bank’s small business division “doesn’t offer banking services to organizations that provide debt collection services for a variety of risk-related considerations and doesn’t serve small businesses operating outside the United States.”

In 2024, ADF successfully used the narrative it created about Indigenous Advance Customer Center to advocate a first-of-its kind bill in Tennessee that would override some large banks’ corporate DEI policies, potentially compelling them to do business with hate and extremist groups.

In his testimony to Congress, Tedesco also claimed JPMorgan Chase “debanked” the National Committee for Religious Freedom (NCRF), a group led by former Kansas Gov. Sam Brownback whose board includes former ADF President Michael Farris. In a March 2023 Newsweek commentary, Brownback and Tedesco directly accused Chase of “debanking” the group because the bank asked NCRF for a list of its largest donors to comply with federal money-laundering laws, conflating the request for information with religious discrimination.

As Hatewatch previously reported, ADF’s viewpoint diversity initiative is supported by an advisory council full of far-right figures, many of whom have multibillion-dollar investment firms at their disposal. One, a former Morgan Stanley managing director named David Bahnsen, went after JPMorgan Chase with accusations of “debanking.”

As reported by Bloomberg in 2023, Bahnsen’s family trust submitted a proposal to JPMorgan Chase demanding the company investigate and report on “how it oversees risks” related to several categories such as “religion (including religious views) ... or political views, and whether such discrimination may impact individuals’ exercise of their constitutionally protected civil rights.”

The letter accompanying the proposal cited ADF’s 2022 Viewpoint Diversity Index and a statement co-authored by Viewpoint Diversity Score advisers that was sent to more than 50 financial institutions. The letter suggested an internal investigation by JPMorgan Chase was warranted because, it claimed, many businesses “push divisive concepts in employee trainings, openly discriminate against employees of faith, weaponize their capital and political clout to undermine free speech and religious freedom, and refuse to disclose public and private demands to cancel or ‘debank’ certain individuals or organizations.”

Brownback has since appeared with ADF at public events, warning of the threat of “debanking,” and his Newsweek commentary has been recycled by ADF and in a May 2023 letter by 19 state attorneys general who demanded JPMorgan Chase reform its policies.

After the JPMorgan Chase board decided not to vote on the Bahnsen proposal, ADF, assisted by the law firm Boyden Gray PLLC, filed a complaint with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). In March 2023, the SEC ruled in favor of Bahnsen and required the company’s shareholders to vote on the proposal. However, Bahnsen withdrew the proposal in 2024, prior to the shareholder vote.

Illustration at top: Alliance Defending Freedom claims that “debanking” is the result of government and corporate collusion to silence – and close the bank accounts of – conservative Christians. (Credit: ��Ҵ�ý)

R.G. Cravens

August 15, 2024

Melissa Wilson, et al. v. Darin Gordon, et al.

admin — Wed, 23 Jul 2014 16:39:17 +0000

TennCare

The ��Ҵ�ý filed a federal class action lawsuit against Tennessee for Medicaid practices that deprived thousands of people of health care coverage despite eligibility. These policies resulted in some residents – including those with serious medical conditions – going needlessly without health care.

According to the lawsuit, the state violated federal law by discontinuing in-person help for applicants to its Medicaid program, TennCare. Instead, Tennessee forced applicants to apply for TennCare through the federal Health Insurance Marketplace website, which was not designed for this purpose, causing some residents – including those with serious medical conditions — to go needlessly without health care.

The lawsuit came on the heels of a scathing letter the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) sent to state officials for failing to meet six of seven critical success factors required by federal health care law – easily making Tennessee the worst state in the nation for fulfilling its Medicaid obligations.

Under federal law, an application for Medicaid must be processed in 45 days. The decisions Tennessee made resulted in many applicants – including all the plaintiffs in this case – being forced to wait more than two or three times the maximum period, with dire consequences.

Plaintiff April Reynolds had attempted to get TennCare while putting off seeking medical treatment. She ended up in the hospital following a high blood pressure episode. A doctor later told the mother of three that she could have died if she had waited any longer to seek medical treatment.

The state also arbitrarily terminated coverage for newborns after they are carried out the hospital door – a direct violation of regulations governing its state child health plan, “CoverKids.” Many newborns were left without medical coverage during one of the most critical periods of their lives.

Another plaintiff, a baby identified as “S.G.,” was born two months premature. He was born into CoverKids coverage, but Tennessee revoked it the moment he left the hospital.

Shortly after the lawsuit was filed in 2014, a federal judge granted a preliminary injunction requiring the state to hold a fair hearing within 45 days for people whose Medicaid applications were unreasonably delayed, which created a critical method for those facing intolerable delays to finally get a decision.

The case went to trial in 2018, resulting in the judge finding the number of delayed applications had decreased and the state had committed to continue following the new procedures even if the case was closed. The court therefore vacated the preliminary injunction and closed the case.

Co-counsel included the Tennessee Justice Center and the National Health Law Program.

Date Filed

July 23, 2014

Status

Case closed

Issue Area

Economic Justice

Plaintiffs

Melissa Wilson, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated

Defendants

Wendy Long, et al.

Melissa Wilson, et al. v. Darin Gordon, et al.

Daniel Renteria-Villegas, et al., v. Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County, et al.

admin — Fri, 15 Jun 2012 19:42:24 +0000

Since 2007, the Davidson County Sheriff’s Office in Nashville, Tenn., had the power to enforce immigration law through the federal 287(g) program, even though the metropolitan government designated the Nashville Police Department as the primary law enforcement agency. The Southern Poverty Law Center joined a federal lawsuit in August 2011 to end the 287(g) agreement because it violated the Metropolitan Charter of Nashville and Davidson County.

The lawsuit argued that the Tennessee Supreme Court previously ruled that the Nashville Police Department was solely responsible for all prevention and detection of crimes, investigation and apprehension of criminals, and enforcement of criminal and civil laws. Since 1963, the Davidson County Sheriff's Office has had only two responsibilities: the safety and security of all inmates housed in Davidson County jails, and the service of all civil process.

The federal 287(g) program was created to allow immigration authorities to partner with local law enforcement to capture criminals who threaten communities or national security and are in violation of immigration law. A Congressional mandate prevents Immigration and Customs Enforcement from creating 287(g) programs in communities where the program would violate state and local laws.

Nashville’s 287(g) program, which allowed deputies of the Davidson County Sherriff’s Office to interrogate detainees and recommend deportation, clearly violated this mandate by having the sheriff’s office assume immigration enforcement duties.

One of the plaintiffs in the case, Daniel Renteria-Villegas, is a U.S. citizen who was arrested on Aug. 22, 2010, on a warrant that was dismissed for lack of probable cause. Even though he was born in Oregon, the Davidson County Sheriff's Office held him for possible immigration charges. They did not release him until Sept. 3, 2010.

The program also threatened to undermine public safety by creating a distrust of law enforcement. A 2009 ��Ҵ�ý report, Under Siege, found that nearly three-quarters of the Latinos surveyed in Nashville were more reluctant to cooperate with law enforcement due to the 287(g) agreement. Both documented and undocumented immigrants, as well as Latino U.S. citizens, said 287(g) programs made them fearful of law enforcement and reluctant to call them if victimized – actions that can make immigrant communities targets for criminals.

Date Filed

January 07, 2011

Issue Area

Immigrant Justice

Co-Counsel

Trina Realmuto, National Immigration Project of the National Lawyers Guild; Elliott Ozment and Andrew Free, the Immigration Law Offices of Elliott Ozment; and Bill Harbison and Phil Cramer, Sherrard & Roe.

Daniel Renteria-Villegas, et al., v. Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County, et al.

Juana Montano-Pérez, et al. v. Durrett Cheese Sales, Inc.

admin — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 18:52:28 +0000

Durrett Cheese case

A dozen Latino workers at a Tennessee cheese factory went weeks without pay and endured an abusive work environment before demanding paychecks from an employer, who then had them arrested, jailed and threatened with deportation.

The Southern Poverty Law Center filed a federal lawsuit charging that Durrett Cheese Sales of Manchester, Tenn., its president and several members of the Coffee County Sheriff's Department conspired to violate the rights of the workers by falsely charging them with trespassing after they stopped working and demanded paychecks that had been delayed several weeks.

Filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee in Nashville, the lawsuit alleges violation of federal law, including the Fair Labor Standards Act. It also alleges violation of the Tennessee Human Rights Act, infliction of emotional distress and malicious prosecution.

Durrett hired indigent Mexican workers to perform various jobs at the factory, including the slicing, packaging and processing of cheese.

The company specifically targeted members of the Mixteco indigenous group in the Manchester area to work at the factory. These workers were subjected to a hostile, intimidating and abusive work environment, where they were referred to as "stupid Indians" and "donkeys." Non-Latino workers did not experience the same delay in their paychecks, threats or derogatory remarks.

In a precedent-setting decision, the court denied a motion to dismiss the retaliation claims against members of the sheriff’s department named in the lawsuit. The court found the workers provided "significant factual support" in their allegations that they were arrested and reported to immigration authorities because of their complaints about pay. The court also found the workers had adequately alleged that their Fourth Amendment rights were violated by arrests without probable cause.

Date Filed

October 16, 2008

Date(s) of Disposition

None

Status

Ongoing

Court where filed

U.S. District Court, Middle District of Tennessee

Issue Area

Immigrant Justice

Plaintiffs

Juana Montano-Pérez, Maria Remedios Cervantes-Cano, Dalila Contreras-Martínez, Mercedes Gomez-Eugenio, Mario Ramirez-Mendoza, Flora Rivera-Pablo, Saraí Contreras-Martínez, Luciana Moreno-Lopez, Teresa Ayala-Rosales, Cirilo Castillo-Amaro, Carlos Rivera Pablo, Alvaro Salazar Ramirez

Defendants

Durrett Cheese Sales, Inc., and Greg Durrett, Chalres Jones, Ryan Barker, Chad Partin, Pam Freeman, Steve Graves, Coffee County, Tenn.

Juana Montano-Pérez, et al. v. Durrett Cheese Sales, Inc.

Southern Poverty Law Center - Tennessee

Debunking ADF’s ‘Debanking’ Conspiracy Theory

Debunking ADF’s ‘Debanking’ Conspiracy Theory

Making a conspiracy

Questionable claims

Melissa Wilson, et al. v. Darin Gordon, et al.

TennCare

Date Filed

Status

Issue Area

Plaintiffs

Defendants

Related Documents

Melissa Wilson, et al. v. Darin Gordon, et al.

Daniel Renteria-Villegas, et al., v. Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County, et al.

Date Filed

Issue Area

Related Documents

Co-Counsel

Daniel Renteria-Villegas, et al., v. Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County, et al.

Juana Montano-Pérez, et al. v. Durrett Cheese Sales, Inc.

Durrett Cheese case

Date Filed

Date(s) of Disposition

Status

Court where filed

Issue Area

Plaintiffs

Defendants

Related Documents

Juana Montano-Pérez, et al. v. Durrett Cheese Sales, Inc.