Relating to financial institutions engaged in boycotts of firearms companies
Impact
The implications of SB112 are considerable, as it seeks to support the firearms industry by penalizing financial institutions that refuse to do business with such companies under political or ideological motives. The Treasurer will regularly update and publicly share this restricted list, but will also send notices to the institutions informing them of their inclusion on the list. This new approach aims to discourage financial entities from participating in economic boycotts that could impact gun manufacturers, thereby reinforcing the state's support for the Second Amendment rights.
Summary
Senate Bill 112 aims to amend the Code of West Virginia by introducing measures related to financial institutions that engage in boycotts against firearms companies. The bill designates the State Treasurer with the responsibility to prepare and maintain a 'restricted financial institution list' that identifies banks and financial entities engaging in such boycotts. Institutions on this list would be excluded from state banking contracts and would face potential disqualification from competing for financial service contracts with the State of West Virginia, unless they can prove they are not participating in boycotts against firearms companies.
Sentiment
Reactions to SB112 have been varied. Proponents argue that the legislation is necessary to protect the rights of firearm manufacturers and to prevent discrimination against them by financial institutions. They view it as a means of asserting economic sovereignty against perceived corporate activism targeting gun ownership. Conversely, opponents raise concerns about the ramifications of such a bill on free enterprise principles and the market dynamics, suggesting that it could inhibit financial institutions' abilities to make independent business decisions without government interference.
Contention
Key points of contention include the interpretation of what constitutes a 'boycott' of the firearms industry and the potential risks of creating a government-managed financial infrastructure that may struggle to remain neutral in business dealings. Critics fear that the bill may set a precedent where the state government intervenes in financial markets to mandate participation or exclusion from certain contracts based on political stances, leading to further polarization around economic decisions in the state.
Prohibiting discrimination by financial services companies on the basis of social credit score and requiring registered investment advisers to obtain written consent from clients prior to investing client moneys in mutual funds, equity funds, companies and financial institutions that engage in ideological boycotts.
A bill for an act concerning public contracts with companies that boycott certain companies or that engage in nonpecuniary social investment policies.(See SF 507.)
A bill for an act concerning public contracts with companies that boycott certain companies or that engage in nonpecuniary social investment policies.(Formerly SSB 1094.)