Fleming keeps on pressure against discrimination

It may not change any of their practices, but at least Louisianans can feel better about and take action form Republican Treas. John Fleming’s principled move that trends in the right direction against one corporate bully.

Fleming recently announced that the state no longer would authorize Bank of America to be an agent for financial matters, effectively removing any state monies deposited with it. This he justified on the basis that the firm refused to provide services to religious organizations, gun manufacturers, fossil fuel producers, and individuals on what only could be political grounds.

Regarding several of the instances Fleming cited, BOA repeatedly has refused to explain why it refused provision, indicating in one instance that a nonprofit organization promoting Christian ministry after years of a relationship had been declared “a business type we have chosen not to serve.” One state media source quoted a BOA functionary claiming that religious beliefs didn’t factor into these decisions, but didn’t address the reasons behind these specific instances, and never has even to the account holders. Indeed, the argument that BOA “provide[s] services to more than 100,000 non-profits affiliated with religious organizations” as a plea that religious belief isn’t relevant doesn’t deny that certain viewpoints are discriminated against.

With this, Fleming demonstrated welcome desire to continue in the footsteps of GOP former Treas. John Schroder, who also spearheaded action against firms that practiced viewpoint discrimination which generally emanated from environmental, social, and governance criteria. ESG is a nebulous concept that demands the conduct of business only for the purposes of following an agenda aligned with leftist political sentiments on these issues such as belief in catastrophic anthropogenic global warming, wokeism, and favored nationalities, and only with parties who agree with these political stances. Resistance to ESG by both those in government and business has begun to pressure firms committed to ESG to deemphasize that, although likely some are trying to continue it surreptitiously.

Fleming’s action if nothing else ensures that this uncomfortable spotlight remains and serves two salutary derivative purposes. First, it may inspire other individuals and businesses to refuse to do business with BOA, now and in the future, until it changes its practices and makes an explicit disavowal of discriminatory practices. Second, it draws attention to the absolute absurdity behind the ESG agenda.

Perhaps the best example of that is the clash between “net zero” – or that energy generation and consumption produce only as much carbon as can be removed from the atmosphere – and technological and geopolitical reality. Artificial intelligence development will demand significantly more energy that only can be supplied for many years to come by fossil fuels, and U.S. adversaries such as Red China only are accelerating their use of these as they are the cheapest source of power, making net zero a fantasy even assuming its huge costs to the public are tolerated.

So, maybe BOA or any other bad actor on this issue won’t change their ways by Fleming’s decision; after all, undoubtedly a state fully invested in ESG craziness like California has deposit opportunities that dwarfs Louisiana’s. But every little bit helps, it’s the right thing to do, and it can alert the wider public to the destructiveness of the views behind ESG. These make Fleming’s action wise and commendable.