Citigroup CEO Michael Corbat (from left), JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon and other top bank executives are sworn in before testifying before the House Financial Services Committee on Wednesday. (Mandel Ngan/AFP/Getty Images)

With much of the media’s attention lasered in on the public release of the Mueller Report, many news stories have flown under the radar. For example, on April 10th, House Democrats held a hearing to discuss the broader state of the financial system marking the first time since February 2009 that chief executives of the major banks appeared together at a congressional panel. The House Democrats used this opportunity to “examine the industry’s activities.” Chairwoman Maxine Waters has made her intentions clear to chief executives, either submit to progressive demands or subject your company to the progressive mob.

The Ranking member, Representative Patrick McHenry, said, “this is a hearing in search of a headline.”

Congress has consistently taken the opportunity to bash heads of Wall Street banks. This congressional hearing continued the pattern, where the House Majority Democrats rail on banks for engaging with “politically disfavored industries.” The Ranking member, Representative Patrick McHenry, said, “this is a hearing in search of a headline.” The likelihood of legislation successfully passing the Congress is slim with control of Congress being split.

Inevitably, members of the Committee used their time to address issues geared toward initiating debate on broad subjects. The Committee’s April 11th Press Release focus in on ten specific questions from Committee Democrats. The Democrat-led House Financial Services Committee’s intentions are clear and extremely alarming.

Representative Nydia Velazquez questioned Citi’s CEO, Michael Corbat, over the ratio between his salary and that of “the median pay of employees at his firm.” Representative Juan Vargas asked if the banks hire illegal immigrants protected under DACA and assist in their renewal applications. Chairwoman Maxine Waters strategically questioned the executives as to “whether the lenders had uncovered accounts tied to illicit Russian businesses.”

Representative Carolyn Maloney issued a request reminiscent of her previous inquiry of Wells Fargo CEO Tim Sloan, in which she advocates that JPMorgan executive, Jamie Dimon, “adopt a policy on ‘responsible business’ with the gun industry.” Dimon responded that each client must successfully go through a review process, and if wrongdoing is found then the risk committee halts business with that client. Chief executives from the other banks indicated that their companies had taken steps to evaluate their ties to the gun industry.

The House Financial Services Committee has used its oversight powers to go after politically disfavored industries. What makes these hearings so impactful is the ability to affect real-life change. In January, Wells Fargo announced that it would refrain from further marketing to private prison companies, “aiming to achieve the same objective by attrition.” In February, JPMorgan Chase released a similar announcement, saying it would no longer do business with private prisons.

Recent data concludes that national headlines about JPMorgan Chase and Wells Fargo ending their relationships with for-profit prison corporations undersell U.S. banks’ vital role in backing specific industries. Currently, Bank of America is “the only top-six bank in the United States providing credit to the for-profit prison industry.”

Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, a member of the House Financial Services Committee said, “we’re going to hold oversight hearings to make these banks accountable for investing in and making money off of the detention of immigrants.”

Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, a member of the House Financial Services Committee said, “we’re going to hold oversight hearings to make these banks accountable for investing in and making money off of the detention of immigrants.” Amazingly, Wells Fargo’s February announcement addressed the business of detention, “environmental and social risks other customers pose, including those involved in oil and gas drilling, coal mining, payday lending, forestry-and, yes, gun making.” The bank’s willingness to re-evaluate business relationships because of political pressure rings reminiscent of the Department of Justice’s Operation Choke Point.

Operation Choke Point, a joint federal investigative task force by the Obama Department of Justice, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation and the Office of Comptroller of the Currency, demonstrates a successful attempt by politically-motivated actors to pressure banks in disassociating with specific industries. Unsealed emails and court depositions prove “government officials illegally targeted lawful businesses in an ideological crusade based on personal disdain. If there were other reasons at play, these regulators would not have needed to resort to backroom pressure tactics.” These federal regulators expanded their guidance on “reputational risk” to include businesses deemed harmful to a bank. Financial Fraud Enforcement Task Force Executive Director Michael Bresnickat centered the task force’s attention on financial institutions and payment processors because regulators view them as bottlenecks, or choke-points. Often times, regulators view these institutions as complicit in potentially illicit schemes, making financial institutions the preferable target of regulatory enforcement.

Issues addressed to banks in these House Financial Service Committee hearings will potentially be the focus of future Democrat-led federal regulators under the guise of reputational risk. Even if Democrats are unable to take back control of the Executive and Legislative branches, precedent has proven that government pressure is sufficient to “move the needle” on issues of concern to Democrats. Government concern over specific issues is certainly more favorable than enforceable legislation, but the best outcome is for banks to follow Tim Sloan’s mantra: “We just don’t believe it is a good idea for banks to enforce legislation that doesn’t exist.”

Mitchell Nemeth holds a Master in the Study of Law from the University of Georgia School of Law. His work has been featured at the Foundation for Economic Education and The Red & Black.