Banks lose federal privileges if they deny service to lawful—but politically disfavored—businesses.
H.R. 987 — Fair Access to Banking Act · Filed by Andy Barr (R-KY) · 150 cosponsors · Introduced Feb 5, 2025 · Referred to committee
Your members of Congress
Enter a ZIP to see where your representative and both senators stood on this bill.
Looked up on this device — your ZIP is never stored on our servers.
What it does
This bill prohibits large banks, credit unions, and payment card networks from denying financial services to lawful businesses based on subjective political or reputational concerns. It bars these institutions from accessing Federal Reserve discount window lending, FDIC insurance, and ACH network access if they refuse service to compliant customers. The bill creates a private right of action allowing denied customers to sue for treble damages and attorney fees.
Why we flagged it
The bill's core mechanism is a mandate requiring large financial institutions to serve lawful customers on impartial risk-based criteria, backed by loss of regulatory privileges and private litigation rights. It is not deregulation but rather a constraint on private discretion in a regulated sector.
What the text implies
- The bill's definition of 'reputational risk' as an impermissible basis for denial is vague; banks may face litigation over whether a denial was truly risk-based or pretextually reputational, creating significant compliance uncertainty.
- Treble damages and mandatory attorney fees create strong incentives for litigation; even marginal denials may trigger suits, potentially raising compliance costs that banks pass to all customers.
- The bill does not define which 'lawful' sectors are protected—it applies to any business lawful under federal law, potentially including industries (e.g., cannabis, firearms, adult services) that remain illegal in some states or face federal enforcement uncertainty.
- Large banks lose discount window access, FDIC insurance eligibility, and ACH access if they violate the standard, but the bill does not specify how the OCC will enforce or adjudicate disputes before such severe penalties apply.
- Payment card networks face civil penalties of up to 10% of transaction value per violation, which could be interpreted to apply to each transaction, creating exposure in the billions for large networks.
Section numbers refer to the bill text the analysis read — linked under Primary records below.
Who it affects
The bill protects lawful businesses (including politically disfavored sectors) from arbitrary financial exclusion, a genuine public benefit. However, it constrains banks' risk-management discretion and creates broad private litigation rights that may increase compliance costs passed to consumers, and the vague standard of 'reputational risk' leaves substantial room for dispute and litigation.
Who stands to gain
- Lawful businesses denied banking services (firearms manufacturers, cannabis retailers, cryptocurrenc
- Litigation firms (private right of action with treble damages and attorney fees)
Named in the bill
Federal Reserve, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), Federal Credit Union Act, Electronic Fund Transfer Act, Payment card networks (Visa, Mastercard, American Express), Large banks (>$50B assets), Credit unions (>$50B assets)
Where it stands
150 cosponsors: 150 Republicans.
- Feb 5, 2025 — Introduced · Congress.gov: “Introduced in House”
- Feb 5, 2025 — Referred to House Committee on Financial Services · Congress.gov: “Referred to the House Committee on Financial Services”
Dates and quoted wording are Congress.gov's action record; the timeline shows status changes, not every procedural step.
Money around this bill
10 lobbying clients named this bill on 19 disclosure filings across 3 quarters, Dec 2025 to Jun 2026. Those filings disclosed $17,860,000 in lobbying spend. A filing names 17 bills on average, so that figure is what each filing reported, not a share belonging to this bill.
More lobbying clients named this bill than 91% of bills with at least one filing.
Andy Barr, the sponsor, reported $2,160,072 in PAC receipts in the 2026 cycle.
- National Shooting Sports Foundation — $7,820,000 on 4 filings
- American Bankers Association — $5,210,000 on 2 filings
- Citigroup Washington, Inc. — $1,330,000 on 1 filing
- National Rifle Association of America — $990,000 on 2 filings
- Corecivic Inc — $980,000 on 2 filings
Lobbying Disclosure Act filings through Jul 20, 2026. A filing shows who paid to lobby on a bill it names, not what changed.
How this was measured
Analysis — Quorum's AI read the bill text published by Congress.gov (13,742 characters) on May 19, 2026. Section numbers in the findings refer to that text, linked below; transparency and hidden-provision scores are compared against the median of 16,222 analysed bills.
Status and sponsors — Congress.gov's bill record — actions, committee referrals and cosponsors — loaded nightly. The timeline shows status changes, not every procedural action.
Money — Senate Lobbying Disclosure Act filings whose specific-issue field names this bill for quarters ending Dec 2025 to Jun 2026. A filing's amount is reported whole beside the median number of bills a filing names; it is never divided across them. PAC receipts are FEC-reported contributions to the sponsor's candidate committee in the 2026 cycle.
As of — lobbying records through Jul 20, 2026 · page rendered 2026-10-20.
“Banks lose federal privileges if they deny service to lawful—but politically disfavored—businesses.” QuorumCivic. https://share.quorumcivic.app/bill/119/hr987 Report an error
The week in bills
One email, Sunday: what Congress passed, what it changed, and who paid.
One link arrives to confirm the address. It is used for this email and nothing else, and every issue carries an unsubscribe link.