Credit Cards

This category includes credit cards in generalsee debt

3/18Facebook has removed the page of violent fascist organisation Britain First -- which had posted videos comparing immigrants to animals and describes its leaders as “islamophobic and proud”.Two of Britain First’s leaders are currently in jail for racist hate crimes. Yet, Mastercard, Visa and American Express continue to process donations for the hate group.Racist groups can't operate without money.SumOfUs members have already pushed Paypal to stop processing funding for the violent French white supremacist group Génération Identitaire. Now, let’s make the credit card giants take responsibility and cut all ties with Britain First.facing so:
there are sub-prime credit cards?
Some of the deals Steele made between SCLC and business interests

proved controversial. In 2008, for example, an op-ed bearing Steele's

byline appeared in a number of Southern U.S. newspapers criticizing

federal legislation to reduce credit card fees by arguing that it would

boost the profits of major retailers including Wal-Mart. But it turned

out Steele didn't write the editorial and was angry the P.R. firm that

did put his name on it because, as the Washington Post <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/28/AR2008072802260.html">reported</a>,

Wal-Mart "is listed on the SCLC's Web site as a sponsor of the

organization. No one at the SCLC would want to insult a large

benefactor."

That same year, Steele had an op-ed published in the Washington Post

that noted the devastating effect the subprime mortgage crisis was

having on minority homeowners. But rather than supporting proposals to

better regulate credit markets, Steele attacked them -- while defending

companies that issued high-interest credit cards to people with bad

credit. As Mother Jones <a href="http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2008/08/civil-rights-groups-defending-predatory-lenders-priceless">observed</a>

at the time, that's not altogether surprising when you consider that a

year earlier "the SCLC formed a partnership with CompuCredit, a subprime

credit card issuer and payday lending company."

The Federal Trade Commission eventually sued CompuCredit for unfair and

deceptive trade practices and for violating the Fair Debt Collection

Practices Act, charging that it cheated consumers out of more than $200

million through a scheme in which they paid so much in fees that they

had little credit available.

But Steele defended the company even then, saying that it "has been a true friend to the SCLC."
pro publ
ow banks handle delinquent accounts is largely shielded from public

scrutiny. They aren’t required to disclose how many suits they file. And

the role of debt buyers — companies that purchase accounts from banks

at a steep discount, then try to collect — further obscures what happens

to customers who don’t pay.

To generate a national estimate for Capital One’s suits, ProPublica

looked to Encore Capital Corp., the nation’s biggest debt buyer, which

voluntarily disclosed the number of suits it had filed nationally until

That year, the company reported having filed 517,000 suits.

Capital One filed about 40 percent more collection suits than Encore

in 2010 in the states for which ProPublica has data, indicating that the

bank filed at least half a million suits that year nationally and

potentially hundreds of thousands more. Our data showed even more suits

in the two preceding years.

Capital One declined to respond to this comparison or provide a count of its suits.

After 2010, Encore Capital, <a href="http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702304510704575562212919179410">under scrutiny for its litigation practices</a>,

stopped disclosing the number of suits it had filed. A spokesperson for

Encore did not explain the decision beyond saying, “as we have

diversified and grown as a company, we continue to evaluate what

disclosures are appropriate for our investors.”

Because some banks sell their defaulted accounts to debt buyers like

Encore, it is impossible to determine how many of their customers were

ultimately sued. The three largest card issuers, Citibank, Bank of

America, and JPMorgan Chase, have sold accounts to debt buyers in the

past, according to court filings.

Capital One has also sold debt in the past. Stead, the bank’s

spokeswoman, declined to provide detail on its debt-selling practices,

but said the bank’s “strong preference” is to do its own collecting.

The lack of transparency leaves both borrowers and policymakers in

the dark, said April Kuehnhoff, an attorney at the National Consumer Law

Center. “We need more data about debt-collection practices by both debt

buyers and original creditors so that we can improve debt collection

laws,” she said.

ProPublica contacted the six largest card issuers for this story, and

all were guarded when it came to details about their approach to

collections.

Citibank and Bank of America declined to respond to questions. Chase stopped filing lawsuits or selling its debt in 2011, after <a href="http://www.americanbanker.com/issues/177_52/jpmorgan-chase-credit-card-collections-1047573-1.html">a whistleblower</a> identified flaws in the bank’s collection practices. Those problems led to <a href="http://www.occ.gov/news-issuances/news-releases/2013/nr-occ-2013-139.html">a consent agreement</a> with regulators in 2013.

Discover filed the second-most suits, according to ProPublica’s

analysis. It, too, declined to comment. Like Capital One, Discover’s

volume of suits was also disproportionately large given the bank’s

relatively small market share — Discover is the sixth-largest card

issuer.

American Express, the fifth-largest issuer, filed relatively few

suits. Spokeswoman Sonya Conway said the bank has not sold its debt in

the past six years and had no plans to do so.

Federal regulators say they are alert to the potential for abuse

through debt collection lawsuits, but it’s unclear that consumers should

expect any more transparency in the near term.

Banks should “consider the risks of excessive litigation,” said Bryan

Hubbard, spokesman for the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency.

The regulator has also <a href="http://www.occ.gov/news-issuances/news-releases/2013/nr-occ-2013-116.html">publicly urged banks,</a> when selling debts to buyers, to “consider selecting debt buyers who limit their use of litigation.”

While the agency says it closely monitors banks’ collection

practices, that scrutiny does not extend to tracking the number of

lawsuits each bank files. Hubbard said the agency does not consider the

number of lawsuits “an effective indicator of bank safety and soundness

or compliance.”

The federal Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is in the process of <a href="http://www.consumerfinance.gov/newsroom/cfpb-considers-debt-collection-rules/">writing new rules for debt collection</a>

that are expected to cover a wide range of activities, including the

filing of lawsuits. A spokeswoman declined to comment on whether the

CFPB tracked the number of collection lawsuits filed by banks or planned

to in the future.

A number of the bureau’s past enforcement actions have centered on

debt collection litigation practices. It filed suit against the largest

collections firm in Georgia, Frederick J. Hanna & Associates, which

counts Capital One among its clients. <a href="http://www.consumerfinance.gov/newsroom/cfpb-files-suit-against-debt-collection-lawsuit-mill/">Calling the firm a “debt collection lawsuit mill,”</a>

the CFPB alleged attorneys often filed suits with faulty information.

The law firm disputes the allegations, and the suit is ongoing.==

2011 bill http://money.usnews.com/money/blogs/my-money/2012/03/23/the-costly-tax-trap-of-debt-forgiveness

===

<b style="font-weight: bold; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: 24px; text-align: left; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;">THE DEBT LOBBY:<span style="font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: 24px; text-align: left; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; float: none; display: inline !important;"> While lawmakers debate solutions to the national debt problem on Capitol Hill, many Americans are struggling with a different sort of debt. The <i style="font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: 24px; text-align: left; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;">New York Times<a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/lookup2.php?strID=C00040535&cycle=2010" style="background-color: transparent; text-decoration: none; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: 24px; text-align: left; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;">reports</a><span style="font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: 24px; text-align: left; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; float: none; display: inline !important;"> that in 2010, the national student loan burden surpassed the national credit card debt burden for the first time in history. Projections show that the student loan burden is likely to soon pass $1 trillion.<br style="font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: 24px; text-align: left; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;" />

<span style="font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: 24px; text-align: left; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; float: none; display: inline !important;">Both credit card companies and student loan providers have an active presence in Washington D.C., and despite the student loan burden outpacing the credit card burden, credit card companies spend far more money on political campaigns, the <a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/" style="background-color: transparent; text-decoration: none; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: 24px; text-align: left; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;">Center for Responsive Politics</a><span style="font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: 24px; text-align: left; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; float: none; display: inline !important;">' research indicates. During the 2010 election cycle, student loan companies contributed $410,500 to federal candidates, while <a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/lookup2.php?strID=C00365122&cycle=2010" style="background-color: transparent; text-decoration: none; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: 24px; text-align: left; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;">Visa</a><span style="font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: 24px; text-align: left; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; float: none; display: inline !important;">,<a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/lookup2.php?strID=C00410274&cycle=2010" style="background-color: transparent; text-decoration: none; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: 24px; text-align: left; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;"> Mastercard</a><span style="font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: 24px; text-align: left; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; float: none; display: inline !important;"> and<a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/clientsum.php?lname=American+Express&year=2010" style="background-color: transparent; text-decoration: none; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: 24px; text-align: left; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;">American Express</a><span style="font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: 24px; text-align: left; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; float: none; display: inline !important;"> alone donated more than $1.1 million.<br style="font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: 24px; text-align: left; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;" />

<b style="font-weight: bold; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: 24px; text-align: left; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;">WAL-MART'S D.C. CLOUT: <span style="font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: 24px; text-align: left; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; float: none; display: inline !important;">If you've noticed that your favorite brand of cereal has been absent from the shelves of your local <a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.php?id=D000000367" style="background-color: transparent; text-decoration: none; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: 24px; text-align: left; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;">Wal-Mart</a><span style="font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: 24px; text-align: left; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; float: none; display: inline !important;">, take heart. Yesterday, the major retailer announced that it will be bringing back over 8,500 products, many of which had been pulled in recent months due to budgetary concerns. To accommodate these new items, the <i style="font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: 24px; text-align: left; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;">Los Angeles Times<span style="font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: 24px; text-align: left; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; float: none; display: inline !important;"> <a href="http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-wal-mart-20110412,0,4985114.story" target="blank" style="background-color: transparent; text-decoration: none; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: 24px; text-align: left; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;">reports</a><span style="font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: 24px; text-align: left; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; float: none; display: inline !important;">  that many Wal-Mart stores will be raising their ceilings and placing items in the middles of aisles. <a href="http://walmartstores.com/pressroom/news/10573.aspx" target="blank" style="background-color: transparent; text-decoration: none; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: 24px; text-align: left; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;">According to Wal-Mart</a><span style="font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: 24px; text-align: left; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; float: none; display: inline !important;">, customers will be able to identify the returning products by nearby "It's back!" tags

===

<a href="http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/credit/">http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/credit/</a> 2004 ben stein eliz warren

<a href="http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/credit/interviews/mierzwinski.html">http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/credit/interviews/mierzwinski.html</a>

So you're saying you're not being listened to in Washington?

Actually, I really do think, as a consumer advocate, I wouldn't do this if I didn't believe I was making a difference, that we make a difference, that the people in the communities listen to us. The stories in the newspapers and on television are normally accurate. I think that when we speak we're listened to, but the problem is, when 10 credit card guys then speak, even though the Congressman or her staff might think, "Oh, it's a little sketchy whatever they're saying, and I'm not really clear that that makes sense," ... when 10 credit card company lobbyists all say the same thing, and there's only one consumer advocate saying it, it's simply -- we're overwhelmed. We become white noise in the background compared to their very powerful message.

The credit card companies buy television ads, they buy newspaper ads, and they buy tickets to political events. All the consumer groups do is testify before Congress and talk to the press whenever we get the chance, and we talk to the members of Congress. But again, we just don't have the numbers. That's the difference.

Are they getting bad laws passed?

It's partly that some bad laws are being passed, but it's more with this particular industry, credit cards, they have managed to prevent Congress from investigating and conducting the oversight that Congress is supposed to do of their practices. … The courts and the regulators have taken away the right of the states to investigate or regulate the credit card companies, but Congress has fallen down on the job. So first, Congress is doing nothing about the problems in the credit card industry.

Second, the credit card industry wants new laws, such as the bankruptcy law, the outrageous, unfair bankruptcy law, and they've come very close to enacting it. They have bipartisan support. [It] would be shocking to the public to realize how many members of Congress backed the credit card industry's attempt to put Americans in debtors' prison without regulating the unfair practices of the credit card industry at the same time, even if you agreed that we needed to change the bankruptcy laws, which most people don't.

What, in your view, are the problems of the credit card industry?

Well, I think people should understand the credit card industry is a very concentrated pyramid. There are a few very large companies that dominate the business. Maybe 10 companies have 90 percent of all credit card accounts; all credit card payments owed are owed to 10 companies. Doesn't matter that 6,000 credit unions and tiny banks might offer a credit card -- these 10 companies control the business.

The main practices of the credit card industry that hurt consumers: First, many of them are doubling or tripling your interest rate if you miss one payment or if your credit score declines, even if you miss a payment to a different company, they could increase your interest rate. So first, penalty interest rates for missing one payment. Second, deceptive and misleading offers of zero percent interest or $100,000 limits on a titanium card that nobody qualifies for. And third, they lie to us about how much it costs to have a credit card. The credit card companies refuse to tell us that if we only make the minimum payment that they request, that it could take seven to 15 years to pay off even a $1,000 balance, even if we never use the card again. ...

What about the American Bankers Association? What do they do?

The credit card industry has several associations that back its play; they may have coalitions. The American Bankers Association is the largest and most powerful. It claims to represent all the banks, big and small, in America. They lobby on the Hill. They're there every single day. Some of the credit card companies might not have a full-time office in Washington. The Bankers Association represents them and has many lobbyists, many PR flacks, many people out there putting out this message that credit cards are good. ...

So the Bankers Association functions as a trade association. It runs its own political action committee. It's the eyes and the ears on the ground for the entire banking industry. It's unfortunately a very powerful lobby that has a lot of sway over the banking committees. ...

</td></tr></tbody></table>

...

So this brings us to states' rights.

... Congress rarely acts to protect consumers unless the states act first or there is a scandal. …

So consumer groups believe that federal law only functions well when the states are coming up with new ideas to make federal law better. Congress is a very big ball to push up a hill, and it's easier to get a push on it if we have several state ideas pushing as well. If you take away the right of the states to enact stronger laws, you almost guarantee that Congress will do nothing and will become captive to the regulated industries. The industry argues that the states, if they're allowed to pass different laws, will pass different laws, and we'll have 50 laws even though we have a national marketplace. That's absurd. All the states do is come up with new ideas.

California is a real hotbed of new consumer laws, for example. If California passes a new privacy law, other states copy the exact California law. What is the reason that they would pass a different privacy law? It makes more sense to say: "Here's a good one that California passed. We'll pass the same one." …

The California privacy law, what does it call for?

Congress in 1999 passed a law that allowed banks to merge with insurance companies and stock brokerages and create massive financial supermarkets. Thousands of companies could be owned under one company's umbrella. But there were many privacy invasions going on at the time, privacy nightmares that scared some members of Congress, so that Congress also said in that law: "Let's have some privacy disclosures. Tell people your privacy policy, or you cannot share information with either other affiliated companies or with third-party companies." But the Congress at the time knew it didn't do enough with that law, so it said, for once, "Let the states pass stronger laws."

California and other states tried to enact laws that gave consumers the right to control sharing of their personal information for secondary uses. We're not against sharing to make our credit card or our ATM card work, or so that we only have to call the bank once if we move and have a new address but have six accounts. We're not against that kind of sharing. We're against banks making unregulated decisions about our credit qualifications. We're against banks sharing information with telemarketers who then make junk offers pretending that they are part of the bank when they're not. ...

California passed a law that said banks can't share information with affiliated companies unless they ask us our permission and give us the right to say no, and they can't then share information with third-party companies unless we say yes in advance. Federal law says banks can share information with either affiliated companies or most third parties, even if we say no. . ... Jackie Speier is the California state senator. The Speier law, known as SB 1, gives consumers financial privacy rights in California. Before a bank can share information with affiliated companies, it has to give us the right to say no or opt out. Before it can share information with third-party companies, it has to ask our permission, and we have to say yes. Federal law gives us no rights in most of those circumstances. We only have the limited right to say no when they want to share with some third-party telemarketers. ...

In Europe and most of the world, your privacy rights are protected in almost every transaction that you make. In the United States, your strongest privacy rights actually have to do with the names of the videos that you rent. No company can share the names of the videos that you rent without your express permission. But your bank can share the confidential details of all of your transactions, where you use your credit card, how much money you have in any of your accounts, who are the cosigners of your accounts, whether you have written checks to this company or that company, any information about stocks, pensions that you have with affiliated companies. If you fill out applications with the bank, all the information that they can collect on you can be shared no matter what your choice is under federal law. California did something about that, and the OCC backed the American Bankers Association in trying to defeat the law. It's now before the appellate courts where the banks are trying to overturn the law, because the district court said this law stands.

Fair credit protection last year was the issue for the banks. Why was it the issue for the banks, and did they get what they wanted?

The banks got what they wanted in the Fair Credit Reporting Act. They got permanent limits on state authority to enact stronger laws in some areas of credit reporting. Credit reports are financial résumés collected by third-party companies that are used for credit decision making. In the 1996 Congress, the law was strengthened because of a lot of mistakes the companies were making. And for eight years after 1996, states were limited in some ways. Last year Congress limited the states permanently from enacting stronger laws in a number of areas. ... It was a major, major campaign by every bank, every trade association, every car finance company, every mortgage company, every insurance company. The entire financial industry, not only the credit card companies, lobbied for permanent limits on state authority to enact stronger credit reporting laws.

So what does that mean for the credit card industry? What does fair credit reporting do?

The law that allows the banks to market credit card solicitations to us -- "You have been preapproved for this credit card because of your excellent credit rating" -- is the Fair Credit Reporting Act. So the limits on state authority prevent the states from enacting any law that restricts the deceptive marketing of credit card offers to consumers or gives consumers greater rights to prevent credit card marketing to them. It also limits the authority of states to regulate credit card companies that make mistakes to the credit bureaus, and it prevents the states from ordering the credit card companies not to deceive the credit bureaus.

===

DeLay supported the <a href="http://webbrain.com/index.php?title=Bankruptcy_Abuse_Prevention_and_Consumer_Protection_Act_of_2005" title="Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005" style="text-decoration: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005</a>. Critics of this law have argued that it unduly favors creditors over consumers, and have stated that the credit card industry spent millions of dollars lobbying in support of the act.

visa cc accidentally deleted

===

<a href="http://www.democracynow.org/2013/5/29/julian_assange_stratfor_hacker_jeremy_hammond">http://www.democracynow.org/2013/5/29/julian_assange_stratfor_hacker_jeremy_hammond</a>  says pressured banks to prevent wikileaks for getting donation

ja claims repeatedly won in icelandic ct  Visa  Free Press Fdn cusak, ellsberg, workaround JPB

===

Visa, Inc. is an American multinational financial services corporation, currently headquartered in San Mateo, California.

VisaNet, their global network, processed $4.4 trillion in transactions in 2009, 62 billion individual transactions in all. <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Visa#cite_note-0">[1]</a> Visa, Inc. had $2.966 billion in net income in 2010, and $33.408 billion in total assets. <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Visa#cite_note-1">[2]</a>

Visa started with Bank Of America's BankAmericard credit card program in Fresno, California in 1958. It was initially considered somewhat disastrous by the end of the following year, with 22% of accounts becoming delinquent. <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Visa#cite_note-2">[3]</a> After a massive effort to clean up their books and public image <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Visa#cite_note-3">[4]</a>, in 1965 BofA was able to offer the card outside California.

Visa now facilitates electronic funds transfers internationally, principally via credit cards and debit cards. They do not issue these cards - they provide banks and other financial institutions payment products used to offer credit, debit, prepaid or cash-access programs to customers. <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Visa#cite_note-4">[5]</a> They hold a 38.3% market share of the credit card marketplace and 60.7% of the debit card marketplace in the U.S.

In 2003, Visa settled an antitrust lawsuit brought by a class of U.S. merchants, including Walmart. Visa and MasterCard settled plaintiffs' claims for $3.05 billion. <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Visa#cite_note-5">[6]</a>

In December, 2010, Visa reached another antitrust settlement, with the European Union. Also on December 7, 2010, Visa Europe suspended payments to WikiLeaks, saying it was awaiting an investigation into "the nature of its business and whether it contravenes Visa operating rules." <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Visa#cite_note-6">[7]</a> The United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay stated that Visa may be "violating WikiLeaks' right to freedom of expression" by withdrawing their services. <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Visa#cite_note-7">[8]</a>

Visa, Inc. spent $6,880,000 on lobbying in 2011, all of it funneled through their Visa USA subsidiary. The funds principally went into Banking, Finance, Homeland Security, Small Business, and Gaming, Gambling & Casinos issues. <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Visa#cite_note-8">[9]</a>

<h2>Ties to the American Legislative Exchange Council</h2>

Visa has been a corporate funder of the <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/American_Legislative_Exchange_Council" title="American Legislative Exchange Council">American Legislative Exchange Council</a> (ALEC) and was a "Chairman"-level sponsor of 2011 ALEC Annual Conference<a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Visa#cite_note-2011_Conference_Sponsors-9">[10]</a> ($50,000 in 2010)<a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Visa#cite_note-Sponsorship_Levels-10">[11]</a>, and sponsor of the August 5th, 2011, Plenary Session speech of <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/FreedomWorks" title="FreedomWorks">FreedomWorks</a>' <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Dick_Armey" title="Dick Armey">Dick Armey</a>.<a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Visa#cite_note-Corporate_Chairs-11">[12]</a> Also they are a member of ALEC's <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Commerce,_Insurance_and_Economic_Development_Task_Force" title="Commerce, Insurance and Economic Development Task Force">Commerce, Insurance and Economic Development Task Force</a>.<a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Visa#cite_note-CIEDNOLA-12">[13]</a>

Paul Russinoff is ALEC's <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/ALEC_Corporations" title="ALEC Corporations">Private Sector Member</a> of the Year in 2012.<a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Visa#cite_note-SLC_Agenda-13">[14]</a>

See <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/ALEC_Corporations" title="ALEC Corporations">ALEC Corporations</a> for more.

About ALEC

</th></tr><tr><td style="">

<div style="padding: 2px 5px;"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/ALEC" title="ALEC" class="mw-redirect">ALEC</a> is a corporate bill mill. It is not just a lobby or a front group; it is much more powerful than that. Through ALEC, corporations hand state legislators their wishlists to benefit their bottom line. Corporations fund almost all of ALEC's operations. They pay for a seat on ALEC task forces where corporate lobbyists and special interest reps vote with elected officials to approve “model” bills. Learn more at the Center for Media and Democracy's <a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="http://alecexposed.org/">ALECexposed.org</a>, and check out breaking news on our <a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="http://www.PRWatch.org">PRWatch.org site</a>.</div>

</td></tr></tbody></table>

<h2>Contact Information</h2>

Visa, Inc.

595 Market Street

San Francisco, CA

Phone: (415) 543-3602

Website: <a rel="nofollow" class="external free" href="http://corporate.visa.com">http://corporate.visa.com</a>

<h2>References</h2>

<li id="cite_note-0"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Visa#cite_ref-0">↑</a> Visa Operational Performance Data "<a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="http://phx.corporate-ir.net/External.File?item=UGFyZW50SUQ9MzY3MzcxfENoaWxkSUQ9MzYyNzMxfFR5cGU9MQ==&t=1">Q1 FY2010 Quarterly Earnings, February 3, 2010</a>".</li>

<li id="cite_note-1"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Visa#cite_ref-1">↑</a> Securities & Exchange Commission "<a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1403161/000119312510265236/d10k.htm">Form 10-K Transition Report</a> organization website".</li>

<li id="cite_note-2"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Visa#cite_ref-2">↑</a> Joseph Nocera, A Piece of the Action: How The Middle Class Joined the Money Class (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1995), 30</li>

<li id="cite_note-3"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Visa#cite_ref-3">↑</a> Joseph Nocera, 30-33</li>

<li id="cite_note-4"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Visa#cite_ref-4">↑</a> Visa "<a rel="nofollow" class="external autonumber" href="http://corporate.visa.com/about-visa/our-business-index.shtml">[1]</a>" organization website, accessed July 25, 2012</li>

<li id="cite_note-5"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Visa#cite_ref-5">↑</a> Department of Justice "<a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="http://www.justice.gov/atr/cases/f227900/227980.htm#cb">The Wal-Mart Litigation And The Settlement Service Fee</a>" U.S. v Visa, Inc., The Wal-Mart Litigation And The Settlement Service Fee</li>

<li id="cite_note-6"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Visa#cite_ref-6">↑</a> Associated Press "<a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="http://www.salon.com/2011/01/26/wikileaks_not_breaking_law">No proof WikiLeaks breaking law, inquiry finds</a>" January 26, 2011</li>

<li id="cite_note-7"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Visa#cite_ref-7">↑</a> Navi Pillay "<a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="http://www.unmultimedia.org/tv/unifeed/d/16541.html">UNTV</a>" December 9, 2010</li>

<li id="cite_note-8"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Visa#cite_ref-8">↑</a> OpenSecrets.org "<a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/clientlbs.php?id=D000029689&year=2011">Lobbyists representing Visa Inc.</a>" Accessed July 25, 2012</li>

<li id="cite_note-2011_Conference_Sponsors-9"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Visa#cite_ref-2011_Conference_Sponsors_9-0">↑</a> American Legislative Exchange Council, 2011 Conference Sponsors, conference brochure on file with CMD, August 4, 2011</li>

<li id="cite_note-Sponsorship_Levels-10"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Visa#cite_ref-Sponsorship_Levels_10-0">↑</a> American Legislative Exchange Council, <a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="http://web.archive.org/web/20100623051202/http://www.alec.org">/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Sponsorship_Opportunities Sponsorship Opportunities at ALEC's Annual Meeting</a>, organizational website, 2010, archived on the Wayback Machine, accessed January 24, 2012</li>

<li id="cite_note-Corporate_Chairs-11"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Visa#cite_ref-Corporate_Chairs_11-0">↑</a> American Legislative Exchange Council, "Solutions for the States," 38th Annual Meeting agenda, on file with CMD, August 3-6, 2011</li>

<li id="cite_note-CIEDNOLA-12"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Visa#cite_ref-CIEDNOLA_12-0">↑</a> American Legislative Exchange Council, [<a rel="nofollow" class="external free" href="http://www.commoncause.org/atf/cf/%7BFB3C17E2-CDD1-4DF6-92BE-BD4429893665%7D/cied_35-day_mailing_2011_annual_meeting%20New%20Orleans.pdf">http://www.commoncause.org/atf/cf/%7BFB3C17E2-CDD1-4DF6-92BE-BD4429893665%7D/cied_35-day_mailing_2011_annual_meeting%20New%20Orleans.pdf</a> American Legislative Exchange Council Commerce, Insurance, and Economic Development Task Force 2011 Spring Task Force Summit April 29, 2011 Attendees], organizational document, June 20, 2011, p. 8, obtained and released by Common Cause April 2012</li>

<li id="cite_note-SLC_Agenda-13"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Visa#cite_ref-SLC_Agenda_13-0">↑</a> American Legislative Exchange Council, 39th Annual Meeting Agenda, organizational document, July 25-28, 2012, on file with CMD</li>

</ol>

</div>

<div id="mw-normal-catlinks" class="mw-normal-catlinks"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Special:Categories" title="Special:Categories">Categories</a>:

<ul>

<li><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Category:ALEC_Exposed" title="Category:ALEC Exposed">ALEC Exposed</a></li>

<li><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Category:Stubs" title="Category:Stubs">Stubs</a></li>

<li><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Category:ALEC_Corporations" title="Category:ALEC Corporations">ALEC Corporations</a></li>

</ul>

</div>

===

On the Trail of Public Policy on Bourbon Street

The hypocrisy of ALEC's media policy is astonishing. Not only are vast majority of news organizations owned by major media corporations (perhaps with the exception of Al Jazeera), but the majority of ALEC's conference events and even speaker are sponsored by Fortune 500 firms and trade associations. Governor Bobby Jindal was sponsored by big PhRMA. Dick Armey by Visa. I am not kidding.

</div>

===

<a href="http://www.hightowerlowdown.org/node/3264">http://www.hightowerlowdown.org/node/3264</a>  binding mandatory arbitration

A 2000 <a href="http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-507684.html" target="blank">Washington Post survey</a> of cases involving First USA Bank, then the nation's second largest credit card company, revealed that <a href="http://centerjd.org/content/fact-sheet-mandatory-binding-arbitration-corporate-end-run-around-civil-justice-system#ednref2" target="blank">arbitrators ruled for the bank 99.6 percent of the time</a>. In 2007, a <a href="http://www.citizen.org/publications/publicationredirect.cfm?ID=7545" target="blank">Public Citizen report</a> revealed that one giant firm, the National Arbitration Forum, hired out its private adjudicators to hear some 34,000 consumer-versus-bank cases in California during the previous four years, and they ruled for the financial giants 95 percent of the time. Even more incredible, the City of San Francisco discovered in a <a href="http://www.sfcityattorney.org/index.aspx?page=178" target="_blank">2008 lawsuit</a> that of 18,045 cases brought by the financial powers against overwhelmed California consumers, NAF's private judges sided with the corporations 100 percent of the time.

<h2>Brand name riggers of the justice system</h2>

Practically every national brand name you’ve ever heard of now slips predatory arbitration provisions into their customer terms-of-service agreements and/or employment agreements. Not only do these sneaky inserts strip away your constitutional right to take them to court (peremptorily immunizing them from any wrongs they do to you), but many of the boilerplate provisions also arbitrarily ban you from joining with other small claimants in class actions to hold them accountable. ... [<a href="http://www.hightowerlowdown.org/node/3266">read more</a>]

</div>

<h2>Supremely shafted</h2>

Unfortunately, <a href="http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2010-06-22/business/ct-biz-0622-chicago-law-20100622_1_arbitration-clauses-arbitration-agreement-arbitration-system" target="_blank">the Supreme Court is still messing with us</a>, still systematically undermining the Seventh Amendment by herding us ever deeper into the darkness of these backroom corporate courts. The same supreme wrecking crew of Alito, Kennedy, Roberts, Scalia, and Thomas that smashed our People's democratic sovereignty with its infamous Citizens United decision, has also been siding with corporate America to sledgehammer the People's right to judicial fairness.

For example, in real courtrooms, it's common for many wronged employees or consumers who have the same complaint against a corporate rip-off to roll their small cases into one big one. This "class action" process saves money and time, because instead of 100 cases needing 100 law firms, judges, and juries, only one of each is needed. Makes sense. But common sense is a feared foreigner in ArbitrationLand, and--surprise!--nearly all BMA agreements ban class actions.

In 2010,<a href="http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/10pdf/09-893.pdf" target="_blank"> the supremes took this ban to extremes</a>, declaring that even if an agreement is silent on the use of class-action arbitration, class actions are still disallowed, forcing each individual to battle the goliaths alone. In a 2011 consumer case against AT&T, the Court majority ruled that even when a class-action ban in a BMA clause is so "unconscionable" that it violates state law, the corporate miscreant can nonetheless ban the class from arbitration and compel each claimant to go it alone.

This June, <a href="http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-02-27/amex-policy-reopens-high-court-debate-on-arbitration.html" target="_blank">the Court's corporate supremists are expected to stretch the primacy of private arbitration even farther</a>--so far that corporations could openly and willfully violate our antitrust, civil rights, and other landmark laws enacted to protect the less powerful. The case pits American Express against a group of its own small business customers that accept AmEx credit cards. The restaurateurs, retailers, and others say the powerhouse financial firm flagrantly runs roughshod over them by using its monopoly position to make them pay excess "swipe fees" on charge card transactions. Each merchant is gouged by a few thousand dollars a year, but proving their claims in court could cost about $1 million each, making solo suits cost-prohibitive. Thus, to see justice done, they filed their lawsuit as a class.

"No you don't," barked AmEx lawyers, pointing to fine print in the corporation's contract with merchants that (1) requires disputes to go to arbitration, and (2) prohibits "any claims from being arbitrated on a class action basis." The upshot? If the Court agrees with AmEx, the one-sided bit of corporate boilerplate it slipped into its standard-form contract would allow it and every other corporation to use their private judicial system to nullify an Act of Congress. In other words, by corporate fiat, America's antitrust laws (and, by extension, other basic laws) would be superseded by a piece of mumbo-jumbo that private businesses put in BMA agreements.

[An "aha!" tidbit: The US Chamber of Commerce, which claims to be the unrelenting defender of small business, has put its own legal muscle firmly behind AmEx in this case, strenuously pushing the Court to let the credit card colossus hammer the little guys.]

<div align="left">Published on Tuesday, March 13, 2001 in the <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/" style=" text-decoration: none;">New York Times</a></div>

</td></tr><tr align="left"><td>

<div align="left">It's Pay Back Time

Lobbying Campaign Led by Credit Card Companies and Banks Nears Bankruptcy Bill Goal</div>

</td></tr><tr align="left"><td>

<div align="left">by Philip Shenon</div>

</td></tr><tr><td height="10"> </td></tr><tr align="left" valign="top"><td>WASHINGTON - A lobbying campaign led by credit card companies and banks that gave millions of dollars in political donations to members of Congress and contributed generously to President Bush's 2000 campaign is close to its long- sought goal of overhauling the nation's bankruptcy system.

Legislation that would make it harder for people to wipe out their debts could be passed by the Senate as early as this week. The bill has already been approved by the House, and Mr. Bush has pledged to sign it.

Sponsors of the bill acknowledge that lawyers and lobbyists for the banks and credit card companies were involved in drafting it. The bill gives those industries most of what they have wanted since they began lobbying in earnest in the late 1990's, when the number of personal bankruptcies rose to record levels.

In his final weeks in office, President Bill Clinton vetoed an identical bill, describing it as too tough on debtors. But with the election of Mr. Bush and other candidates who received their financial support, the banks and credit card industries saw an opportunity to quickly resurrect the measure.

In recent weeks, their lawyers and lobbyists have jammed Congressional hearing rooms to overflowing as the bill was redebated and reapproved. During breaks, there was a common, almost comical pattern. The pinstriped lobbyists ran into the hallway, grabbed tiny cell phones from their pockets or briefcases and reported back to their clients, almost always with the news they wanted to hear.

"Where money goes, sometimes you see results," acknowledged Representative George W. Gekas, a Pennsylvania Republican who was a sponsor of the bill in the House. But Mr. Gekas said that political contributions did not explain why most members of Congress and Mr. Bush appeared ready to overhaul the bankruptcy system.

"People are gaming this system," Mr. Gekas said, describing the bill as an effort to end abuses by people who are declaring bankruptcy to wipe out their debts even though they have the money to pay them. "We need bankruptcy reform."

Among the biggest beneficiaries of the measure would be MBNA Corporation<org idsrc="NYSE" value="KRB,KRB-A,KRB-B"> of Delaware, which describes itself as the world's biggest independent credit card company. Ranked by employee donations, MBNA was the largest corporate contributor to the Bush campaign, according to a study by the Center for Responsive Politics, an election research group.</org>

MBNA's employees and their families contributed about $240,000 to Mr. Bush, and the chairman of the company's bank unit, Charles M. Cawley, was a significant fund-raiser for Mr. Bush and gave a $1,000-a- plate dinner in his honor, the center said. After Mr. Bush's election, MBNA pledged $100,000 to help pay for inaugural festivities.

MBNA was obviously less enthusiastic about the candidacy of former Vice President Al Gore, Mr. Bush's Democratic rival; according to the center, only three of the company's employees gave money to the Gore campaign, and their donations totaled $1,500.

The center found that of MBNA's overall political contributions of $3.5 million in the last election, 86 percent went to Republicans, 14 percent to Democrats. The company, which did not return phone calls for comment, made large donations to the Senate campaign committees of both political parties � $310,000 to the Republicans, $200,000 to the Democrats.

MBNA's donations were part of a larger trend within the finance and credit card industries, which have widely expanded their contributions to federal candidates as they stepped up their lobbying efforts for a bankruptcy overhaul.

According to the Center for Responsive Politics, the industries' political donations more than quadrupled over the last eight years, rising from $1.9 million in 1992 to $9.2 million last year, two-thirds of it to Republicans.

Kenneth A. Posner, an analyst for Morgan Stanley Dean Witter<org idsrc="NYSE" value="BGS,MWD,BRX,MWN,RBT,BDJ,MWD-E,MWD-F">, said that the bankruptcy bill would mean billions of dollars in additional profits to creditors, and that it would raise the profits of credit card companies by as much as 5 percent next year. In the case of MBNA, that would mean nearly $75 million in extra profits in 2002, based on its recent financial performance.</org>

The bill's most important provision would bar many people from getting a fresh start from credit card bills and other forms of debt when they enter bankruptcy. Depending on their income, it would bar them from filing under Chapter 7 of the bankruptcy code, which forgives most debts.

Under the legislation, they would have to file under Chapter 13, which would require repayment, even if that meant balancing overdue credit card bills with alimony and child- support payments.

Consumer groups describe the bill as a gift to credit card companies and banks in exchange for their political largess, and they complain that the bill does nothing to stop abuses by creditors who flood the mail with solicitations for high-interest credit cards and loans, which in turn help drive many vulnerable people into bankruptcy.

"This bill is the credit card industry's wish list," said Elizabeth Warren, a Harvard law professor who is a bankruptcy specialist. "They've hired every lobbying firm in Washington. They've decided that it's time to lock the doors to the bankruptcy courthouse."

The bill's passage would be evidence of the heightened power of corporate lobbyists in Washington in the aftermath of last year's elections, which left the White House and both houses of Congress in the hands of business-friendly Republicans.

Last week, corporate lobbyists had another important victory when both the Senate and the House voted to overturn regulations imposed during the Clinton administration to protect workers from repetitive-stress injuries.

Credit card companies and banks would not be the only interests served by the bankruptcy bill. Wealthy American investors in Lloyd's of London, the insurance concern, have managed through their lobbyists to insert a provision in the bill that would block Lloyd's from collecting millions of dollars that the company says it is owed by the Americans.

Lloyd's has hired its own powerful lobbyist, Bob Dole, to help plead its case on Capitol Hill. Last week, the chief executive of Lloyd's was in Washington to plot strategy.

The issue involves liabilities incurred by Lloyd's in the 1980's and 1990's when it was forced to pay off claims on several disasters, like the Exxon Valdez oil spill. Investors in Lloyd's are expected to share both its profits and its losses, but the Americans have refused to settle the debts, claiming they were misled by Lloyd's.

As he watched consumer-protection amendments to the bankruptcy bill fail by lopsided margins last week, Senator Patrick J. Leahy of Vermont, the ranking Democrat on the Judiciary Committee and a leading critic of the bill, said that colleagues had told him privately that they were "committed to the banks and credit card companies � and they are not going to change.

"Some of them do this because they think it's the right thing to do," Mr. Leahy said.

But he said other senators were voting for the bill because they know that the banks and credit card companies "are a very good source" of political contributions. "I always assume senators are doing things for the purest of motives," he added, his voice thick with sarcasm. "But I have never had credit card companies show up at my fund-raisers, and I don't think they ever will."

Mr. Gekas said the implication that money was buying support for the bankruptcy bill was insulting, and that the bill did most consumers a favor by ending practices by some debtors that had forced up interest rates for everybody else. "Bankruptcies are costly to all of us who don't go bankrupt," Mr. Gekas said.

In the late 1990's, banks, credit card industries and others with an interest in overhauling the bankruptcy system formed a lobbying group, the National Consumer Bankruptcy Coalition, for the purpose of pushing a bankruptcy-overhaul bill through Congress.

They said they needed to act to deal with what was then a record number of personal bankruptcy filings. According to court records, the number of personal bankruptcies hit nearly 1.4 million in 1998, a record, up from 718,000 in 1990. The number fell to just under 1.3 million last year, although it is expected to rise again if the economy continues to sour.

The coalition's founders included Visa and Mastercard, as well as the American Financial Services Association, which represents the credit card industry, and the American Bankers Association.

The Center for Responsive Politics found that the coalition's members contributed more than $5 million to federal parties and candidates during the 1999-2000 election campaign, a 40 percent increase over the last presidential election.

</td></tr></tbody></table>

==