How about this:
DOJ has launched a project that coordinates with the country's largest banks to constrain and monitor high-fraud businesses; say, porn sites, prepaid cards, and payday loans.
Porn doesn't have a significant lobby.
But payday loans and prepaid cards sure as hell do.
Unfortunately for those lobbies, it's unseemly to write op-eds about how the DOJ and banks are collaborating to suppress the exploitation of poor people.
It is, however, possible to get stories placed about the government's secret plan to create a Morality Police Force to eliminate pornography and, one assumes, any other form of expression the government disfavors.
And this must be some new meaning of the word "constrain" I wasn't previously acquainted with. This "operation" appears to be intended to terminate these "undesirable" businesses with extreme prejudice, and without the pesky Rule of Law getting in the way.
Do the ends justify the means?
What I'd like to know is, why are EFF and Reason casting this as suppression of pornography? It's the payday lenders and prepaid card scams that are driving the lobbying effort.
(ADDED: one wonder how many of these prosecutions are legit vs. "the process is the punishment" well nigh unlimited budget DoJ vs. likely small fry.)
It's the lawless abuse of regulatory powers---e.g. why the FDIC is part of the operation---to try to shut down entire sectors of the finance industry that has people figuratively up in arms.
The EFF's motive would seem to be obvious; after talking about the porn star situation, they note an online case:
"This is particularly troubling because “pornography” itself is subject to interpretation. While the crackdown currently affects mainstream, prominent performers, it could quickly turn into a bank account ban for radical and feminist porn. We’ve seen examples of this in the past. For instance, Cindy Gallup, who hopes to revolutionize pornography and cultural acceptance of human sexuality through her website MakeLoveNotPorn.com, struggled to find any bank that would do business with her in the United States. Artists of all stripes should be concerned about this unnecessary encroachment on free expression."
And then they immediately segue to Operation Check Point with its less sympathetic victims.
Reason is the the leasing popular libertarian journal of opinion, they have no reason (sorry) whatsoever not to defend payday loan companies and other free market entities our betters frown upon. Their second paragraph jumps right to Operation Check Point and lists these as "undesirable" lines of business it's suspected as attacking, "payday lenders, ammunition sales, dating services, purveyors of drug paraphernalia, and online gambling sites", every one of which they unquestionably defend as a class. Leading off with payday lenders is telling, I'd say.
"If this president is established and takes roots"
Do you think the industry likes the Federal government using lawless means to force them to stop serving whomever is the target de jure?
Is it axiomatic that banks dealing with large sums of money is bad??? (I kinda thought that was their business....)
If this precedent is established and takes roots, where will it stop? What are your objections to their using the soap box to try put a stop to it?