the cost to every bank that has to comply is huge, but the cost of individual liberty is much more important. What business does the Federal Government have ordering a bank to tell them about my bank account? What we are dealing with today is a function of invasion of individual liberty in the guise of law enforcement. This argument that we will lose so many prosecutions is absurd. The number of $25,000 does not even adjust for inflation from the original $10,000 established in 1970. So when we hear these arguments that we will suddenly be a haven for money laundering, recognize that we are not even adjusting for inflation from the $10,000 requirement established in 1970 to a $25,000 requirement today. It ought to be $40,000 if we adjusted for inflation. But let us say that just for a moment there may be one prosecution that does not happen, but in return, in return, we do not have the Federal Government ordering banks to profile me, to find out what my activities are when I depart from normal activity, to define what is normal activity, to condemn me if I do not behave in a normal manner. For that price of freedom I think we are sacrificing very, very little, if anything, on law enforcement. I conclude by saying if we were to repeal the Fourth Amendment, if we were to repeal the Fifth Amendment, we could improve law enforcement, but it would not be worth it.
Andrea Joy Campbell: “the cost to every bank that has to comply is huge, but the cost of individual liberty is much more important. What…”
Editor's note · Context
Discussing the implications of government regulations on banking and individual liberties.
Share
More from Andrea Joy Campbell
I demand a recorded vote. The CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California will be postponed. Amendment Offered by Mr. Flake
May I inquire as to how much time I have remaining. The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman has 2 minutes remaining.
Even though the Court did not dispute that the Trump Administration’s decision to cut critical medical and public health research is illegal, they ordered the recipients of that funding — hospitals, researchers, and the state — to jump…
I appreciate my colleague's comments; and, frankly, I don't disagree that it is arbitrary. I would argue that perhaps how we got to this 800,000 was not by anybody doing a great deal of planning either, so perhaps that is arbitrary. But…





