2022: Schweikert Voted Against Permitting State-Legal Cannabis-Related Businesses To Access The Banking System. In July 2022, according to Congressional Quarterly, Schweikert voted against the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2023, which would "allow state-legal cannabis businesses to access the banking system." The vote was on passage. The House passed the bill by a vote 329-101, thus the bill was sent to the Senate. The Senate did not take substantive action on the legislation. The FY 2023 Defense Authorization was passed with H.R. 7776. [House Vote 350, 7/14/22; Congressional Quarterly, 7/14/22; Congressional Actions, H.R. 7900]
2022: Schweikert Voted Against An Amendment That Allowed State-Legal Cannabis Businesses To Access The Banking System. In July 2022, according to Congressional Quarterly, Schweikert voted against en bloc amendments no. 4 to the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2023, which would, in part, "allow state-legal cannabis businesses to access the banking system." The vote was on the adoption of amendments. The House adopted the amendments by a vote 277-150. [House Vote 334, 7/14/22; Congressional Quarterly, 7/14/22; Congressional Actions, H.Amdt. 271; Congressional Actions, H.R. 7900]
2021: Schweikert Voted To Forbid Federal Banking Regulators From Punishing Financial Service Institutions For Servicing Lawful Cannabis-Related And Hemp-Related Businesses, Which Would Protect Financial Service Institutions From Criminal And Civil Penalties. In April 2021, Schweikert voted for the SAFE Banking Act of 2021 which would, according to Congressional Quarterly, "prohibit federal banking regulators from penalizing financial service institutions for providing services to marijuana-related businesses operating in accordance with state law. It would protect financial service institutions from criminal and civil penalties for providing such services or for engaging in transactions involving proceeds from a marijuana-related business [...] extend similar protections for hemp-related businesses." The vote was on passage. The House passed the bill by a vote of 321-101. The Senate did not take substantive action on the bill. [House Vote 120, 4/19/21; Congressional Quarterly, 4/19/21; Congressional Actions, H.R. 1996]
The Bill Would Make Several Critical Changes To Bank Regulations That Guide How Banks Choose To Serve Cannabis-related Businesses In States Where Medical And Recreational Use Has Been Legalized. According to Forbes, "The bill, which has received bipartisan support each time it's been introduced -- and which passed the House of Representatives with overwhelming bipartisan support in April by a vote of 321 to 101, earning backing from 106 Republicans -- would make a number of important changes to the regulations which guide how banks across the nation choose to serve (or not to serve) legitimate cannabis-related businesses in states that have legalized its use for medical or recreational purposes." [Forbes, 12/3/21]
The Bill Would Protect Banks And Financial Institutions That Serve Cannabis-related Businesses Operating Within Their Legal Limitations. According to Forbes, "The primary purpose of the SAFE Banking Act is to protect banks and financial institutions who choose to service cannabis-related businesses operating within their state's legal and regulatory frameworks." [Forbes, 12/3/21]
Due To Cannabis' Classification As A Schedule I Drug, Banks Currently Could Be Penalized By Federal Regulators For Serving Cannabis-related Businesses. According to Forbes, "Right now, cannabis is still listed as a Schedule I drug by the U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency, meaning that banks could face penalties from federal regulators for serving legitimate businesses in states that have legalized uses for cannabis." [Forbes, 12/3/21]
Due To The Potential Of Penalties, Many Cannabis-related Businesses Opt For A Cash-Only Model, Making Them More Vulnerable To Scams, Theft, And Violent Crimes. According to Forbes, "As a result, many cannabis-related businesses have had to resort to a cash-only model, which leaves them susceptible to theft, fraud, and violent crime." [Forbes, 12/3/21]
The Bill Would Forbid Federal Regulators From Penalizing Banks Who Serve Legitimate Cannabis-related Businesses So They May Operate More Safely Within A Trustworthy Financial Institution Instead Of Resorting To A Cash Model. According to Forbes, "The SAFE Banking Act would explicitly prohibit federal regulators from handing down penalties on banks who serve legitimate businesses, meaning that they could operate with safer, more trustworthy financial practices rather than relying entirely on cash. " [Forbes, 12/3/21]
The Bill Would Allow Legitimate Cannabis-related Businesses Access To Critical Financial Services Like A Checking Account And Facilitating The Acceptance Of Credit Or Debit Card Payments. According to Forbes, "One of the primary benefits of the bill, as described by Rep. Perlmutter, is that it allows entirely legal, legitimate businesses to access important financial services like a checking account, while also making it easier for them to accept alternate forms of payment like credit or debit cards." [Forbes, 12/3/21]
The Bill Would Have Required The Financial Crimes Enforcement Network And Other Regulators To Modernize Their Guidance Regarding Cannabis-Related And Hemp-Related Businesses. According to Congressional Quarterly, "require the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network and other federal regulators to update certain guidances related to such businesses." [Congressional Quarterly, 4/19/21]
The Bill Would Have Required Diversity And Inclusion Reports, Primarily On Minority And Women-Owned Cannabis-Related Businesses And Their Access To Financial Services. According to Congressional Quarterly, "require reports on diversity and inclusion in access to financial services for minority- and women-owned marijuana-related businesses." [Congressional Quarterly, 4/19/21]