Banning anyone with less than 1% achieves the same purpose and has a patina of fairness.
And it is named the Financial CHOICE Act of 2017. How could such a bill restrict choice?
Little sidenote about the bill’s title: while, say, the “PATRIOT” of the PATRIOT Act of 2001 was an acronym and ostensibly stood for “Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism”, this “CHOICE” seems to stand for nothing. If you read the text of HR 10, there can nowhere be found any evidence that “CHOICE” is an acronym. Now, apparently, they just capitalize certain random words in a bill’s title. (Perhaps the one’s that reveal the irony in the bill’s true nature?)
