The British bank Coutts & Co. is currently embroiled in what the Wall Street Journal describes as “the biggest financial scandal you’ve barely heard about.” The CEO of the bank as well as the CEO of its parent company were both forced to resign. This all came about because the bank closed the accounts of Nigel Farage, the Conservative Party leader who was one of the chief forces behind the Brexit movement. Farage insisted his accounts had been closed because of political reasons. The bank initially denied this, saying his account balances had fallen below their minimum requirements. But he later obtained documents showing his accounts were closed because the bank felt they might face “significant reputational risks” if they continued doing business with him. And as the WSJ points out, if it happens in the UK, it can happen in America also, and it probably will.

Prime Minister Rishi Sunak is considering new regulations that would prevent banks from shutting out customers for their political views.

This story is more than a British business kerfuffle, because what happened to Mr. Farage at Coutts could happen in America. The U.S. is embroiled in its own scandal about social-media censorship regarding the Covid pandemic as new evidence emerges of close ties between the Biden Administration and tech companies to suppress politically unpopular views. Executives know politicians and regulators wield enormous power over their businesses, increasing the incentive to go along with censorship.

Financial institutions on both sides of the Atlantic play up their liberal cultural convictions for similar reasons, and part of Coutts’ rationale for closing Mr. Farage’s accounts was that serving him would be “at odds with our position as an inclusive organisation,” according to the dossier.

At least the leadership at Coutts maintained the self-awareness to feel shame when they were caught and promised to do better in the future. Don’t expect that sort of reaction in the United States when this sort of thing inevitably begins to happen. The social media giants here were caught red-handed engaging in censorship at the government’s behest and they haven’t apologized at all. In fact, it appears that they are still doing it, even if they’re trying to be a bit more subtle about it.

If the government can apply that sort of pressure to the tech giants, why couldn’t that do the same to banks? Keep in mind that American banks are under no obligation to let anyone open an account or to keep the account open. They close accounts all the time, sometimes without even offering a reason. And unlike free speech, you are not constitutionally guaranteed a bank account. If the government is willing to deplatform people with “unacceptable ideas” from social media, why would they hesitate to do worse?

Let’s say you’re someone who has been critical of the current administration’s “net-zero” carbon emission policies or their COVID response. The FBI has already proven repeatedly that they can access all of your banking records without bothering to get a warrant. They can find out where you bank easily enough. Then when the bank’s CEO receives a call from someone at the Federal Reserve who says it might not be such a good idea to do business with you, how do you suppose they would respond? Your accounts will be shut down in a heartbeat. Yes, they’ll have to return all of the money to you, but what will you do with it then? You may need to invest in a hefty safe because the next bank might do the same thing.

This story is yet another reminder that we can not allow the government to set up some sort of centralized digital currency. That would make them even more powerful than they are already. If they don’t like the sort of speech you’re engaging in, they wouldn’t even need to close your bank account. They could just “turn off” all of your money with the flick of a switch. We need to stop electing people from either party who are ready to fall in line with these types of actions.