The Firing Line Forums - View Single Post

Jeff Thomas · February 23, 2000, 08:02 PM

More confirmation.

Well, a number of us hoped, and some of us expected, the recent news about Citibank to be proven false. No cigar. It is apparently true.

I just got off the phone with a woman from Citigroup in New York. You can reach her as well at 800/285-3000, select 'directory assistance', and ask for whoever is handling the Citibank weapons controversy.

I spoke with a very pleasant and courteous woman, Ms. Barb Hamill (spelling?). She took a great deal of time with me to discuss the issue.

She said she would be unable to fax anything to me on letterhead, but she has apparently been provided with a FAQ sheet for use in answering consumer questions. I didn't take notes on many of the responses - to be frank, they were 'corporate-speak', indicating they had a right and obligation to do business essentially as they see fit, etc.

The most important point - their statement about the nature of this policy. This I transcribed word-for-word:

"Citibank Consumer Business has a long-standing policy of not engaging in financial relationships with businesses that manufacture or sell military weapons, military munitions or firearms."

I discussed with Barb what this meant - for example, does it apply to gun stores, as is the case in Las Vegas? Does it mean 'military firearms', or all 'firearms'? Does this mean they won't do business with members of the Fortune 500 that manufacture and sell military weapons? She really doesn't know. She indicated that I could also call back tomorrow and speak with Ms. Maria Mendler, who works with global branding and media / consumer relations. Barb said this policy was written up in yesterday's Washington Post - I've not seen the article.

Barb indicated that Citigroup does not take a position on personal ownership of firearms, but I explained to her that this is a rather hollow statement considering the implications of their policy. I explained to Barb that Citigroup's policy would be evaluated in the context of other events over the last year - Hallmark's and Sprint's opposition to CCW in Missouri, AOL's refusal to host web sites for gun-related businesses, Levi's support of the PAX Petition, FedEx / UPS and other shipping companies price increases and / or refusal of firearms business and so on. Barb seemed honestly interested in hearing these perspectives.

It would be a pleasant experience to watch some creative legal beagles attack this policy, if a proper suit could be formed, no?

February 23, 2000, 08:02 PM	#14
Jeff Thomas Senior Member Join Date: December 9, 1998 Location: Texas Posts: 4,753	More confirmation. Well, a number of us hoped, and some of us expected, the recent news about Citibank to be proven false. No cigar. It is apparently true. I just got off the phone with a woman from Citigroup in New York. You can reach her as well at 800/285-3000, select 'directory assistance', and ask for whoever is handling the Citibank weapons controversy. I spoke with a very pleasant and courteous woman, Ms. Barb Hamill (spelling?). She took a great deal of time with me to discuss the issue. She said she would be unable to fax anything to me on letterhead, but she has apparently been provided with a FAQ sheet for use in answering consumer questions. I didn't take notes on many of the responses - to be frank, they were 'corporate-speak', indicating they had a right and obligation to do business essentially as they see fit, etc. The most important point - their statement about the nature of this policy. This I transcribed word-for-word: "Citibank Consumer Business has a long-standing policy of not engaging in financial relationships with businesses that manufacture or sell military weapons, military munitions or firearms." I discussed with Barb what this meant - for example, does it apply to gun stores, as is the case in Las Vegas? Does it mean 'military firearms', or all 'firearms'? Does this mean they won't do business with members of the Fortune 500 that manufacture and sell military weapons? She really doesn't know. She indicated that I could also call back tomorrow and speak with Ms. Maria Mendler, who works with global branding and media / consumer relations. Barb said this policy was written up in yesterday's Washington Post - I've not seen the article. Barb indicated that Citigroup does not take a position on personal ownership of firearms, but I explained to her that this is a rather hollow statement considering the implications of their policy. I explained to Barb that Citigroup's policy would be evaluated in the context of other events over the last year - Hallmark's and Sprint's opposition to CCW in Missouri, AOL's refusal to host web sites for gun-related businesses, Levi's support of the PAX Petition, FedEx / UPS and other shipping companies price increases and / or refusal of firearms business and so on. Barb seemed honestly interested in hearing these perspectives. It would be a pleasant experience to watch some creative legal beagles attack this policy, if a proper suit could be formed, no?