Saga of banks, credit unions isn't over

Pignanelli: Israelis vs. Palestinians. Hatfields vs. McCoys. Utes vs. Cougars. Coke vs. Pepsi. All the great rivalries invoke passion, especially credit unions vs. banks — the true two-party system in Utah politics.

"Are you a member?" was a question for generations of Utahns with obvious spiritual connotations. Today, chances are this inquiry is about good standing with a credit union, not a religious denomination. Banking advocates, usually a droll bunch, become zealots when complaining of "unfair advantages" enjoyed by credit unions.

The seven-year fight has been bitter. Each camp invested tremendous resources in federal, state and legislative campaigns. Both sides hired armies of lobbyists for skirmishes at the Capitol while public relations firms battled in the media for hearts and minds of the general public. (My clients, the Industrial Banks, have declared themselves Switzerland in the dispute, so I am neutral.) In 1998, legislators enacted restrictions on credit unions for commercial lending, branching and membership. The combat continued until the 2003 Legislative Session, when credit unions retreated. The banking community declared victory.

But a recent report by the Department of Financial Institutions demonstrates credit unions certainly did not surrender — they changed tactics. In 2002, Utah regulated 85 percent of the assets belonging to Utah credit unions. Because of bank-sponsored legislation, many credit unions petitioned to be supervised on a federal level by the National Credit Unions Association. By 2004, 80 percent ($7 billion) of all assets held by credit unions were federally controlled. As a result, Utah lost the ability to impose sales tax and other requirements upon these large financial entities. Furthermore, a federal charter provides more opportunities for credit unions to compete against banks in commercial lending. Thus, the net effect is the credit unions actually gained new prospects for business expansion while the state lost tax dollars. What the banks truly accomplished remains questionable.

In politics, as in military warfare, victory is not always determined by territory gained or lost but who has the best public relations support to create the impression of success. The banks' spin doctors (including LaVarr) have done a phenomenal job of establishing a consciousness that banks were the victors of this long conflict on Capitol Hill. The numbers tell a different story and suggest the struggle is not finished.