Release the Prisoners Phone Zap

It is our belief that all forms of incarceration are an assault on the dignity and humanity of those in its cages. In this unprecedented time it is of utmost importance that all people be allowed to keep themselves safe, to practice necessary measures to prevent the community spread of COVID-19. This is impossible while Thurston County continues to hold people in jails, Juvenile Detention Center and Cedar Creek Corrections Center. It is impossible to practice “social distancing” while incarcerated in jail or prison. It is imperative for the inmates and anyone who could be affected by the spread of Covid-19 that everyone be released from Olympia City Jail, Thurston County Corrections Facility, Thurston County Juvenile Detention Center, and Cedar Creek Corrections Center. Thurston county has reduced the inmate population slightly in recent days but 285 human beings remain in Thurston County Correctional Facility. Full release of all those incarcerated is the only acceptable measure to adequately address this public health crisis. DOC staff and inmates in other Washington facilities have tested positive for Covid-19 as have jail inmates in other counties. To force people to remain inside these facilities is tantamount to locking the cells and walking away as the flood waters rise.

Call in to demand the immediate release of all those incarcerated in Thurston County!

Call these numbers to demand that Thurston County release the people held in its jails and halt all new admissions during the COVID-19 pandemic. Failing to release prisoners now will be paid for in human lives, and we refuse to abandon our neighbors and loved ones to die in cells.
who to call:

Ramiro Chavez
County Manager
(360) 786-5440

Thurston County Prosecutor
Jon Tunheim

Thurston County Jail
extension 4 for Medical

Thurston County Sheriff’s Office
extension 0

“My name is ______, and I am a Thurston County resident deeply concerned about the safety of the city’s incarcerated people during the COVID-19 pandemic. Incarcerated people have a unique vulnerability to disease due to their crowded living conditions and lack of access to adequate medical care. For humanitarian reasons as well as reasons of public health, we call for the immediate release of all people in Olympia City Jail, Thurston County Corrections Facility, Thurston County Juvenile Detention Center and Cedar Creek Corrections Center. It is also of utmost importance to immediately halt any further arrests or detention as this pandemic and state of emergency continue. Ignoring incarcerated people in this crisis will result in an acceleration of the pandemic and the unnecessary death of Thurston County Residents. We refuse to abandon our neighbors and loved ones to die in lockup.”

If you call and get through let us know what they said at



March 25th Phone Zap: Suspend Rents in Washington State


Please call the office of Governor Jay Inslee to demand a statewide rent moratorium for Washington state tenants.



Office of the Governor: 360-902-4111


Phone Script:


“Hello Governor Inslee. With the COVID-19 pandemic currently spelling economic devastation for working class people, we urge you to immediately halt all rental payments in Washington. Furthermore, we demand that all rental debts accrued throughout the duration of this public health emergency be forgiven. Homeowners nationwide have been offered mortgage relief, and now similar protections must be extended to renters. Evictions moratoriums are a good first step, but they won’t protect tenants in the long-term who can’t pay back rent debts due to unemployment or loss of income. If you maintain sanitation, hygiene, and shelter are key to fighting this pandemic, then ensuring housing access for all must be a priority.”


Just Make It Free: A Response to Pro-Transit Critics of Fare-Free Public Transit

Image from The Boston Globe 1/31/19


The idea of free public transit has now entered popular political discourse. In December 2019, Kansas City councilmembers voted unanimously in a landmark decision to convert to a fareless bus system, becoming the largest U.S. city to do so. In January 2020, Olympia Washington’s Intercity Transit ceased fare collection, precipitating a 20% monthly ridership surge. Transit authorities and political leaders have pondered similar initiatives in Salt Lake City, Denver and Houston. These promising developments have only intensified existing grassroots transit justice movements coast to coast. The novel tactic of the “fare strike,” has resurfaced in the strategic repertoire of direct action activists, who have staged mass fare evasions in defiance of racist police violence and prohibitive fares on New York’s subways. Even politicians have jumped on the bandwagon in select cases. The struggle to decommodify public transportation and guarantee mobility as a human right has never been stronger. 

The free transit groundswell has generated disdain from typical anti-transit conservatives. But it has sourced criticism from unlikely places too: prominent transit planners, transit advocacy NGOs like TransitCenter and online-based transit fanatics, including some members of Facebook group, New Urbanist Memes for Transit-Oriented Teens. All have offered critiques of free public transit that remain firmly within a liberal pro-transit framework. It is arguments from these categories this piece aims to engage. 


Not Enough Resources?


The thrust of these critiques hinge on the speculative claim that fare-free service necessarily comes at the expense of decent, useful service: frequent, reliable, all-day transit. Rather than eliminate fares, maintain all existing revenue sources and increase and improve service instead, so the argument goes. This contention carries little weight in cities cited above, like Olympia or Kansas City, where fare revenues accounted for mere fractions of operating costs. In Olympia, Intercity Transit netted just 2% of its operations revenue from fares. Many transit agencies source minimal or no financial benefits from charging fares. When accounting for the labor and maintenance costs of fare collection as well as the inflated bus stop dwell times fare payment entails, eliminating fares may save some transit agencies money. 

In larger and denser cities with high rates of transit use, fares tend to comprise a minority, though significant, source of revenues. These cases present distinct obstacles to securing universal fare-free service, though they are hardly insurmountable. Transit financial woes are not a question of economic resources, but of political priorities. The resources exist to provide free, frequent, 24/7 mass transit. Instead resources are squandered on prisons and police or are hoarded by the wealthy. It is precisely the power of grassroots social movements that could force shifts in budgetary priorities and re-distributions of wealth in the interests of transit riders and all working class people. In New York City, Decolonize This Place organizers have advanced demands to tax Wall Street to fund subway and bus service. Already, politicians in NYC have endorsed free transit after multiple high-profile protests in the subways. In Cambridge, Massachusetts, activist and city council member Jivan Sobrinho-Wheeler, has developed a free transit proposal funded by new progressive taxes on luxury vehicles and real estate. Others have suggested land value capture as a funding mechanism. A constraining liberalism pervades urban planning paradigms and pro-transit critics of fare-free can forget that policy, budgets and laws are transformed in the streets too, not merely planning boardrooms and government chambers. 

The economies of New York, Boston, Chicago, San Francisco, Philadelphia and Washington D.C. are utterly dependent on functional mass transit. In these major cities, fare strikes – a mass refusal to pay fares – wield particular potential. Fare strikes can starve transit agencies of necessary finances in these cities, an exertion of material class power. However, transit authorities can’t simply respond by shutting down service; the subsequent economic crisis would be too severe for these leading urban economies. Caught between a rock and a hard place, politicians and transit officials could be compelled to identify new revenue streams if faced with a mass fare strike.

Low-Income Discounts Are Insufficient

Instead of eliminating fares systemwide, critics argue that discounted or free transit passes should be available to lower-income riders, while other riders should be charged full fare rates. This would address equity concerns while maintaining a revenue source for transit agencies. Numerous municipalities and transit authorities have now enacted low-income fare programs. While these are welcome developments in immediate terms, an income-based, multi-tiered fare structure suffers significant flaws. 

Few of these programs offer free transit passes to low-income riders. They offer discounted fares, usually about 50% of the standard adult rate. For Seattle’s ORCA Lift recipients, the fare is $1.50, while the City of New York’s Fair Fare charge is $1.35. Even these prices are prohibitive for poorer households, particularly for transit-dependent riders who tend to ride frequently. 

Eligibility in these programs are tightly income-restricted, based on percentages of the Federal Poverty Level (FPL). The FPL is set at notoriously low levels, with about $13,000 in annual income the poverty limit for an individual and approximately $17,000 the limit for a household of two. ORCA Lift utilizes a 200% FPL eligibility threshold, while Fair Fares only uses 100% FPL, despite the exorbitant cost of living in New York. A more accurate indicator of economic distress is the Self-Sufficiency Standard. This alternative measure accounts for different family types and local variations in living costs. In Seattle, a self-sufficient income for a household of one is $27,000 annually and $57,000 annually for a household of one adult and one young child. These figures are much higher than ORCA Lift’s maximum allowable income. For New York, the discrepancies are jarring. Although Fair Fares would only enroll a family of two with an annual income below $17,000, according to Self-Sufficiency Standard measures a livable income for an adult and small child can range from $51,000 in the Bronx to a staggering $85,000 in southern Manhattan. Under current guidelines less than 17% of New Yorkers are eligible for Fair Fares, whereas if the Self-Sufficiency Standard were employed, 40% of residents would be eligible. These calculations indicate the stark inadequacy of low-income fare programs in meeting the needs of working class transit riders. 

These fare programs also exhibit exclusionary and alienating tendencies common (perhaps inherent) to means-tested social provision. Riders who don’t speak English or Spanish may not even be aware of a program’s existence. Undocumented people may be deterred from accessing the programs if their residency and citizenship status is scrutinized during eligibility processes. Homeless people and others without a consistent home address or internet access will experience difficulty receiving application information. Means-tested services are wildly inconvenient, with distinct application processes for each program. Recipients of multiple services have to juggle many appointments with separate agencies, requiring different eligibility criteria. The humiliation of proving one’s poverty time and again can take its toll too.

Of course, free transit passes available to anyone below the the Self-Sufficiency Standard would be far superior to current discount programs. However, discount programs can only preserve fare revenues as a significant revenue stream by not offering free passes to everyone experiencing economic instability. In NYC for instance, the median income of an MTA rider was $46,000, less than the self-sufficiency standard for a household of two in every part of the city, and significantly so in many boroughs. Elsewhere, poverty rates as indicated by Self-Sufficiency rates approach 40% to 50% in major cities from L.A. to Philadelphia. With household incomes of transit riders consistently below the average U.S. household income, it’s reasonable to assume a majority of riders could be eligible for low-income passes if accurate measures of economic hardships were used.  This scenario would then logically beg the question: why not just make it free for everyone?


The Convenience of Fare-Free


Fare collection exacerbates “dwell times,” the amount of time buses spend at bus stops without moving. Fare-free service expedites boarding processes by permitting a swift and simple implementation of all-doors boarding and sweeps the infamous “fare fumble” into the dustbin of history. Fare-free also eliminates the cumbersome task of comprehending complex fare structures, which are particularly confusing to visitors, newcomers and infrequent riders. 

Critics in turn charge that the convenience of fare-free can be matched by alternative technologies and methods that maintain fare collection. These include transitioning from cash-based fares to electronic cards-based fares and adopting proof-of-payment (POP) systems. POP allows riders to enter transit vehicles at all doors by installing off-board or all-door payment infrastructure. While both of these innovations improve service efficiency, they carry social consequences for marginalized riders. Research indicates poor riders are routinely disadvantaged when cash fare options disappear. Without upfront cash, a smartphone, internet or a bank account card-based fares are more inaccessible. To deter fare evasion, POP systems employ fare enforcement officers (some of whom are fully-sworn police officers) to enter transit vehicles and inspect fare receipts from passengers. True to policing across the board, fare enforcement practices exhibit glaring racist and anti-homeless biases. Black riders in particular are disproportionately targeted by fare enforcement. This reason alone ought to suffice in opposing proof-of-payment. Cops don’t belong on our trains and buses. 


A Fight on Many Fronts


 Fare-free transit isn’t the silver bullet solution to the manifold crises plaguing public transportation. Eliminating fares doesn’t address poor coverage, late bus arrivals or infrequent service. Neither, though, does securing free public transit today preclude the possibility of improving and extending transit service in the future. In fact, organizations like OPAL Environmental Justice League in Portland, Oregon already organize for both free transit and expanded service coverage and options. 

 Free transit though, even as a standalone reform, can offer immediate social and ecological benefits on a significant scale. According to the authors of Free Public Transit, free service can boost riderships up to 50%. It increases service speeds, making transit more attractive. For low-income households spending 29% of their income on transportation costs, it can be transformative. With automobile use a leading contributor to global carbon emissions, any measures to incentivize public transit is crucial in mitigating climate catastrophe. 

Amidst the increasing popularity of socialism and the Bernie Sanders campaign, decommodification and universal services can now be glimpsed on the political horizon. The struggle for free public transportation parallels these national trends, and it’s time for transit nerds, advocates and planners to grasp this shifting political landscape and join working-class riders in this fight.


Ecology After Capitalism – December Reading Group

Sunday, December 1, 2019, 2 PM – 4 PM @ 115 Legion Way SE, Olympia, WA


Suggested readings: Capitalism, democracy, and the degrowth horizon by Leandro Vergara-Camus, The labor(s) of degrowth by Stefania Barca, and Beyond the limits of nature: a social-ecological view of growth and degrowth by Eleanor Finley

These blog posts attempt to facilitate an emerging dialogue between degrowth and eco-socialism. Two critiques of degrowth from an ecosocialist perspective are as follows:

First, while capitalism is compelled to grow by its internal dynamics, there is no intrinsic ‘law’ that makes capitalism incompatible with a steady or declining economy. Second, and perhaps most significantly, overcoming capitalism is no guarantee that a more sustainable socio-ecological configuration will come about.

Nevertheless, degrowth is worth taking seriously, not only because the movement is fast expanding in academic as well as activist circles but also because the points raised are often valid and can stimulate important reflection, debate and convergence in the anti-capitalist left.

Reading group texts do not necessarily represent Olympia Assembly, we read them for critical engagement and discussion.


Advocate for a Zero-Fare Intercity Transit


Intercity Transit (IT) is currently exploring the possibility of eliminating fares, “zero-fare” as its called in IT documents. Meetings will be held on November 6th and 20th at 5:30 PM at 526 Pattison St SE, Olympia (on the 62, 66 and 60 buses) during which the possibility of going fare-free will hopefully be discussed. We encourage people to attend these meeting to express support for fare-free.

There other ways to advocate for fare-free service in the lead-up outside of these meetings. Firstly, when the fare-free pilot One bus between Capital Mall and Martin Way P&R comes online (hopefully in the next few weeks) everyone should ride it as much as possible and boost the ridership figures. Higher ridership will signal support for fare-free service. Stay tuned for “bus riding parties.” IT monitors the ridership of the existing free Dash bus in downtown, so give that a ride whenever you can too.
Please consider writing emails, filling out comment cards, calling Intercity Transit, writing letters to the editor, or speaking at public comment during Intercity Transit meetings about the importance of fare-free transit.
Contact info
Phone: 360-705-5852
Public Comment: Attend public meetings on Nov. 6th and Nov. 20th at location listed above.
Comment Cards: Can be found and submitted at the customer service desk at Olympia Transit Center.
These are some of the important points to address when advocating for zero-fare transit.
-Economic and social justice: Transit fares are an arbitrary barrier to movement that overwhelmingly disadvantage poor people. With zero-fare service, mobility will increase and employment, housing, education, social services, cultural activities and leisure will become more accessible to everyone. Note that transit-dependent riders are disproportionately low-income, homeless, disabled, elderly, people of color, women, youth and immigrants. These groups will benefit most from zero-fare service.
Climate justice: Auto use is a leading cause of climate change, responsible for nearly 20% carbon of emissions in the U.S. Studies show that implementing zero-fare transit can lead to 30%-40% increases in transit ridership, encouraging car owners to use transit instead of driving. Particularly with shifts to electric bus usage among transit systems throughout the U.S., free public transit is an absolute necessity to mitigate the climate crisis.
Cost effective: Fare collection only accounts for 7% of Intercity Transit’s revenue. Accounting for maintenance of fareboxes and labor and accounting costs associated with handling fares, the percentage decreases further to probably 5% or 6% of total revenue. With dramatically increased ridership, Intercity Transit will likely be able to access more federal funding to expand service further. Financial partnerships with NGOs, employers and municipal governments could also easily fill any small funding gap. With less traffic congestion and air pollution, healthcare and road repair costs will decrease.
Increasing bus speeds: Fare-free service permits the implementation of all-doors boarding, allowing people to board buses at back doors as well as front doors. This leads to less crowding overall during boarding. Zero-fare eliminates the “fare fumble” of people scrambling to procure exact change for bus fare, delaying buses. Zero-fare will decrease “dwell” time at bus stops and on average improve general bus speeds by 3%-7%. Increased bus speeds improve rider experiences and contribute to high ridership.
Safety: In the U.S. a significant amount of disputes and altercations on public transit are related to fare collection. Zero-fare service is thus a workplace safety measure for bus drivers. Buses are also safer vehicles than cars. With more bus riders and fewer cars on the roads, car accidents could decrease as could illnesses related to chemical pollution.

#ShutDownICEProfiteers Call To Action

Inspired by recent successful #BlockTheWall and #ShutDownICEProfiteers calls to protest banks lending to the migrant detention industry, we are calling for sustained organizing against large financial backers of migrant detention:


     Call To Action: Take direct action to shut down office locations of State Street Corp, Prudential Financial and BlackRock Inc. 


     Large swathes of U.S. society are ready to take action in the face of the draconian xenophobia of the Trump administration, particularly after conditions detailing the mass detention of migrant children were revealed. Never Again Action, Movimiento Cosecha and other organizations have revived the disruptive spirit of Occupy ICE from a year ago, launching new rounds of blockades at detention centers, ICE Field Offices and the offices of political leaders. #ShutDownICEProfiteers organizing has intervened within this groundswell of rebellion, exposing financial streams as another artery within the deportation and detention infrastructure that can be clogged through direct action.



Typically, over 60 percent of migrants detained by ICE are held in privately-run immigrant prisons, of which GEO Group and CoreCivic are the industry’s leading companies. GEO and CoreCivic have notorious human rights track records. At CoreCivic-owned Stewart Dentention Center 4 migrants have died in the last 2 years. At GEO-owned Northwest Detention Center in Tacoma, WA, detainees periodically stage hunger strikes to demand decent wages, living conditions and medical care. GeoGroup and CoreCivic are vulnerable to divestment because they are incorporated as real estate companies, requiring them to return 90% of profits to shareholders annually. Without steady credit the economic stability of GEO and CoreCivic are in jeapardy. In addition, if major shareholders like Prudential, BlackRock, and State Street Corp. were pressured into liquidating their holdings (demanding the nominal value of their stock shares be paid in full), CoreCivic and GeoGroup’s extremely low level of cash reserves, as mandated by their incorporation as Real Estate Investment Trusts, means the likelihood that they could afford this payout while maintaining normal business operations is very much in doubt.



From July 8th-12th Olympia Assembly and Block the Wall Network organized a week of action to shut down large banks financing migrant detention and private prisons. The call has heeded by activists in Seattle, Tampa, Atlanta, Portland, Asheville, NYC and elsewhere. Bank of America, SunTrust, BNP Paribas all divested before and during the week of action, while Fifth Third and PNC Bank divested soon after. According to a recent impact brief, GEO and CoreCivic stand to lose 87% of future financing from these divestments, with stocks for both corporations plummeting. 


While most major banks have now indicated they plan to exit financial relationships with private prison companies, GEO’s and CoreCivic’s largest institutional shareholders have not relinquished their stockholdings. According to NASDAQ data released on 6/30/19 State Street Corp, Prudential Financial and BlackRock Inc. are some of the largest stock owners:



     -BlackRock (#2 largest shareholder): $225,115,000 in share value.

     -State Street Corp (#4 largest shareholder): $59,794,000 in share value.

     -Prudential Financial (#6 largest shareholder): $53,620,000 in share value.


     For complete CoreCivic institutional holdings listings click here.


     GEO Group:

     -BlackRock (#2 largest shareholder): $225,393,000 in share value.

     -Prudential Financial (#6 largest shareholder): $67,925,000 in share value.

     -State Street Corp (#7 largest shareholder): 60,720,000 in share value. 


     For complete GEO Group institutional holdings listings click here.


    Suggested Tactics:

         -Informational Pickets

         -Office Occupations/Disruptions

         -Noise Demonstrations

         -Phone Zaps

         -Banner Drops

         -All of the above!


 Office Location Links:


BlackRock Inc.


Prudential Financial


State Street Corp.



Olympia Assembly

Block The Wall Network

It’s Going Down

El Comite – Seattle

No Detention Centers in Michigan

Symbiosis PDX

Youth Liberation Front – Seattle Division

Send endorsements to info {at} itsgoingdown {dot} org

En espanol

#ShutDownICEProfiteers Llamado a la acción 

Inspirados por las recientes y exitosas llamadas “#BlockTheWall” y “#ShutDownICEProfiteers” contra los bancos que financian a la industria de detención de migrantes, estamos pidiendo organización sostenida en contra de los grandes patrones que financian la detención de migrantes:


La acción: tome medidas directas para cerrar las oficinas de State Street Corp, Prudential Financial y BlackRock Inc.


Grandes sectores de la sociedad estadounidense están dispuestos para actuar frente a la xenofobia draconiana de la administración de Trump, aun más después de que se revelaron condiciones detallando la detención masiva de niños migrantes. Desde hace un año, Acción Nunca Más, Movimiento Cosecha y otras organizaciones han resucitado el espíritu disruptivo de “Ocupa ICE”, lanzando nuevos rondos de bloqueos en centros de detención, oficinas de campo de la migra y oficinas de líderes políticos. La organización de #ShutDownICEProfiteers intervino dentro de esta ola de rebelión, exponiendo las corrientes financieras como otra arteria dentro de la infraestructura de deportación y detención que podemos obstruir a través de la acción directa.


Por lo general, más del 60 por ciento de los migrantes detenidos por ICE se encuentran en cárceles privadas y GEO Group y CoreCivic son las principales empresas en la industria. GEO y CoreCivic son notorios por su violación de los derechos humanos. En el Stewart Dentention Center, que pertenece a CoreCivic, 4 migrantes han muerto en los últimos 2 años. En el Centro de Detención Northwest, propiedad de GEO, en Tacoma, WA, los detenidos periódicamente organizan huelgas de hambre, exigiendo salarios dignos, mejores condiciones de vida y atención médica. GeoGroup y CoreCivic son vulnerables a la desinversión porque se incorporan como compañías de bienes raíces, lo cual requiere que devuelvan a los accionistas el 90% de las ganancias de la corporación cada año. Si una vez les falta el acceso al crédito, su estabilidad económica estaría en peligro. Además, si los principales accionistas como Prudential, BlackRock y State Street Corp. fueran presionados para liquidar sus acciones (exigiendo el valor nominal de sus acciones pagado en su totalidad), el nivel muy bajo de reservas de efectivo que tienen CoreCivic y GeoGroup, según lo estipulado por su incorporación como Fideicomisos de Inversión en Bienes Raíces, significa que la probabilidad de que puedan pagar este pago mientras mantienen las operaciones comerciales normales vuelve a ser muy dudosa.


Del 8 al 12 de julio, la Asamblea de Olympia y la Red “Block the Wall” organizaron una semana de acción con el fin de cerrar los grandes bancos que financian la detención de migrantes y las cárceles privadas. Acudieron a la llamada activistas en Seattle, Tampa, Atlanta, Portland, Asheville, Nueva York, entre otros lugares. Bank of America, SunTrust y BNP Paribas desinvirtieron antes y durante la semana de acción, mientras que Fifth Third y PNC Bank sacaron su dinero poco después. Según un reciente informe, para GEO y CoreCivic, estas desinversiones pueden causar la pérdida del 87% del financiamiento futuro, y que las acciones de las dos corporaciones se desplomen.


Aunque la mayoría de los principales bancos han indicado que planean salir de las relaciones financieras con compañías de cárceles privadas, los accionistas institucionales más grandes de GEO y CoreCivic aun no han seguido su ejemplo. Según los datos de NASDAQ [índice de acciones] publicados el 30/6/19, State Street Corp, Prudential Financial y BlackRock Inc. son algunos de los mayores propietarios de acciones:




-BlackRock (accionista segundo mas grande): valor de acciones de $251,556,000.

-State Street Corp (accionista cuarto mas grande): valor de acciones de $66,818,000.

-Prudential Financial (accionista sexto mas grande): valor de acciones de $59,918,000.


Para una lista completa de las participaciones institucionales de CoreCivic, haga clic aquí.


GEO Group


-BlackRock (accionista segundo mas grande): valor de acciones de $248,640,000

-Prudential Financial (accionista sexto mas grande): valor de acciones de $74,930,000.

-State Street Corp (el séptimo mas grande): valor de acciones de $66,983,000


Para una lista complete de las participaciones institucionales de GEO Group, haga clic aquí.


Tácticas sugeridas

-Piquetes informacionales

-Ocupación o trastorno de oficinas

-Demostración de ruido

-Trabarlos con llamadas

-Caída de banderas

-¡Toda la anterior!


Olympic Peninsula, WA: Two US Bank Shutdowns Targeting ICE Profiteers

Reportback from Olympia and Lacey, WA on recent anti-ICE divestment actions against US Bank, the bond “trustee” for CoreCivic, and a bond “underwriter” for both GEO and CoreCivic.

On August 12th, over 25 people marched to and occupied US Bank branch in downtown Olympia, followed by a group of about 15 people then repeating the action and occupying the US Bank branch in Lacey. The action, organized by a working group of Olympia Assembly, comes on the heels of recent #DivestfromICE victories and is the latest in a series of divestment direct actions across the U.S.

Protesters gathered first in Sylvester Park, Olympia and marched towards 4th Ave and Capitol Way, where they entered US Bank. Police followed closely from Sylvester and into US Bank, with about 2 or 3 stationed inside during the duration of the demonstration. They did not intervene however, and protesters were able to chant and distribute leaflets to customers, workers, and around the space unobstructed. After leaving the bank, protesters stood outside chanting and holding up signs visible to passing cars and pedestrians, then marched back to Sylvester and mobilized for a follow up demo at the Lacey branch.

About four full cars then drove to and met up in a parking lot neighboring the US Bank on Martin Way in Lacey. Upon approaching the bank, protesters then began chanting “US Bank collaborates with ICE” as they entered, holding up a banner reading “Chinga La Migra” at the front so as to be immediately visible to everyone inside. A security guard stationed outside the bank perceived the group approaching and withdrew into the bank, but did not lock the doors and protesters were able to enter and continue chanting and distributing leaflets as they occupied the branch. Three customers left while the action occurred, and two probable customers turned back from entering the bank apparently after viewing the demonstration inside.

The majority of immigrant detainees (~70%) are imprisoned in detention centers operated by private prison companies like CoreCivic and GEO Group. These companies are structured as Real Estate Investment Trusts (REITs), which makes them reliant on financing from large financial institutions and vulnerable to credit loss. Divestment announcements, most recently including PNC, have caused private prison stock prices to plummet, consistent pressure on those still holding out is crucial. According to NASDAQ, Vanguard Group and BlackRock are some of GEO’s and CoreCivic’s largest institutional shareholders, owning stock totaling in the hundreds of millions of dollars between the two corporations. In addition to U.S. Bank,  HSBC is also listed as a bond “underwriter” for both GEO and CoreCivic. Bond underwriters enable the financing of migrant detention while making individual profit by purchasing bonds from the prison companies and reselling them to individual bondholders.

If you’re interested in organization divestment action in your community, a list of the remaining major shareholders/investors and local locations of individual bank branches and investment firm offices can be found here.