TO ILC or not to ILC?

There is a great fight over Wal Mart's application to get a banking license and form ILC (Industial Loan Company). BY US law it is prohibited to companies that derive more than 15% of its profits from non-financial business to own ILC.
What is pro and cons (in brief - all that follows source The Economist)
According to those against non-banks owning ILCs, mixing banking and commerce could distort lending. A non-bank owner could use its banking subsidiary's deposits (which, through the FDIC, are insured by the taxpayer) as a source of cheap finance. In particular, suppose that the parent company got into trouble. It might borrow from the ILC to shore itself up. Alternatively, the ILC's customers could take fright at the parent's difficulties and pull out their deposits in a hurry. What, ask the bill's supporters, would have happened had Enron owned a bank?

Others think these fears overblown. In America's competitive financial industry, a bank's ability to discriminate in its lending is limited. Moreover, federal rules that limit the amount banks can lend to their affiliates are already on the books.

Those who see no reason why non-banks should not own ILCs say bankers' real fear is competition, especially from Wal-Mart and Home Depot. Although Wal-Mart insists it would use an ILC only to save money on processing its credit-card and debit-card transactions, bankers fear it will eventually enter branch banking. Already, the retailer cashes cheques, sends money orders and so forth, often much more cheaply than competitors do. In Massachusetts bankers are fighting Wal-Mart's attempts to start cashing cheques in the state. And the customers? Too bad.