I would be fine with credit checks and criminal background checks being run on all final stage candidates, with consent. I hired a felon once and ended up losing seven figures. Not doing background checks on someone in a key position with access to customer information, etc. seems irresponsible.

A low credit score should not be a disqualifier, but should be explained. If someone had gotten divorced or medical expenses or something, that isn't a concern (and I would consider advancing money to clear it up for any clearance investigations later), but if it is due to gambling, drug, etc. addiction, I would be very dubious unless there were a way to show it was not an ongoing risk. (similarly, there are some criminal convictions I would consider benign or even slightly positive, and others which would be disqualifies)

It seems to me these days that it would be easier to run a website to keep track of employers that don't run credit checks on potential employees. Since I graduated spring of last year, the only potential employer that didn't check my credit score was Google. Granted, the rest of the employers were located in southwestern Ohio rather than CA, but it seemed to me like "standard practice" hoops you had to jump through if you didn't want to work at a restaurant or grocery store... :(

It's not unusual, people with debt problems are frequently targeted by criminals who want to get an "insider" in a company.

It happens more often than you think, corporate espionage, money laundering, theft of credit cards details, customer identities, etc. have all happened this way.

The US Government runs credit checks as part of the clearance process. I've been pondering and give it about even odds that you considered this when you composed your response.