House Passes Chilling "Nonprofit Killer" Bill With 15 Democrats Voting "Yes"

[MayReasonRule]

“A sixth grader would know this is unconstitutional,” said Rep. Jamie Raskin.

https://truthout.org/articles/house-passes-chilling-nonprofit-killer-bill-with-15-democrats-voting-yes/

The House easily passed a bill that would give Donald Trump and future presidents a bludgeon to target and silence dissenting nonprofits on Thursday, in what opponents warned is a step toward allowing the executive branch to wield unchecked, authoritarian power.

H.R. 9495, nicknamed the “nonprofit killer” by critics, passed 219 to 184 with 15 Democrats voting “yes.” The legislation, which civil liberties groups have said could deliver a huge blow to the rights to free speech and dissent across the U.S., now goes to the Senate for consideration.

[MayReasonRule]

1. These Are The 15 Democratic Party House Members That Voted In Favor Of This Bill

Allred
Caraveo
Case
Cuellar
Davis (NC)
Golden (ME)
Gonzalez, V.
Lee (NV)
Moskowitz
Panetta
Perez
Schneider
Suozzi
Torres (CA)
Wasserman Schultz

WTAF???

[Bettie]

17. Apparently, they don't really like

free speech.

And political parties are classified as non-profits, so we should be ready for the Democratic Party to be classified as a terrorist organization.

And these 15 are cool with that.

[Amishman]

19. The subtext of this is that groups like Hamas have been using charities as fundraising fronts

In that example the charities raise funds to help Palestinians, but funnel it to Hamas who use it for less altruistic purposes.

https://home.treasury.gov/news/press-releases/jy2632#:~:text=HAMAS'S%20USE%20OF%20SHAM%20%26%20FRONT%20CHARITIES&text=Hamas%20affiliates%20raise%20funds%20through,a%20month%20through%20such%20donations.

Doesn't make this a good bill - it's badly worded and dangerously broad. But it helps explain why some on our side are supporting it.

[MayReasonRule]

20. It Doesn't Make Sense To Me Either...

😡

[DeepWinter]

2. The 15 who voted for it

Deleted - Duplicate info

[MayReasonRule]

3. Happy Friday Y'all...

Let's seize our day and laissez les bon temps rouler!

Let's not let the bastards get us down...

[Kaleva]

4. Maga fundy churches are worried about their nonprofit status

[MayReasonRule]

5. This Is An Abhorrent Bill. First Vote 52 Democratic Reps Voted In Favor. Second Vote 15 Democratic Reps Voted In Favor.

It horrifies me that any Democratic Party member would vote for such abhorrent legislation.

FFS

Under the legislation, the federal government would not be required to disclose evidence of its allegations that nonprofits are "terrorist supporting organizations."

"In the absence of meaningful due process, any nonprofit—from humanitarian organizations to independent newsrooms—could risk losing tax-exempt status," said Defending Rights & Dissent. "The bill has further implications for civil society. The mere threat of being tied up in litigation, facing the reputational harm that such a designation would bring, and loss of donors, would chill speech and stifle dissent."

https://www.commondreams.org/news/hr-9495-passed

[Vinca]

6. If it's in place and a Democrat takes office, go after the churches.

All of them should be paying taxes.

[MayReasonRule]

7. That's Not The Case... The Fascist Criminal Enterpise That Is The GOP Will Control Every Branch Of Government

This is a terrible piece of legislation no matter how one parses it.

I agree about taxing religious organizations. They're scams through and through preying on the mentally enfeebled and socially disadvantaged.

Tax 'em all!

[FBaggins]

9. Wouldn't work

The OP is mostly repeating CAIR’s spin… but a future Democratic president couldn’t “go after” a church unless it could provide evidence that they were funding terrorism.

[MayReasonRule]

14. No Attempt On My Part To Spin This.. I Agree With Jamie Raskin.. A 6th Grader Could Determine This Is Unconstitutional

Happy Friday y'all!

[harumph]

16. Any president can go after whomever they please

by making unfounded allegations that by themselves are sufficient to damage the targeted organization. Whether or not the allegations are have factual basis would be for a court to decide. Nevertheless, a president using the bully pulpit can do an enormous amount to damage to his perceived enemies. Exactly what power is there to disincentivize dangerous and false allegations on the part of the president? What is the degree of plausibility required to make the case that the president's actions were part of his official duties?

Limitations on the president have been steadily eroded. Disincentives to making unfounded and damaging allegations would be
some sort of punishment or legal sanction levied by congress (it ain't goin to happen). In the face of a president without firm guardrails (e.g., "...in the case of, the congress SHALL...", the "law" is relevant as a disgarded washing machine on the parkway.

[kerouac2]

8. Church of Trump on the way

It isn't unbelievable to imagine a church of trump with non-profit status coming out soon. They are probably drafting the holy book for it now.

Ten commandments could probably be lifted from the ferengi from star trek.

[Mike 03]

10. Terrible news. Sad that some Democrats

supported this. I think they will regret it.

[Norbert]

11. I have no doubts that there should be some reform of non-profits

We have for-profit businesses hiding behind a non-profit, and they don't particularly hide very well.

Trouble is, like everything the hard right does, their reasoning is always black and white and they take matters to a totally unreasonable level.

[Fullduplexxx]

12. They'd have to define supporting and define which terrorists

Cause Maga, churches are hotbeds for homegrown terrorists

[MayReasonRule]

15. They'll Make It Up As They Go Along... Like Everything Else Fascists Do...

[lindysalsagal]

13. They'll probably target Freedom From Religion Foundation

Because they succeed in enforcing the 1st amendment on a regular basis.

[UTUSN]

18. K&R