(These first few paragraphs are paraphrased from a private Democratic Party site; I doubt that the author seeks recognition here, but if I hear otherwise I’ll gladly offer credit.) Last Tuesday, H.R. 9495 came before the House of Representatives and received the support of all but one Republican and a surprising and distressing number of Democrats. It would give the White House the ability to strip the tax-exempt status of organizations simply because they disagree with their advocacy. That means organizations would lose their (c)(3) or (c)(4) status without any justification, and without any recourse to appeal the decision.
The writer who alerted me about this sort of pussyfooted around the issue at hand, saying only that this “dangerous legislation is a civil rights disaster under normal circumstances, right out of the authoritarian playbook. In the hands of the coming administration, it will be an engraved invitation to repress critical voices and political dissent.”
Democrats who supported it fell into a few categories. Some are the “moderate” Democrats who I’m rooted for in the present election tabulations because they’re better than there alternatives — ones like Rep. Jay Costa, John Duarte, and Josh Harder of the relatively conservative Central Valley. But not all of those California Democratic casting “Aye” votes match that description. Mike Levin, Jimmy Panetta, Adam Schiff, Brad Sherman, Norma Torres, and Juan Vargas also voted for it.
Put aside Panetta (whose father was a prominent Democratic neocon) and you’re left with three Jewish members and two border or near-border Latinos. Can you get what this was about?
Here’s a graphic to enjoy while you think about it.
OK, times up! It was the Stop Terror-Financing and Tax Penalties on American Hostages Act. This was in the grand tradition of putting two only tangentially related bills together so that politicians worry about voting against the popular portion. In this case, the popular part — Tax Penalties on American Hostages Act. which could easily have passed on its own — would postpone certain tax filing deadlines for U.S. nationals and their spouses who are unlawfully or wrongfully detained abroad or held hostage abroad, and would allow for a refund and abatement of tax penalties and fines paid by detained individuals. Great! Love to see that pass.
But the other part, the “Stop Terror-Financing” part? The that portion of the bill terminates the tax-exempt status of what the President find to be “terrorist-supporting” non-profit organizations.
Now it’s important to know that this bill needed 2/3 support to pass, under the rule under which it was brought to the floor. It failed to get that 2/3. A shout-out of thanks goes to San Diego County Democratic representatives Sara Jacobs and Scott Peters, voted correctly against it. And in Orange County — (checks notes and then hoots joyfully) — Lou Correa voted against this! So did Katie Porter and Linda Sanchez. (Oh, Katie, we will miss you compared to the schmuck who beat you.) Michelle Steel and Young Kim voted for it, of course — which I’m sure gives their fellow supporter Mike Levin warm feelings. So please DO give your calls and messages of thanks to Katie, Linda, and Lou for not giving Trump the ability to wipe out, with impunity, non-profits that do things like support relief organizations.
(You can look up other representatives’ votes on H.R. 9495’s roll call.)
My guess is that this will come back next year, probably as part of a reconciliation bill requiring only a majority vote to pass, even though it really doesn’t belong in one. And it may well pass. Let’s send other thoughts and messages — nothing “terroristic,” please; just be polite and firm — to Mike Levin, who really ought to know better than this. He needs to exchange to his constituents how voting nay on this is not supporting terrorism — and we here can help him do so.
Note: the latest word is that it will be coming back sooner than that, so let’s hope that Biden has the stolidity to veto it, no matter what it’s attached to.
Shutting off one side of non-profits taking stands on a critical national debate is flat-out wrong. Letting the President do so on their own unappealable (at least with this Supreme Court) is worse. And letting this President do so is absolutely nuts. Kamala Harris would have been able to use this law to shit down any non-profits who did anything that might have supported January 6. Is that what conservatives want? Well, I guess if they are working towards the end of democracy, they expect to be in power forever — so they have no reason to care.
Schiff is pro American Jewish Committee. Pro-Israel Zionist organizations better watch out. #fafo
https://www.jta.org/2024/11/20/united-states/more-than-55-jewish-groups-come-out-against-terrorism-bill-that-could-threaten-nonprofits (ADL and AIPAC support it)
https://www.memri.org/reports/american-muslims-palestine-amp-national-chairman-dr-hatem-bazian-uc-santa-cruz-pro-palestine
Eric, do you know when Melahat’s sentencing has been postponed to? Or did we all miss it?
It’s in December. I believe December 13th. I had actually posted the date here in a thread before the order continuing it was sealed. I’ll check again. And I believe Sidhu’s was continued to March 2025.
I’ll allow this one, Counselor.
OK — so who here has called Levin yet? Calling Schiff is worthless, but Levin has a conscience.
I’ll post this on the Indivisible OC 49 page, with a call for calls to Levin! Hopefully that’ll do something.
No need, and I didn’t realize this was racing along so quickly. Mike just tweeted https://x.com/RepMikeLevin/status/1859679853139853426
“Today I voted against H.R. 9495. I now believe the bill’s safeguards to ensure it is not abused are inadequate. While organizations cannot be allowed to use nonprofit status to support terror groups, the process to enforce these rules should include stronger due process.”
Um… did it pass even with members like Levin having second thoughts?
Do you think her sentencing keeps getting postponed because she is turning on more people or is it more bureaucratic?
We keep telling ourselves that Sidhu, Melahat & Ament keep getting postponed because they “must be really spilling the beans.” But how many beans could possibly remain unspilled at this point?
I doubt if they’re spilling anything. They’re the biggest fish.
I expect that it’s because she is an inveterate liar who is still devoted to her clients — and it takes a long time to sort whatever kernels of wheat may exist from a high volume of chaff. Chaff should seriously harm her, if discovered to be such, but she might get away with passing on what she represents as hearsay. (To give a concrete but remotely likely example, she could be spinning yarns about supposed wrongdoing by me and Vern, just in the hope that something found in a consequent investigation might stick. What’s power for, if not to abuse?)
Meanwhile, she could get pardoned by Trump in a couple of months. She has the contacts (or contacts of contacts) that could make it happen. I would not be surprised if she’s just waiting it out — pretty much the same way that Trump did. Pardoning and then incorporating her into his Administration could be a Trump display of bogus “bipartisanship.”
It fucking passed, with 15 Dems joining all Republicans. Both Schiff and Levin wised up, but not these 15 traitors:
Allred
Caraveo
Case
Cuellar
Davis (NC)
Golden (ME)
Gonzalez, V.
Lee (NV)
Moskowitz
Panetta
Perez
Schneider
Suozzi
Torres (CA)
Wasserman Schultz
Pinche Wasserman-Schultz.
Neither Levin nor Schiff get full credit, because they were able to vote the right way only when it was clear that we’d see the wrong result.
Norma Torres is going to have a very strong opponent next time. I don’t know who it is, but if CDP endorses her they will regret it. The consequences will come with receipts.
Time to take out Ed Case of Hawaii also. Others on the list will follow.
You’re saying you think Levin and Schiff got a “hall pass?” From AIPAC?
I’m saying that that cannot be ruled out, nor can the possibility that they literally waited until enough Aye votes were cast before voting Nay.
I also can’t rule out the Levin literally did not figure out that this power was too unbounded at the time of the first vote — but what the hell does *that* say about him? This was all over the political news: he *really* didn’t get what it was about? What’s more plausible was very bad staffing by someone who wanted to see this pass and bamboozled him. If that person who let him go into this unmoored still has a job, this is a good time to let them seek other pastures.
Look, I’ve come to like Levin over the years, despite my initial misgivings (more than I’d like to admit came from one of the most unfortunate campaign photos I’ve even seen leading me to question his judgment. But he really is probably as good as we’ll get from this district — and his district is (1) likely disproportionately Jewish, based on my observations, and (2) fanatically anti-“terrorism”. I might well have advised him *not* to change his vote on this because it makes him look either inept or pusillanimous. But someone, or some group, put him in a terrible situation — even if he did get a hall pass.
By way of contrast, Schiff has no excuses at all — and less credibility.
I’ve come to like Levin too, but I think he’s still mad at us. Probably because of our “courtier” photoshop of him from back when he was running in the 2018 primary against Applegate.
From early on taking on the Toll Roads Agency, to this year being the first OC Congressperson to call on Joe Biden to step down (while Lou and Linda were cheering him on to stay in.) Decidedly un-courtier-like.
Well, luckily we haven’t done anything recently to exacerbate that!
[Re-reads headline of post]
Well … nothing terrible, anyway…
That was a hard-fought primary. If he doesn’t understand that, he should. (But the criticism in this one is meant constructively.)
If I were one of Melahat’s former clients (especially one who is leaving office), I’d be a little worried right about now.
And if I were Trump I’d be using Melahat to make fun of the Democrats who had a party officer wearing a wire and demonstrate that it’s fake news when none of what happened to her became part of the news cycle.
I agree with your first paragraph, Eric, even though I recognize that your “concern” comes from a desire to pursue grievances against two Irvine women in particular.
I agree with your second paragraph up the the word “and,” after which you end up somewhere between abstruse and incoherent. You have leave to revise and resubmit.
And if I were Trump I’d be using Melahat to make fun of the Democrats who had a party officer wearing a wire and demonstrate that all of the cases and bad press against him and his associates were fake news when none of what happened to her or Sidhu or even Moreno for that matter became part of the news cycle.