HR 9495, does anyone know what this actually says?

[Zyada]

I would like to start sending emails to my representatives in regards to upcoming legislation.

Currently, ACLU is worried about HR 9495, but they’re not saying what it actually says, just what affect they think it will have. I’d like to know more about it before I voice my opinions.

[Dewey_Finn]

From the ACLU website, “This legislation would have granted the Secretary of Treasury the unilateral power to investigate and effectively shut down any tax-exempt organization — including news outlets, universities, and civil society groups — by stripping them of their tax-exempt status based on an unilateral accusation of wrongdoing.”

[Saint_Cad]

Goodbye public-sector unions if it passes.

[Monty]

Here is a nifty link from the House Committee on Rules. And here is a PDF of the bill from that site.

[WOOKINPANUBv.2]

So, a bill has to be created to prevent IRS from penalizing individuals who miss the filing date due to being held hostage? I’m not sure what that has to with tax exempt terrorism supporters, but it will be a real shitshow under the coming administration.

[Zyada]

That’s what I got from it on the first reading as well, but rereading the summary, there’s this sentence:

“The bill terminates the tax-exempt status of terrorist supporting organizations”

The question is who determines that an organization is supporting terrorists?

[Jas09]

@Zyada

The question is who determines that an organization is supporting terrorists?

Yes, that is the fear and that is the part the ACLU is opposed to.

This is the part of the bill about determining who loses status:

(B) TERRORIST SUPPORTING ORGANIZATION.—For purposes of this paragraph, the term ‘terrorist supporting organization’ means any organization which is designated by the Secretary as having provided, during the 3-year period ending on the date of such designation, material support or resources (within the meaning of section 2339B of title 18, United States Code) to an organization described in paragraph (2) (determined after the application of this paragraph to such organization) in excess of a de minimis amount.

So SecTreas gets to make the call on what “support or resources” means and the organization can then appeal and/or take it to the courts to fight the loss of tax-exempt status.

This is is “Paragraph (2)” referenced in the bill, which explains how an organization can get tagged as a terrorist organization. Basically POTUS can do it by executive order.

(2) Terrorist organizations

An organization is described in this paragraph if such organization is designated or otherwise individually identified-

(A) under section 212(a)(3)(B)(vi)(II) or 219 of the Immigration and Nationality Act as a terrorist organization or foreign terrorist organization,

(B) in or pursuant to an Executive order which is related to terrorism and issued under the authority of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act or section 5 of the United Nations Participation Act of 1945 for the purpose of imposing on such organization an economic or other sanction, or

(C) in or pursuant to an Executive order issued under the authority of any Federal law if-

(i) the organization is designated or otherwise individually identified in or pursuant to such Executive order as supporting or engaging in terrorist activity (as defined in section 212(a)(3)(B) of the Immigration and Nationality Act) or supporting terrorism (as defined in section 140(d)(2) of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1988 and 1989); and

(ii) such Executive order refers to this subsection.

So, Trump could declare the Democratic Party a terrorist organization, and then have the Secretary of the Treasury remove tax-exempt status from any group that gave money to them (to use one slightly-crazy example).

More likely, he declares something like CAIR a terrorist organization and then has the Secretary remove tax-exempt status from anybody that donated to them. Or any number of organizations that support immigrants in the US.

ETA: Then you could very broadly define “support” as any sort of positive press, statements of support, etc, to spread the net even further.

[WOOKINPANUBv.2]

Agree; clearly the new, corrupt, Trump toadie Secretary of the Treasury will have carte blanche to go after whomever displeases their master. The “…and for other purposes” is nice and broad too

[Dewey_Finn]

@WOOKINPANUBv.2

So, a bill has to be created to prevent IRS from penalizing individuals who miss the filing date due to being held hostage? I’m not sure what that has to with tax exempt terrorism supporters, but it will be a real shitshow under the coming administration.

The one thing has nothing to do with the other, but people generally support the first one; that people who are involuntarily held overseas should not come home to a big IRS bill. And neither does the IRS, but there’s currently no legal means to provide relief. So they’re hoping people vote for the bill despite the second provision.

[That_Don_Guy]

Here is a link to the bill’s page at congress.gov, with a summary, the latest text, and the most recent actions taken on it

[Pardel-Lux]

Some aditional information from a Canadian blogger and cartoonist, including an online tool to reach your representative.:

Nonprofit organizations under threat in US

[Q.Q.Switcheroo]

Another take:

Republican-led Bill Would Give Trump the Power to Squash Arts Nonprofits

This is a troubling turn of events, particularly for the arts, where nonprofit organizations are prominent players in the form of museums, alternative art spaces, galleries, and even some publications, not to mention institutions of higher education. If it passes, will this bill muffle artistic expression? My guess is yes. Is this a troubling omen for the increasingly extreme measures we’ll see when Republicans control all three chambers of the US government? I think you know the answer.