I Stand Corrected
How I got Weasel-Worded into a Rabbit Hole
“there is little debate about the government’s goal to stop support going to terrorists, particularly if such support originates in part from tax-deductible contributions. But the devil is in the details and how such a law, as currently constructed, could be abused by an executive branch to attack its critics”
Good afternoon,
Today I would like to get back to some of the many important areas of American life and society that will be impacted by Project 2025 related activities, game-plans, ideologies, lawfare, messaging, subjects, topics, wordfare, etcetera; in the meantime I still continue to investigate my own personal concerns about the many things that I have written since November 6-post-election-day.
So then onward and forward we persevere:
Recently I encountered the note embedded below.
Many are familiar with the important work of
, and so naturally I responded instinctively to her note and restacked it with a brief comment of support for her effort; but I, as is my habit did not stop there.My next step was to search out the actual bill in question so that I could conduct, at the very least, a minimal due diligence look into the issue at hand.
After finding the congressional webpage containing all the relevant information pertaining to the bill in question, I revised my original position (Note-to-self: ‘rather hastily I must add’) and deleted my note of support and then sought out the subscriber who had restacked the note as I had first discovered it.
Upon finding the note it turned out to be one of my more engaged & trusted subscribers
, you can read below for yourselves where that conversation went:I owe my friend Euphman a debt of gratitude for correcting me and teaching me something new.
At that point in time I realized that something about this entire topic was raising a flag somewhere deep inside my mind-palace, and so off I went into the warren of rabbit holes that exist in the most ephemeral-of-ways in the fusion that is made up of my mind’s perceptions and receptions of all cyberspace, personal knowledge-bases, and memories; and this morning upon awakening the following line of inquiry began to resurface.
Act 1. Introducing the Undressed Capitalist Pig
09.28.2022
Legislation would mandate transparency for think tanks and other public policy-focused non-profit entities who take money from foreign principals
WASHINGTON – Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, is today introducing legislation to require greater transparency of think tanks and other non-profit entities that inform and influence American public policy. The Think Tank Transparency Act was also introduced in the House of Representatives by Congressman Jack Bergman (R-Mich.).
“Billions of dollars go toward funding policy research, recommendations and expert testimony at public policy non-profits. Much of that comes from foreign powers, including China, Russia, Qatar and others. Those foreign powers clearly have an interest in directing American foreign, domestic and security policy to their benefit. Congress, the executive branch, and the American people deserve to know who’s influencing research and public policy in our country,” Grassley said.
“Think tanks have an enormous influence on U.S. public policy, and many receive millions from foreign entities who have a significant interest in how our policy is shaped. Congress and the American people deserve to know what these think tanks are up to, and who they’re working for,” said Bergman regarding the new legislation. “The assumption that they are non-political, academic entities advocating for policies in our national interest is not always accurate, given the increasing amount of funding they receive from foreign governments, often earmarked for specific projects,” Bergman noted.
The Think Tank Transparency Act of 2022 requires think tanks and non-profits engaged in influencing U.S. policy or public opinion to promptly make available for the American public all funds provided by foreign principals, as well as all contracts and agreements they enter into with foreign principals. Within 90 days of receiving funds from or signing agreements with foreign principals, public policy nonprofits will be required to disclose the funding and contracts to the Justice Department—who in turn will make such disclosures available for immediate public inspection on an Internet database similar to FARA.gov.
The bill also creates enforcement mechanisms so the Justice Department can impose compliance when necessary. Out-of-compliance entities will face a penalty of at least $1,000 per day, and the department may bring civil action to compel compliance. The legislation also provides that non-compliant entities must repay the full cost of obtaining their compliance if the Justice Department has to take action—recouping all taxpayer money spent.
Relatedly, Senate Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), along with committee members John Cornyn (R-Texas), Ted Cruz (R-Texas) and Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) called on the Justice Department to detail steps being taken to ensure that the Brookings Institution and other think tanks tied to foreign governments and enterprises comply with the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA).
Full text of the legislation can be found HERE.
H.R.7169 - Think Tank and Nonprofit Foreign Influence Disclosure Act
Act 2. The Capitalist Pig Starts to Grow a Beard
03.30.2023
Grassley Reintroduces Think Tank Transparency Act to Expose Foreign Influence Campaigns
Grassley Reintroduces Think Tank Transparency Act to Expose Foreign Influence Campaigns
WASHINGTON – Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) today reintroduced legislation to require greater transparency of think tanks and other non-profit entities that inform and influence American public policy. Companion legislation was introduced in the House of Representatives by Congressman Jack Bergman (R-Mich.).
“We can’t allow for think tanks and nonprofits to become a backdoor for foreign nations to exert influence and attempt to sway public opinion,” Grassley said. “The American public ought to know who’s influencing research and public policy in our country. The requirements and penalties in this bill will go a long way towards exposing our adversaries and those who are willing to cooperate with them.”
“The American people deserve to know what these think tanks are up to, and who they’re working for,” Bergman said. “The assumption that they are non-political, pseudo-academic entities advocating for policies that are in the national interest is no longer accurate, given the increasing amount of funding they receive from foreign governments, often earmarked for specific projects."
Background
The Think Tank Transparency Act of 2023 requires think tanks and non-profits engaged in influencing U.S. policy or public opinion to promptly make available for the American public all funds provided by foreign principals, as well as all contracts and agreements they enter into with foreign principals. Within 90 days of receiving funds from or signing agreements with foreign principals, public policy nonprofits would be required to disclose the funding and contracts to the Justice Department—who in turn will make such disclosures available for immediate public inspection on an Internet database similar to FARA.gov.
The bill also creates enforcement mechanisms so the Justice Department can impose compliance when necessary. Out-of-compliance entities will face a penalty of at least $1,000 per day, and the department may bring civil action to compel compliance. The legislation also provides that non-compliant entities must repay the full cost of obtaining their compliance if the Justice Department has to take action—recouping all taxpayer money spent.
The full text of the legislation is available HERE.
S.1087 - Think Tank Transparency Act
Act 3. Who Wrote This Script?!
Funny story! Republicans fitted from the Capitalist Pig mold are just as short-sighted as their close cousin the Swine-Maga.
Top Republicans Are Aiming at Brookings. Will It Backfire?
The GOP-led war on think tanks is officially about foreign money, but it could open the door to exposing secret backers of conservative research outfits, too.
Yet while the proximate controversy, and the subject of Grassley’s bill, involve money from foreign sources, the logic of the criticism is that think tanks have an outsize effect on public policy and the public is therefore entitled to know who’s calling the shots. It’s a logic that doesn’t necessarily stop at the water’s edge.
Any potential new wave of government-mandated disclosure rules, especially those that go beyond foreign money, would actually represent a bigger cultural change at right-wing organizations, some of which historically have tended to see donations as a form of free speech.
“I call it an enormous dark-money operation,” Freeman says. “Let’s be honest here, these think tanks are going to play a vital role in advising policymakers and members of government about what would be good policies, presumably, in the national interest. The lack of mandatory disclosure, the fact it’s all voluntary, the fact that there’s no enforcement, even of the accuracy of these voluntary disclosures, it all kinds of builds towards what is potentially an enormous national security problem.” [“Ben Freeman, a research fellow at the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft and a longstanding critic of think tanks as a place where foreign entities can skirt FARA rules and have a real impact on American policy and public opinion.”]
“The bill states that they have huge influence,” he says of the Grassley-Bergman measure. “Where’s the evidence of that? These think tanks are creating problems for themselves by claiming to be so influential. It’s as if Congress has no agency — they’re saying we need to be protected from these influential organizations that we’re powerless against and that use foreign money.” [“Enrique Mendizabal, who leads On Think Tanks, a research outfit that researches the think tank business.”]
Act 4. Misdirection & Lipstick versus Intelligent Minds
The Weasel
“Stop Terror-Financing”
SEC. 2. Postponement of tax deadlines for hostages and individuals wrongfully detained abroad.*
The Red Pill
“terrorist supporting organizations”
SEC. 4. Termination of tax-exempt status of terrorist supporting organizations.
(B) TERRORIST SUPPORTING ORGANIZATION.—For purposes of this paragraph, the term ‘terrorist supporting organization’ means any organization which is designated by the Secretary*
*H.R.9495 - Stop Terror-Financing and Tax Penalties on American Hostages Act
The Reality
Exactly seven days after the Presidential election, the Republican-controlled House of Representatives failed to acquire the two-thirds majority it needed for fast track approval of H.R. 9495, the Stop Terror-Financing and Tax Penalties on American Hostages Act. It’s now being positioned for a new vote. If it passes, H.R. 9495 would provide the executive branch with the ability to revoke an organization’s tax-exempt status with little due process based on its unilateral determination that the organization provides or has provided support or resources to a terrorist organization or terrorist-supporting organization.
The name of the bill [The Weasel] may have made it difficult for some Representatives to oppose as there is little debate about the government’s goal to stop support going to terrorists, particularly if such support originates in part from tax-deductible contributions. But the devil is in the details and how such a law, as currently constructed, could be abused by an executive branch to attack its critics.
Substantively, this was the second appearance of the bill on the House floor. The first version (H.R. 6408) passed but died in the Senate. With 52 Democrats voting in favor of the bill last week, this bill seems almost certain to pass and ultimately be signed into law.
Under the second part of the bill, there is no requirement that any evidence or explanation be provided for designating an organization as a terrorist-supporting organization and terminating its tax-exempt status. There is a 90-day “cure” period during which time the organization can defend themselves against such designation, but in the absence of any evidence or explanation, the “cure” process may be meaningless.
Impetus for this Legislation
This legislation came to being in response to pro-Palestinian protests opposing the deadly war in Gaza in college campuses earlier this year. In May, James Comer and Virginia Foxx, Republican members of the Committee on Oversight and Accountability and the Committee on Education and the Workforce, respectively, sent a letter to the Secretary of Treasury Janet Yellen asking for information on groups they accused of funding the protests and campus encampments. They claimed that the protests were antisemitic in nature and wanted to conduct an investigation into the “malign influence on college campuses and to the national security implications of such influence on faculty and student organizations.” The letter was alarming because it named several well-known and respected organizations working for progressive causes.
In addition to this letter, Congress also held a highly contentious hearing that brought down the leaders of prominent Universities including Harvard and UPenn under the guise of their not doing enough to combat antisemitism on their campuses. Regardless of the sincerity of members of Congress leading the charge, this issue proved to be a winner for members of Congress bent on cowing the leaders of the cultural power centers of American society and this bill aims to do the same to influential nonprofit organizations.
Implications
Nonprofit organizations played an enormous role in slowing down and stopping many of the prior Trump Administration’s harmful policies. The Muslim Ban, family separations, and abortion ban legislation were all slowed down, curtailed, and in some cases stopped in their tracks, because of the work of nonprofit organizations. The ACLU alone filed more than 400 legal actions against the previous administration.
Nonprofit organizations have also stepped up their involvement in agitating for and against policies. This legislation is being seen as a tool that the new administration can use to suppress the impact nonprofit organizations have in curtailing their efforts. The lack of due process clouds the understanding of what constitutes providing resources to terrorist organizations, which will lead to organizations being more cautious of how they operate and what activities they decide to fund. The mere threat of this designation will cause organizations to change how they operate in order to avoid getting in the administration’s cross hair
So then as can be seen from above the Stop-Terror-Act is simply the same old play put forth by Senator Grassley; this time though with stenches of Trump’s flatulence powering its way through congress in support of an Americanized neo-Nazi regime.
The following additional material deals with the designating of foreign terrorist organizations according to Federal Level Documentation:
From the Justice Department
Criminal Resource Manual: CRM 1-499; 16.
Providing Material Support To Designated Terrorist Organizations (Fundraising) (18 U.S.C. 2339B)
The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 gave the Secretary of State authority to designate foreign terrorist organizations whose terrorist activity threatens the security of United States nationals or the national defense, foreign relations or economic interests of the United States. See Pub. L. 104-132, § 302, 110 Stat. 1214, 1248. See also section 219 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. § 1189). The Antiterrorism Act also created 18 U.S.C. § 2339B, which makes it unlawful, within the United States, or for any person who is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States anywhere, to knowingly provide material support to a foreign terrorist organization that has been designated by the Secretary of State. See Pub. L. 104-132, § 303, 110 Stat. 1214, 1250. [continues]
From the State Department
Terrorist Designations and State Sponsors of Terrorism
Foreign Terrorist Organizations (FTOs) are foreign organizations that are designated by the Secretary of State in accordance with section 219 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), as amended. FTO designations play a critical role in our fight against terrorism and are an effective means of curtailing support for terrorist activities and pressuring groups to get out of the terrorism business.
Executive Order 13224 gives the U.S. Government a powerful tool to impede terrorist funding and is part of our national commitment to lead the international effort to bring a halt to the evil of terrorist activity. In general terms, the Order provides a means by which to disrupt the financial support network for terrorists and terrorist organizations by authorizing the U.S. government to designate and block the assets of foreign individuals and entities that commit, or pose a significant risk of committing, acts of terrorism. [continues]
From the House of Congress
§1189. Designation of foreign terrorist organizations
(a) Designation
(1) In general
The Secretary is authorized to designate an organization as a foreign terrorist organization in accordance with this subsection if the Secretary finds that-
(A) the organization is a foreign organization;
(B) the organization engages in terrorist activity (as defined in section 1182(a)(3)(B) of this title or terrorism (as defined in section 2656f(d)(2) of title 22), or retains the capability and intent to engage in terrorist activity or terrorism) 1; and
(C) the terrorist activity or terrorism of the organization threatens the security of United States nationals or the national security of the United States. [continues]
From the Congressional Research Service
Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO)
The Foreign Terrorist Organization List Congress has shown recurring interest in the administration of the State Department’s FTO list and its application to groups that the U.S. government considers to be undertaking terrorism-related activities. At various times, Members or committees have expressed the desire to add suspected terrorist groups to the FTO list, designate drug cartels as an FTO, or revise legislation to allow other entities to be considered as an FTO. The State Department’s Bureau of Counterterrorism (CT) is responsible for identifying entities for designation as an FTO. [continues]
From Office of the Director of National Intelligence
(This official US government website is a visual graphics feast for the eyes and is worth visiting for a look.)
STATE SPONSORS OF TERRORISM
DESIGNATION STATUS
Countries determined by the Secretary of State to have repeatedly provided support for acts of international terrorism are designated pursuant to three laws: section 6(j) of the Export Administration Act, section 40 of the Arms Export Control Act, and section 620A of the Foreign Assistance Act. Taken together, the four main categories of sanctions resulting from designation under these authorities include restrictions on US foreign assistance; a ban on defense exports and sales; certain controls over exports of dual use items; and miscellaneous financial and other restrictions.
And last, but certainly not least:
From the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU)
The “Foreign Terrorist Organization” Designation Scheme
Under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (“AEDPA”), the federal government can impose severe sanctions on an organization that the Secretary of State designates a “Foreign Terrorist Organization” (“FTO”). Any assets of the organization that are held by U.S. financial institutions are frozen and its non-citizen members or representatives are barred from entry into the United States. Moreover, U.S. and foreign financial institutions, organizations, and individuals can be criminally prosecuted for knowingly providing “material support,” broadly defined to include services, resources, or “expert advice or assistance,” to the designated FTO. Judicial review of FTO designation is highly limited and deferential, and may be based on secret information that the designated organization cannot see. Administrative review is not available until two years after the designation. [continues]
As I was writing this piece today it so happens that the House passed the “Stop Terror-Financing Act,” it is reported that the voting followed the Republican line.
According to: the AP News
House passes bill that would allow Treasury to target nonprofits it deems to support terrorism
The bill passed 219-184, with the majority of the support coming from Republicans
According to: U.S. House of Representatives, Ways and Means Committee Chairman Jason Smith
“This piece of legislation received unanimous approval by the Ways and Means Committee and contains provisions that already passed this House with overwhelming bipartisan support and received unanimous consent in the U.S. Senate. And yet, despite that consistent showing of bipartisan support, the majority of our Democrat colleagues voted last week to block passage of this bill.
“Why? Because President Trump won the election. Don’t take my word for it. Our Democrat colleagues said it themselves on this Floor.”
[Publisher’s note: Now that you have seen a Pig in action;
It is time to see Pigs in Congress for what they really are all about, and see how they can be expected to continue to conduct themselves, as they have already so clearly demonstrated for these past two years and, as long as they continue stubbornly in their pigheadedness they will fail to actually pass any laws; *whew!*]
Below: the Pigs in Congress
So that is all I have on this particular topic of interest—for—now.
Check back here daily for new notes,
I am always posting notes when I can;
and to read new or old essays, reports, and stories.
Thank you for reading,
Robert J. Rei, November 21, 2024
Wow! Thanks for the accreditation, Robert.
I’m clear that Watkins’ position in her note you posted and then deleted was correct. The bill that will have terrible results for non-profits that don’t fall in line with the administration’s agenda. What I’m not clear on is whether you reversed your position that opposed her view and took down the note. You provide evidence that she was correct so I assume yes.