U.S. SENATE’S FIRST BILL, IN MIDST OF SHUTDOWN, IS A BIPARTISAN DEFENSE OF THE ISRAELI GOVERNMENT FROM BOYCOTTS
Ryan Grim, Glenn Greenwald
January 5 2019, 4:09 p.m.
Chuck Schumer speaking at the AIPAC Policy Conference in Washington, DC on March 5, 2018 Photo: Sipa USA via AP
WHEN EACH NEW CONGRESS is gaveled into session, the chambers attach symbolic importance to the first piece of legislation to be considered. For that reason, it bears the lofty designation of H.R.1 in the House, and S.1 in the Senate.
In the newly controlled Democratic House, H.R.1 – meant to signal the new majority’s priorities – is an anti-corruption bill that combines election and campaign finance reform, strengthening of voting rights, and matching public funds for small-dollar candidates. In the new 2017 Senate, the GOP-controlled S.1 was a bill, called the “Tax Cuts and Jobs Act,” that, among other provisions, cut various forms of corporate taxes.
But in the 2019 GOP-controlled Senate, the first bill to be considered – S.1 – is not designed to protect American workers, bolster U.S. companies, or address the various debates over border security and immigration. It’s not a bill to open the government. Instead, according to multiple sources involved in the legislative process, S.1 will be a compendium containing a handful of foreign-policy related measures, a main one of which is a provision, with Florida’s GOP Sen. Marco Rubio as a lead sponsor, to defend the Israeli government. The bill is a top legislative priority for AIPAC.
In the previous Congress, that measure was known as S.170, and it gives state and local governments explicit legal authority to boycott any U.S. companies which themselves are participating in a boycott against Israel. As the Intercept reported last month, 26 states now have enacted some version of a law to punish or otherwise sanction entities which participate in or support the boycott of Israel, while similar laws are pending in at least 13 additional states. Rubio’s bill is designed to strengthen the legal basis to defend those Israel-protecting laws from constitutional challenge.
Punishment aimed at companies which choose to boycott Israel can also sweep up individual American citizens in its punitive net, because individual contractors often work for state or local governments under the auspices of a sole proprietorship or some other business entity. That was the case withTexas elementary school speech pathologist Bahia Amawi, who lost her job working with autistic and speech-impaired children in Austin because she refused to promise not to boycott goods produced in Israel and/or illegal Israeli settlements.
Thus far, the two federal courts that have ruled on such bills have declared them to be unconstitutional violations of the First Amendment speech rights of American citizens. “A restriction of one’s ability to participate in collective calls to oppose Israel unquestionably burdens the protected expression of companies wishing to engage in such a boycott,” U.S. District Court Judge Diane J. Humetewa of Arizona wrote in her decision issuing a preliminary injunction against the law in a case brought last September by the ACLU on behalf of “an attorney who has contracted with the state for the last 12 years to provide legal services on behalf of incarcerated individuals” but who lost his contract to do so after he refused to sign an oath pledging not to boycott Israel.
A similar ruling was issued in January of last year by a Kansas federal judge, who ruled that state’s Israel oath law unconstitutional on the ground that “the Supreme Court has held that the First Amendment protects the right to participate in a boycott like the one punished by the Kansas law.” In that case, a Mennonite who was a long-time public school teacher lost her independent contract as a school curriculum developer after she followed her church’s decision to boycott goods from Israeli companies in the occupied West Bank and thus refused to sign the oath required by Kansas law.
These are the Israel-defending, free-speech-punishing laws which Rubio’s bill is designed to strengthen. Although Rubio is the chief sponsor, his bill attracted broad bipartisan support, as is true of most bills designed to protect Israel and which are supported by AIPAC. Rubio’s bill last Congress was cosponsored by a several Democrats who are still in the Senate: Bob Menendez, N.J.; Joe Manchin, W.Va.; Ben Cardin, Md.; Ron Wyden, Ore.; Gary Peters, Mich.; and Debbie Stabenow, Mich.
The support among Democrats for bills that would punish supporters of the Boycott Israel movement is now particularly awkward given that two of the most prominent newly elected Democratic members – Ilhan Omar of Minnesota and Rashida Tlaib of Michigan, the first two Muslim women in Congress – are both supporters of that Israel boycott.
Last year, Sen. Cardin introduced a bill that would have criminalized participation in international boycotts of Israel, and it was on the verge of passing with significant bipartisan support until the ACLU sounded the alarm on how gravely unconstitutional that bill was. Once the Intercept reported on the mechanics of the bill and the covert effort to enact it with little attention, numerous Democratic Senators announced they were reconsidering their support, stalling the bill’s enactment. Though Cardin attempted to pass a watered-down version in the lame-duck session, it is now Rubio’s Israel-defending bill that has taken center stage even as the U.S. government is in the midst of a shutdown for American citizens.
That the newly elected United States Congress would choose to prioritize protection of this foreign nation — at the expense of the Constitutional rights of American citizens and over countless bills that would help Americans — was only one of the stinging criticisms voiced to the Intercept by ACLU Senior Legislative Counsel Kathleen Ruane:
In the midst of a partial government shutdown, Democratic and Republican senators have decided that one of their first orders of business next week should be to sneak through a bill that would weaken Americans’ First Amendment protections. The bill, Combatting BDS Act, encourages states to adopt the very same anti-boycott laws that two federal courts blocked on First Amendment grounds. The legislation, like the unconstitutional state anti-boycott laws it condones, sends a message to Americans that they will be penalized if they dare to disagree with their government. We therefore urge senators to vote no on the Combatting BDS Act next week.
With the seven Democratic co-sponsors, the bill would have the 60 votes it needs to overcome a filibuster. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y. – who supported Sen. Cardin’s far more draconian bill of last year and is one of the Senate’s most reliable AIPAC loyalists – also plans to support the Rubio bill, rather than whip votes against it, sources working on the bill said. Schumer’s spokesperson did not respond to a request for comment.
If the bill does pass the Senate, the major question will be whether the Democratic House – now led by Speaker Nancy Pelosi, a long-time Israel advocate but also as a supporter of the First Amendment – takes it up and passes it into law.
We depend on the support of readers like you to help keep our nonprofit newsroom strong and independent. Join Us
CONTACT THE AUTHOR:
Ryan Grimryan.grim@theintercept.com@ryangrim
Glenn Greenwaldglenn.greenwald@theintercept.com@ggreenwald
42 Comments
U.S. Senate’s First Bill, in Midst of Shutdown, is a Bipartisan Defense of the Israeli Government from Boycotts
The Senate's first bill of the year is a bipartisan bill to ban boycotting Israel
- Thread starter Dr. Acula
- Start date
So they are throwing a bone to Israel, they refuse to build a wall cuz of Hispanics
What is the new congress going to do specifically for black people?
What is the new congress going to do specifically for black people?
Unconstitutional, will be challenged in court.
nothing represents the freedom of america like the government passing a law criminalizing your right to boycott another country
but there's nothing 'weird' about america and israels relationship. and everyone who questions this is clearly a...racist? anti semite? what's the buzzword
the only thing the average american ever got from our relationship with israel was dust in their lungs at ground zero
but there's nothing 'weird' about america and israels relationship. and everyone who questions this is clearly a...racist? anti semite? what's the buzzword
the only thing the average american ever got from our relationship with israel was dust in their lungs at ground zero
You do realize the story is about the Republican-controlled Senate, right?
(Not that there ain't some horrific Dem support of this thing too, but you off base talking about "new congress" with this.)
You do realize the story is about the Republican-controlled Senate, right?
(Not that there ain't some horrific Dem support of this thing too, but you off base talking about "new congress" with this.)
You do realize my post was a general comment about congress in general?
But you said "new". Senate is the same fools that were already there - Mitch McConnell is still the only one who can decide which bills come to the floor. So how exactly you expect something to happen for Black people with him in charge?
Kyle C. Barker
Migos VERZUZ Mahalia Jackson
Came here to say the same. If it passes there's no way it'll over due to the first amendment
i dont expect anything to happen for black people specifically, regardless of who is in charge and regardless of its the new or old congress. this story just emphasizes how a lot groups get things done specifically for them by both parties
its important to make this observation for future reference
Write blatantly unconstitutional laws brehs