SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
The Combating BDS Act would attempt to give legal cover to states that enact laws penalizing businesses and individuals who participate in boycott activities against Israel and Israeli-controlled territories. (Photo: Alex Christy/Flickr)
Instead of Ending the Shutdown, Senators Plan to Encourage Punishment of Israel Boycotts
While we take no position on Israel boycotts, the BDS movement or the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, we do maintain that states should not be sanctioning businesses on the basis of First Amendment-protected expression and association
Jan 07, 2019
In the middle of a government shutdown, the Senate leadership's first order of business in the 116th Congress is not legislation to reopen the government.
Instead, and incredibly, the Senate is again trying to slip a measure intended to suppress protected political expression past public scrutiny. The bill is the "Combatting BDS Act," which would express federal approval of state laws that place restrictions on boycotts of Israel and its settlements, as part of an effort to weaken the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement against Israel. The bill is included in S.1, which the Senate plans to vote on this week. On Monday, the ACLU sent a letter to senators expressing opposition to the bill.
To their credit, Sens. Ben Cardin (D-Md.), Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), and Bernie Sanders (D-Vt.) have urged the Senate not to consider any bills, other than those that would reopen the government, until the shutdown ends. We agree. The Combatting BDS Act represents yet another covert attempt by the Senate to enact legislation that would burden fundamental free expression rights without proper consideration on the heels of a failed attempt last month to pass a different law criminalizing boycotts of Israel. But moreover, voting on it now, amid a partial government shutdown, would be, as Sen. Cardin noted, "a fundamental failure to govern."
The Combating BDS Act would attempt to give legal cover to states that enact laws penalizing businesses and individuals who participate in boycott activities against Israel and Israeli-controlled territories.
The Combating BDS Act would attempt to give legal cover to states that enact laws penalizing businesses and individuals who participate in boycott activities against Israel and Israeli-controlled territories. These state laws, dozens of which exist in many different forms, generally compel state contractors and any entity in which the state invests -- for example, through a state-run pension, retirement, or endowment fund -- to sign oaths promising not to boycott Israel as a requirement of maintaining their relationship with the state. However, as courts found in the McCarthy era, the government can't fire its employees or contractors just because they refuse to sign an oath promising not to engage in disfavored expression or association. And two federal courts have already held state requirements to swear not to participate in boycotts of Israel be unconstitutional.
While we take no position on Israel boycotts, the BDS movement or the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, we do maintain that states should not be sanctioning businesses on the basis of First Amendment-protected expression and association. We have consistently -- and successfully -- argued this position in situations where government entities have threatened to boycott a company based upon its constitutionally protected speech and associational choices. This is especially true where the ideological position has no connection whatsoever with the business relationship at stake. Math teachers in Kansas and newspapers in Arkansas should not have to disavow participation in protected expression and association in order to do their jobs or engage in business relationships with the state. With the Combatting BDS Act, Congress would be approving state laws imposing such unconstitutional requirements.
On Monday, Sen. Marc Rubio (R-Fla.), the lead sponsor of the bill, tweeted:
However, as we responded, the government, under the Constitution, does not have the right to punish people for their views. The First Amendment protects the people, not the government.
Even setting aside our fundamental disagreement about the wisdom of the Combatting BDS Act, it is abundantly clear that the Senate should not be considering this legislation, or any other legislation, until it fulfills its first duty: maintaining a functioning government. The Senate should vote first to open the government and alleviate the pain of this interminable shutdown that disrupts people's lives and livelihoods every second that it continues.
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
© 2023 ACLU
In the middle of a government shutdown, the Senate leadership's first order of business in the 116th Congress is not legislation to reopen the government.
Instead, and incredibly, the Senate is again trying to slip a measure intended to suppress protected political expression past public scrutiny. The bill is the "Combatting BDS Act," which would express federal approval of state laws that place restrictions on boycotts of Israel and its settlements, as part of an effort to weaken the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement against Israel. The bill is included in S.1, which the Senate plans to vote on this week. On Monday, the ACLU sent a letter to senators expressing opposition to the bill.
To their credit, Sens. Ben Cardin (D-Md.), Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), and Bernie Sanders (D-Vt.) have urged the Senate not to consider any bills, other than those that would reopen the government, until the shutdown ends. We agree. The Combatting BDS Act represents yet another covert attempt by the Senate to enact legislation that would burden fundamental free expression rights without proper consideration on the heels of a failed attempt last month to pass a different law criminalizing boycotts of Israel. But moreover, voting on it now, amid a partial government shutdown, would be, as Sen. Cardin noted, "a fundamental failure to govern."
The Combating BDS Act would attempt to give legal cover to states that enact laws penalizing businesses and individuals who participate in boycott activities against Israel and Israeli-controlled territories.
The Combating BDS Act would attempt to give legal cover to states that enact laws penalizing businesses and individuals who participate in boycott activities against Israel and Israeli-controlled territories. These state laws, dozens of which exist in many different forms, generally compel state contractors and any entity in which the state invests -- for example, through a state-run pension, retirement, or endowment fund -- to sign oaths promising not to boycott Israel as a requirement of maintaining their relationship with the state. However, as courts found in the McCarthy era, the government can't fire its employees or contractors just because they refuse to sign an oath promising not to engage in disfavored expression or association. And two federal courts have already held state requirements to swear not to participate in boycotts of Israel be unconstitutional.
While we take no position on Israel boycotts, the BDS movement or the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, we do maintain that states should not be sanctioning businesses on the basis of First Amendment-protected expression and association. We have consistently -- and successfully -- argued this position in situations where government entities have threatened to boycott a company based upon its constitutionally protected speech and associational choices. This is especially true where the ideological position has no connection whatsoever with the business relationship at stake. Math teachers in Kansas and newspapers in Arkansas should not have to disavow participation in protected expression and association in order to do their jobs or engage in business relationships with the state. With the Combatting BDS Act, Congress would be approving state laws imposing such unconstitutional requirements.
On Monday, Sen. Marc Rubio (R-Fla.), the lead sponsor of the bill, tweeted:
However, as we responded, the government, under the Constitution, does not have the right to punish people for their views. The First Amendment protects the people, not the government.
Even setting aside our fundamental disagreement about the wisdom of the Combatting BDS Act, it is abundantly clear that the Senate should not be considering this legislation, or any other legislation, until it fulfills its first duty: maintaining a functioning government. The Senate should vote first to open the government and alleviate the pain of this interminable shutdown that disrupts people's lives and livelihoods every second that it continues.
In the middle of a government shutdown, the Senate leadership's first order of business in the 116th Congress is not legislation to reopen the government.
Instead, and incredibly, the Senate is again trying to slip a measure intended to suppress protected political expression past public scrutiny. The bill is the "Combatting BDS Act," which would express federal approval of state laws that place restrictions on boycotts of Israel and its settlements, as part of an effort to weaken the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement against Israel. The bill is included in S.1, which the Senate plans to vote on this week. On Monday, the ACLU sent a letter to senators expressing opposition to the bill.
To their credit, Sens. Ben Cardin (D-Md.), Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), and Bernie Sanders (D-Vt.) have urged the Senate not to consider any bills, other than those that would reopen the government, until the shutdown ends. We agree. The Combatting BDS Act represents yet another covert attempt by the Senate to enact legislation that would burden fundamental free expression rights without proper consideration on the heels of a failed attempt last month to pass a different law criminalizing boycotts of Israel. But moreover, voting on it now, amid a partial government shutdown, would be, as Sen. Cardin noted, "a fundamental failure to govern."
The Combating BDS Act would attempt to give legal cover to states that enact laws penalizing businesses and individuals who participate in boycott activities against Israel and Israeli-controlled territories.
The Combating BDS Act would attempt to give legal cover to states that enact laws penalizing businesses and individuals who participate in boycott activities against Israel and Israeli-controlled territories. These state laws, dozens of which exist in many different forms, generally compel state contractors and any entity in which the state invests -- for example, through a state-run pension, retirement, or endowment fund -- to sign oaths promising not to boycott Israel as a requirement of maintaining their relationship with the state. However, as courts found in the McCarthy era, the government can't fire its employees or contractors just because they refuse to sign an oath promising not to engage in disfavored expression or association. And two federal courts have already held state requirements to swear not to participate in boycotts of Israel be unconstitutional.
While we take no position on Israel boycotts, the BDS movement or the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, we do maintain that states should not be sanctioning businesses on the basis of First Amendment-protected expression and association. We have consistently -- and successfully -- argued this position in situations where government entities have threatened to boycott a company based upon its constitutionally protected speech and associational choices. This is especially true where the ideological position has no connection whatsoever with the business relationship at stake. Math teachers in Kansas and newspapers in Arkansas should not have to disavow participation in protected expression and association in order to do their jobs or engage in business relationships with the state. With the Combatting BDS Act, Congress would be approving state laws imposing such unconstitutional requirements.
On Monday, Sen. Marc Rubio (R-Fla.), the lead sponsor of the bill, tweeted:
However, as we responded, the government, under the Constitution, does not have the right to punish people for their views. The First Amendment protects the people, not the government.
Even setting aside our fundamental disagreement about the wisdom of the Combatting BDS Act, it is abundantly clear that the Senate should not be considering this legislation, or any other legislation, until it fulfills its first duty: maintaining a functioning government. The Senate should vote first to open the government and alleviate the pain of this interminable shutdown that disrupts people's lives and livelihoods every second that it continues.
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.