WTF: Bipartisan bill in US Congress seeks to create 20 year max prison sentence for boycotting Israel?

[Dominus Atheos]

LEARN TO SPELL ISRAEL RIGHT FIRST -- LADY T

U.S. Lawmakers Seek to Criminally Outlaw Support for Boycott Campaign Against Israel
Glenn Greenwaldglenn.greenwald@​theintercept.com@ggreenwald
12-15 minutes

The criminalization of political speech and activism against Israel has become one of the gravest threats to free speech in the West. In France, activists have been arrested and prosecuted for wearing T-shirts advocating a boycott of Israel. The U.K. has enacted a series of measures designed to outlaw such activism. In the U.S., governors compete with one another over who can implement the most extreme regulations to bar businesses from participating in any boycotts aimed even at Israeli settlements, which the world regards as illegal. On U.S. campuses, punishment of pro-Palestinian students for expressing criticisms of Israel is so commonplace that the Center for Constitutional Rights refers to it as “the Palestine Exception” to free speech.

But now, a group of 43 senators — 29 Republicans and 14 Democrats — wants to implement a law that would make it a felony for Americans to support the international boycott against Israel, which was launched in protest of that country’s decades-old occupation of Palestine. The two primary sponsors of the bill are Democrat Ben Cardin of Maryland and Republican Rob Portman of Ohio. Perhaps the most shocking aspect is the punishment: Anyone guilty of violating the prohibitions will face a minimum civil penalty of $250,000 and a maximum criminal penalty of $1 million and 20 years in prison.

The proposed measure, called the Israel Anti-Boycott Act (S. 720), was introduced by Cardin on March 23. The Jewish Telegraphic Agency reports that the bill “was drafted with the assistance of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee.” Indeed, AIPAC, in its 2017 lobbying agenda, identified passage of this bill as one of its top lobbying priorities for the year:

The bill’s co-sponsors include the senior Democrat in Washington, Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, his New York colleague Kirsten Gillibrand, and several of the Senate’s more liberal members, such as Ron Wyden of Oregon, Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut, and Maria Cantwell of Washington. Illustrating the bipartisanship that AIPAC typically summons, it also includes several of the most right-wing senators such as Ted Cruz of Texas, Ben Sasse of Nebraska, and Marco Rubio of Florida.

A similar measure was introduced in the House on the same date by two Republicans and one Democrat. It has already amassed 234 co-sponsors: 63 Democrats and 174 Republicans. As in the Senate, AIPAC has assembled an impressive ideological diversity among supporters, predictably including many of the most right-wing House members — Jason Chaffetz, Liz Cheney, Peter King — along with the second-ranking Democrat in the House, Steny Hoyer.

Among the co-sponsors of the bill are several of the politicians who have become political celebrities by positioning themselves as media leaders of the anti-Trump #Resistance, including three California House members who have become heroes to Democrats and staples of the cable news circuit: Ted Lieu, Adam Schiff, and Eric Swalwell. These politicians, who have built a wide public following by posturing as opponents of authoritarianism, are sponsoring one of the most oppressive and authoritarian bills that has pended before Congress in quite some time.

Last night, the ACLU posted a letter it sent to all members of the Senate urging them to oppose this bill. Warning that “proponents of the bill are seeking additional co-sponsors,” the civil liberties group explained that “it would punish individuals for no reason other than their political beliefs.” The letter detailed what makes this bill so particularly threatening to basic civic freedoms:

It is no small thing for the ACLU to insert itself into this controversy. One of the most traumatic events in the organization’s history was when it lost large numbers of donors and supporters in the late 1970s after it defended the free speech rights of neo-Nazis to march through Skokie, Illinois, a town with a large community of Holocaust survivors.

Even the bravest of organizations often steadfastly avoid any controversies relating to Israel. Yet here, while appropriately pointing out that the ACLU “takes no position for or against the effort to boycott Israel or any foreign country,” the group categorically denounces this AIPAC-sponsored proposal for what it is: a bill that “seeks only to punish the exercise of constitutional rights.”

The ACLU has similarly opposed bipartisan efforts at the state level to punish businesses that participate in the boycott, pointing out that “boycotts to achieve political goals are a form of expression that the Supreme Court has ruled are protected by the First Amendment’s protections of freedom of speech, assembly, and petition,” and that such bills “place unconstitutional conditions on the exercise of constitutional rights.” The bill now co-sponsored in Congress by more than half of the House and close to half of the Senate is far more extreme than those.

Thus far, not a single member of Congress has joined the ACLU in denouncing this bill. The Intercept this morning sent inquiries to numerous non-committed members of the Senate and House who have yet to speak on this bill. We also sent inquiries to several co-sponsors of the bill — such as Rep. Lieu — who have positioned themselves as civil liberties champions and opponents of authoritarianism, asking:

Congressman Lieu: Last night, the ACLU vehemently denounced a bill that you are co-sponsoring — to criminalize support for a boycott of Israel — as a grave attack on free speech. Do you have any comment on the ACLU’s denunciation? You’ve been an outspoken champion for civil liberties; how can you reconcile that record with an effort to make it a felony for Americans to engage in activism that protests a foreign government’s actions? We’re writing about this today; any statement would be appreciated.

This morning, Lieu responded: “Thank you for sharing the letter. The bill has been around since March and this is the first time I have seen this issue raised. We will look into it.” (The Intercept will post any response from Rep. Lieu, or any late responses from others, as soon as they are received.)

Sen. Cantwell told The Intercept she is “a strong supporter of free speech rights” and will be reviewing the bill for First Amendment concerns in light of the ACLU statement.

Democratic Sen. Chris Coons of Delaware, when asked by The Intercept about the ACLU’s warning that the bill he is co-sponsoring criminalizes free speech, affirmed his support for the bill by responding: “I continue to support a strong U.S./Israel relationship.”

Meanwhile, some co-sponsors seemed not to have any idea what they co-sponsored — almost as though they reflexively sign whatever comes from AIPAC without having any idea what’s in it. Democratic Sen. Gary Peters of Michigan, for instance, seemed genuinely bewildered when told of the ACLU’s letter, saying, “What’s the Act? You’ll have to get back to me on that.”

A similar exchange took place with another co-sponsor, one of AIPAC’s most reliable allies, Democratic Sen. Bob Menendez of New Jersey, who said: “I’d want to read it. … I’d really have to look at it.”

Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., a co-sponsor, said she hadn’t seen the ACLU letter but would give it a look. “I certainly will take their position into consideration, just like I take everybody’s position into consideration,” she said.

Gillibrand, the only senator in the 2020 presidential mix to co-sponsor the bill, told The Intercept she would have a statement to provide, which we’ll add as soon as it’s provided.

Perhaps most stunning is our interview with the primary sponsor of the bill, Democratic Sen. Benjamin Cardin, who seemed to have no idea what was in his bill, particularly insisting that it contains no criminal penalties.

But as the ACLU put it, “Violations would be subject to a minimum civil penalty of $250,000 and a maximum criminal penalty of $1 million and 20 years in prison.”

That’s because, as Josh Ruebner expertly detailed when the bill was first unveiled, “the bill seeks to amend two laws — the Export Administration Act of 1979 and the Export-Import Bank Act of 1945,” and “the potential penalties for violating this bill are steep: a minimum $250,000 civil penalty and a maximum criminal penalty of $1 million and 20 years imprisonment, as stipulated in the International Emergency Economic Powers Act.”

Indeed, to see how serious the penalties are, and how clear it is that those penalties are imposed by this bill, one can just compare the bill’s text in Section 8(a), which provides that violators will be “fined in accordance with Section 206 of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1705),” to the penalty provisions of that law, which state:

That the bill refers to the fine, but not the prison sentence, is not enough to prevent a judge from applying the statute’s prison term, because the bill brings the statute into play, said Faiz Shakir, the ACLU’s political director, who authored the letter to the Senate. “The referral to the statute keeps criminal penalties in play, regardless of what their preference for punishment might be,” said Shakir.

The bill also extends the current prohibition on participating in boycotts sponsored by foreign governments to cover boycotts from international organizations such as the U.N. and the European Union. It also explicitly extends the boycott ban from Israel generally to any parts of Israel, including the settlements. For that reason, Ruebner explains, the bill — by design — would outlaw “campaigns by the Palestine solidarity movement to pressure corporations to cut ties to Israel or even with Israeli settlements.”

This pernicious bill highlights many vital yet typically ignored dynamics in Washington. First, journalists love to lament the lack of bipartisanship in Washington, yet the very mention of the word “Israel” causes most members of both parties to quickly snap into line in a show of unanimity that would make the regime of North Korea blush with envy. Even when virtually the entire world condemns Israeli aggression, or declares settlements illegal, the U.S. Congress — across party and ideological lines — finds virtually complete harmony in uniting against the world consensus and in defense of the Israeli government.
Sen. Ben Cardin, D-Md., speaks to reporters following a briefing on Syria on Capitol Hill in Washington, Friday, April 7, 2017. Amid measured support for the U.S. cruise missile attack on a Syrian air base, some vocal Republicans and Democrats are reprimanding the White House for launching the strike without first getting congressional approval.(AP Photo/Susan Walsh)

Sen. Ben Cardin, D-Md.

Photo: Susan Walsh/AP

Second, the free speech debate in the U.S. is incredibly selective and warped. Pundits and political officials love to crusade as free speech champions — when doing so involves defending mainstream ideas or attacking marginalized, powerless groups such as minority college students. But when it comes to one of the most systemic, powerful, and dangerous assaults on free speech in the U.S. and the West generally — the growing attempt to literally criminalize speech and activism aimed at the Israeli government’s occupation — these free speech warriors typically fall silent.

Third, AIPAC continues to be one of the most powerful, and pernicious, lobbying forces in the country. In what conceivable sense is it of benefit to Americans to turn them into felons for the crime of engaging in political activism in protest of a foreign nation’s government? And this is hardly the first time they have attempted to do this through their most devoted congressional loyalists; Cardin, for instance, had previously succeeded in inserting into trade bills provisions that would disfavor anyone who supports a boycott of Israel.

Finally, it is hard to put into words the irony of watching many of the most celebrated and beloved congressional leaders of the anti-authoritarian Resistance — Gillibrand, Schiff, Swalwell, and Lieu — sponsor one of the most oppressive and authoritarian bills to appear in Congress in many years. How can one credibly inveigh against “authoritarianism” while sponsoring a bill that dictates to American citizens what political views they are and are not allowed to espouse under threat of criminal prosecution? Whatever labels one might want to apply to the sponsors of this bill, “anti-authoritarianism” should not be among them.

[Flagg]

I'd say it would never pass a basic judicial review but the rule of law seems to not apply anymore. What's the over/under of a bill like this protecting that bastion of freedom Russia being proposed in the next 2 and 1/2 years?

[The Romulan Republic]

I do not believe that the current Supreme Court would allow such a blatant violation of the First Amendment to stand. Or at least I hope that it would not, though the level of bipartisan support for this bill is deeply concerning.

The Supreme Court if Trump or Pence (presuming Trump is impeached) gets to appoint another Justice or two? Probably.

This is why the Supreme Court is so important- appointing Justices determines who controls the interpretation of the Constitution, and our basic rights and laws, for the forseeable future. Short of the authority to use nuclear weapons, it is arguably the single most important responsibility the President (in appointing Justices) and the Senate (in approving or rejecting them) has.

It is also, of course, one that the Republican Party has utterly betrayed and abused by failing to hold hearings on Obama's nominee, denying him his Constitutional authority as President, and by dereliction of duty, effectively stealing a Supreme Court seat.

In my mind, Trump's Justice should be stripped of his position on the grounds that his appointment was unConstitutional, and any rulings which required his vote to pass should be considered null and void.

But that this bill has widespread bi-partisan support in Congress is deeply concerning. I am especially uneasy about the Democrats backing this bill. I expect despotism from Republicans these days, but my own side I hold to a higher standard. And issues of Constitutionality aside, restricting political speech in all but the most extreme cases is short-sighted for Democrats. It will only inevitably fuel the vapid third party chants of "both parties are the same", drive a deeper wedge between Progressives and the Democratic leadership, and ensure more "Bernie or Bust"-type movements in the future.

Moreover, it would, if permitted to stand as law, set legal precedent that could and certainly would be used by Republicans to clamp down on all speech by their political opponents.

The only thing that keeps me from completely condemning this as strongly as I was initially inclined to is the fact that the source is a Glen Greenwald article from the Intercept, and I no longer consider Greenwald a trustworthy or unbiased source.

[Zaune]

You know, if I was inclined Alt-Rightwards I'd be pointing to this as really, really good evidence for this whole Zionist conspiracy thing. Because seriously, why the fuck have Israel been allowed to piss off basically every single other country in the Middle East -including several with considerably more oil- and most of Europe as well without being thrown under a bus a la Saddam?

[Gandalf]

You know, if I was inclined Alt-Rightwards I'd be pointing to this as really, really good evidence for this whole Zionist conspiracy thing. Because seriously, why the fuck have Israel been allowed to piss off basically every single other country in the Middle East -including several with considerably more oil- and most of Europe as well without being thrown under a bus a la Saddam?

Because they fight Muslims and are thus useful for Glorious American Interests. I've seen some argue that if the US didn't give aid to Israel, they would soon be overrun and a supercaliphate would emerge. So it's a realpolitik thing.

[The Romulan Republic]

You know, if I was inclined Alt-Rightwards I'd be pointing to this as really, really good evidence for this whole Zionist conspiracy thing. Because seriously, why the fuck have Israel been allowed to piss off basically every single other country in the Middle East -including several with considerably more oil- and most of Europe as well without being thrown under a bus a la Saddam?

Part of that is undoubtably (entirely justified) guilt and horror at the Holocaust and other anti-Semitism, and determination to never let something like that happen again- which unfortunately has been highjacked by pro-Israel extremists to label anyone who questions them an anti-Semite.

Part of it is undoubtably the mindset of the Christian Evangelical Right, for whom Israel plays a major role in their Doomsday prophecies. Which has a certain horrible irony to it, ie: "We need to defend Israel, so that Jesus can come back and send all the Jews to Hell with all the other sinners."

Part of it is probably greed (we sell a lot of arms to Israel).

And part of it is that Israel is an ally against those Muslim countries the Right loves to hate these days. And has somehow conned the mainstream into thinking its a respectable democracy in an otherwise despotic region. And hey, I guess it is democratic by the standards of that region, damning with faint praise though that is.

Part of it might also be simply fear of the region being even further destabilized if Israel were ever to fall- not unreasonably so, especially given that if it did fall, Israel's government and military could and almost certainly would take as many with it as possible via nuclear fire.

Not to mention that a lot of its enemies would subjugate or slaughter the Israeli people if they gained the upper hand. That's not an invalid fear.

In short, its a confluence of many factors, of varying degrees of reasonableness, like almost any major political issue. No vast conspiracy required. It would probably be far simpler if that was the case, which is a big part of the appeal of conspiracy theories (well, that and scumbags trying to advance an anti-Semitic agenda, obviously). Instead, its just one more example of the difficult and morally-compromised state of international politics, and everybody is guilty.

Mind you, while I think that the state of Israel as it currently exists should probably never have been created, no more than I support any other state created to favour a particular religion or ethnicity, I also feel that as Israel's existence is a fait accompli, its continued existence is better than any other realistic option for the foreseeable future (since all those other options generally involve a great deal of chaos and a lot of innocent people dying). This does not mean, however, that it does not need substantial internal reform, or that demanding such makes one anti-Semitic.

After all, the Israeli government does not equal all Jews. You can criticize or even hate one without having anything against the other. Much as I can say that Trump is a loathsome subhuman piece of raping orange shit and his supporters are Quislings, without having any hatred for my fellow Americans generally.

I apologize if this post is treading too close to the Israel vs. Palestine moratorium rule, but since it is such a volatile and polarized subject, and I don't have an extensive posting history on this topic, I felt it necessary to give a more comprehensive summary of my views on the subject, to provide context to my response and avoid any misunderstandings.

[Zaune]

Mind you, while I think that the state of Israel as it currently exists should probably never have been created, no more than I support any other state created to favour a particular religion or ethnicity, I also feel that as Israel's existence is a fait accompli, its continued existence is better than any other realistic option for the foreseeable future (since all those other options generally involve a great deal of chaos and a lot of innocent people dying). This does not mean, however, that it does not need substantial internal reform, or that demanding such makes one anti-Semitic.

After all, the Israeli government does not equal all Jews. You can criticize or even hate one without having anything against the other. Much as I can say that Trump is a loathsome subhuman piece of raping orange shit and his supporters are Quislings, without having any hatred for my fellow Americans generally.

Undoubtedly, and I hope I didn't imply that I endorse the position that the Israeli government equals all Israelis much less all Jews.

Although it's a sad and bitter truth that Israel's government, like the US or Britain or quite a few other countries, wouldn't get away with doing awful shit to minorities if the majority didn't keep voting in favour of it.

[The Romulan Republic]

Mind you, while I think that the state of Israel as it currently exists should probably never have been created, no more than I support any other state created to favour a particular religion or ethnicity, I also feel that as Israel's existence is a fait accompli, its continued existence is better than any other realistic option for the foreseeable future (since all those other options generally involve a great deal of chaos and a lot of innocent people dying). This does not mean, however, that it does not need substantial internal reform, or that demanding such makes one anti-Semitic.

After all, the Israeli government does not equal all Jews. You can criticize or even hate one without having anything against the other. Much as I can say that Trump is a loathsome subhuman piece of raping orange shit and his supporters are Quislings, without having any hatred for my fellow Americans generally.

Undoubtedly, and I hope I didn't imply that I endorse the position that the Israeli government equals all Israelis much less all Jews.

No, I don't think you did.

Like I said, I branched off a little in my response, because its a complicated and volatile issue and I wanted to cover all my bases.

Although it's a sad and bitter truth that Israel's government, like the US or Britain or quite a few other countries, wouldn't get away with doing awful shit to minorities if the majority didn't keep voting in favour of it.

To be honest, I don't think the majority of Americans consider Israeli policy a huge factor in their vote, even if most of them tend to favour Israel over Palestine (and a smaller number go the other way). I could be wrong, but I find that economics, war if there's a major one ongoing, and sometimes domestic cultural wedge issues (and nowadays, opposition to Trump/support of) tend to be the major factors. And just candidate personality/persona and party/faction affiliation.

That doesn't absolve them, by any means (especially when in many cases, their decision is more likely due to indifference than a calculated decision that other issues outweigh that one). But I wonder if the strength of the Israel lobby is more due to it holding a small but vocal and loyal group of supporters who can swing close races, than due to it having a majority of Americans willing to base their vote specifically on that issue.

And of course, as we saw last November, sometimes what the majority wants doesn't even fucking matter.

[Flagg]

You know, if I was inclined Alt-Rightwards I'd be pointing to this as really, really good evidence for this whole Zionist conspiracy thing. Because seriously, why the fuck have Israel been allowed to piss off basically every single other country in the Middle East -including several with considerably more oil- and most of Europe as well without being thrown under a bus a la Saddam?

I know, it's like a fucking Christmas present to the Neo-Nazi's.

[Ralin]

I know, it's like a fucking Christmas present to the Neo-Nazi's.

You would think, but they evidently don't care about it much. At least not enough to make it and Israel policy in general a priority.

[Flagg]

I know, it's like a fucking Christmas present to the Neo-Nazi's.

You would think, but they evidently don't care about it much. At least not enough to make it and Israel policy in general a priority.

Not everybody likes the presents they get. They may also be too fucking stupid to recognize it.

[Elfdart]

I guess this explains why so many Dems are in full hair-on-fire mode over Trump's "collusion" with Russia and how it's the worst thing ever. Real Americans are supposed to suck Netanyahu's cock and pretend the money shot tastes like strawberry jam.

Last summer, when Andrew Cuomo set out to blacklist the BDS movement, I compared and contrasted his "collusion" with Netanyahu with Jesse Helms' support for P.W. Botha. Helms was a white supremacist used to say that UNC (University of North Carolina) stood for "University of Niggrahs and Communists" and had a hard-on for Apartheid in South Africa. Yet even this sack of racist shit didn't introduce a law to fine or imprison Randall Robinson or others who organized the BDS movement against South Africa.

[Flagg]

I find both equally disgusting on a moral level but on a practical level I think the Russian shit is more damaging to American democracy (though collusion with Israel damages American national security). Anyone involved in either is a scumbag shit who shouldn't be allowed to hold office as a dog catcher.

[Simon_Jester]

I guess this explains why so many Dems are in full hair-on-fire mode over Trump's "collusion" with Russia and how it's the worst thing ever. Real Americans are supposed to suck Netanyahu's cock and pretend the money shot tastes like strawberry jam.

Thing is, the Republicans totally agree with this, they're just trying to pretend that they didn't have to get Russian help to elect a president in addition to being madly pro-Israel to avoid alienating Jewish (and Christian fundamentalist) voters.

It's not even a point of difference between the two parties in the US.

[The Romulan Republic]

I guess this explains why so many Dems are in full hair-on-fire mode over Trump's "collusion" with Russia and how it's the worst thing ever. Real Americans are supposed to suck Netanyahu's cock and pretend the money shot tastes like strawberry jam.

There's no need to put "collusion" in quotes, as if to imply that its not actually collusion.

Collusion during the election, at least by high level persons in the Trump campaign if not Donald himself, is confessed to, and public record (the Donald Jr. emails/meeting). The only question is weather any of said collusion rose to the level of being actually criminal, or if it was simply highly unethical.

Also, are you implying that the Russian investigation is somehow concocted by Democrats to distract from or benefit Israel?

Or is this just more of the usual brain-dead, morally bankrupt false equivalency narrative, where any time the Republicans or Russians are accused of anything, their defenders immediately respond with "B-b-b-but... Democrats do bad things too! They're just as bad, and so that makes it okay, even though its bad when the Democrats do it!"

Edit: And yeah, I know the Russian investigation isn't the topic of this thread. But you're the one who randomly brought it up to take a cheap shot at Democrats/play apologist for Trump and Putin.

[Eulogy]

Unsurprisingly, reading articles when Googling about the Israeli boycott leads to lots of whinging about it being anti-Semitic and hateful etc.

[Flagg]

I guess this explains why so many Dems are in full hair-on-fire mode over Trump's "collusion" with Russia and how it's the worst thing ever. Real Americans are supposed to suck Netanyahu's cock and pretend the money shot tastes like strawberry jam.

Last summer, when Andrew Cuomo set out to blacklist the BDS movement, I compared and contrasted his "collusion" with Netanyahu with Jesse Helms' support for P.W. Botha. Helms was a white supremacist used to say that UNC (University of North Carolina) stood for "University of Niggrahs and Communists" and had a hard-on for Apartheid in South Africa. Yet even this sack of racist shit didn't introduce a law to fine or imprison Randall Robinson or others who organized the BDS movement against South Africa.

Also, blacks were the largest minority group in the US at the time (Now it's hispanics, if I remember correctly) so there were a lot more people in the US who had the correct information due to being educated about it or educating themselves. Plus they spread the word and there were a ton of anti-South African Apartheid groups within the US who got everything from major companies to entertainers to boycott them.

Meanwhile the Arab Palestinian population in the US is tiny in comparison, so the race politics (In the US, not in Israel. almost missed that ) aren't really in play to the extent they were in the '70's and '80's becacause there's no American history of enslaving and then once freed having the Jim Crow laws against Arab Palestinians in the US. There's also the fact that even the US news media generally falls in line behind Israel and worse, a lot of Americans know zero about the subject, and many that do only know the broadest outline of what's going on and the rest are actual Neo Nazzies.

[LadyTevar]

Senate Bill S.720
Short Titles - Senate
Short Titles as Introduced
Israel Anti-Boycott Act

Official Titles - Senate
Official Titles as Introduced
A bill to amend the Export Administration Act of 1979 to include in the prohibitions on boycotts against allies of the United States boycotts fostered by international governmental organizations against Israel and to direct the Export-Import Bank of the United States to oppose boycotts against Israel, and for other purposes.

Actions Overview
Date
03/23/2017 Introduced in Senate

Date
03/23/2017 Read twice and referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.
Action By: Senate

Now... if you boys will note, this bill was read into the Senate, and then sent to a committee, where it's been languishing for FIVE (5) MONTHS. In effect, this is a dead bill.
Yes, it's upsetting who jumped on the bandwagon, including BOTH of West Virginia's Senators. Yes, it's a stupid fuckin' idea.
But let's stop fussing about it unless and until it manages to crawl out of Committee Hell.

BTW: Is that even the RIGHT Committee to debate it? Or did they flush it to that committee because they knew it'd silently languish and die without ever being brought to the floor?

[Dominus Atheos]

It's not that dead. People are still signing up to be cosponsors. Since the ACLU sent their letter on July 16, 7 more cosponsors have been added.

Sen. Cassidy, Bill [R-LA] 07/18/2017
Sen. Tillis, Thom [R-NC] 07/19/2017
Sen. Cotton, Tom [R-AR] 07/19/2017
Sen. Kennedy, John [R-LA] 07/25/2017
Sen. Daines, Steve [R-MT] 08/01/2017
Sen. Flake, Jeff [R-AZ] 08/02/2017
Sen. Shelby, Richard C. [R-AL] 08/02/2017

It currently has 48 cosponsors.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-con ... cosponsors

[Flagg]

Senate Bill S.720
Short Titles - Senate
Short Titles as Introduced
Israel Anti-Boycott Act

Official Titles - Senate
Official Titles as Introduced
A bill to amend the Export Administration Act of 1979 to include in the prohibitions on boycotts against allies of the United States boycotts fostered by international governmental organizations against Israel and to direct the Export-Import Bank of the United States to oppose boycotts against Israel, and for other purposes.

Actions Overview
Date
03/23/2017 Introduced in Senate

Date
03/23/2017 Read twice and referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.
Action By: Senate

Now... if you boys will note, this bill was read into the Senate, and then sent to a committee, where it's been languishing for FIVE (5) MONTHS. In effect, this is a dead bill.
Yes, it's upsetting who jumped on the bandwagon, including BOTH of West Virginia's Senators. Yes, it's a stupid fuckin' idea.
But let's stop fussing about it unless and until it manages to crawl out of Committee Hell.

BTW: Is that even the RIGHT Committee to debate it? Or did they flush it to that committee because they knew it'd silently languish and die without ever being brought to the floor?

The fact that it's even gotten this far is an indictment in and of itself. So is the fact that the major news networks have apparently, unless I missed something, decided an attack on the foundations of American liberty ( ) isn't important enough to cover in any high profile way then they are abdicating their very serious responsibility.