The $30 million nonprofit shield

California's Assembly Bill 2624, dubbed the 'Stop Nick Shirley Act' by critics, has passed the state Assembly and is now headed to the Senate for further consideration . The bill, officially titled 'Privacy for Immigration Support Services Providers,' aims to create privacy and address-confidentiality protections for immigration service providers who face documented threats or harassment due to their work.

However, independent journalist Nick Shirley argues that the bill goes too far by potentially allowing covered organizations to claim a reasonable fear for their safety, thereby exposing journalists and investigators to civil penalties such as injunctions, attorney fees, and statutory damages.

Shirley contends that this legal risk would discourage probes into fraud involving immigration support services,nonprofits, and healthcare facilities, allowing abuse of the system to continue unchecked.

He cited examples of past fraud, including the Somali fraud in Minnesota that involved hundreds of millions of dollars, and a hospice fraud scheme in California that he claims he exposed.

Shirley also noted that Assemblymember Bonta's husband, California Attorney General Rob Bonta, attempted to take credit for the hospice bust after Shirley had already uncovered it.

The bill has sparked a broader debate about transparency, First Amendment rights, and the accountability of organizations that receive public funds.

A familiar pattern from the 2019 crash

Shirley's criticism of the bill echoes concerns raised in 2019, when a similar measure was proposed in response to a high-profile investigation into a nonprofit organization accused of embezzling funds.

At the time, critics argued that the bill would shield the organization from scrutiny and enable further abuse of public funds .

The current bill has sparked a heated debate, with conservative figures such as Rep.. Tim Burchett, actor Dean Cain, and activist Lily Tang Williams voicing support for Shirley's criticism.

Williams posted on social media, 'Taxpayers should be outraged by this in CA. If CA signs this bill into law to protet fraudsters, Federal government must fight back.'

Who is the unnamed buyer?

Shirley's confrontation with California Democrats has sparked a broader debate about transparency, First Amendment rights, and the accountability of organizations that receive public funds.

As the bill moves through the legislative prcess, it remains to be seen whether it will become law and what implications it may have for independent journalism and taxpayer oversight.

The debate highlights the need for greater transparency and accountability in the use of public funds, particularly in the nonprofit sector.

What auditors flagged in the May filing

The bill has been sent to the state Senate for further consideration, where it will be reviewed by lawmakers and auditors.

Auditors have flagged several concerns in the May filing, including the potential for covered organizations to claim a reasonable fear for their safety and the resulting legal risk for journalists and investigators.

The debate surrounding the bill has sparked a broader discussion about the need for greater transparency and accountability in the use of public funds.