There was a time in this country when a journalist exposing fraud was considered a public service. Someone grabs a camera, asks hard questions, and holds powerful institutions accountable. That’s the First Amendment doing exactly what the Founders designed it to do. The press was never meant to be comfortable for those in power. Quite the opposite, actually.

But that principle is under direct assault. Across the country, politicians who swore oaths to defend the Constitution are now drafting legislation to punish the very people exercising its most fundamental protections. And the latest example isn’t buried in bureaucratic jargon or hidden behind procedural smokescreens. It is spectacularly, almost cartoonishly, blatant.

From The Post Millennial:

The California measure dubbed the “Stop Nick Shirley Act” has been referred to the Senate Appropriations Committee’s suspense file after unanimous approval from the committee, a procedural step typically reserved for legislation with significant fiscal impacts. The bill is expected to be considered later in the legislative session before advancing further.

Assembly Bill 2624, authored by Democratic Assemblymember Mia Bonta, the wife of California Attorney General Rob Bonta, previously passed the California State Assembly in May. On August 3, the Senate Appropriations Committee voted 7-0 to place the measure on the suspense file. The suspense hearing is scheduled for August 13, after which the bill could become eligible for a vote on the full Senate floor later in August.

Named and targeted

The California State Legislature crafted a bill and nicknamed it after a specific independent journalist. Not a criminal. Not a spy. A guy with a camera — Nick Shirley — whose great offense was standing outside nonprofits suspected of committing fraud and recording what he found.

Shirley’s videos went viral because they exposed what the mainstream press couldn’t be bothered to cover: organizations receiving taxpayer dollars that appeared to be engaged in fraudulent activity within the immigration services space. So naturally, California’s priority wasn’t investigating the fraud. It was shutting up the man who spotted it.

And then there’s the authorship. Assemblymember Mia Bonta penned this legislation. Her husband, Rob Bonta, serves as California’s Attorney General — the state’s top law enforcement official. The same state apparatus that would enforce this very law. Cozy arrangement, that.

Criminalizing the truth

On paper, the bill expands California’s Safe At Home address confidentiality program to cover people who work or volunteer in immigration support services. It would criminalize publicly posting “personal information” of a protected person with “intent to incite harm.” Sounds measured enough — until you dig into the definitions.

The bill’s language is staggeringly broad. “Personal information” includes a person’s name, address, and telephone number. Think about that for a moment. A journalist publishing someone’s name in connection with a news story could face criminal penalties. Including jail time. The legislation also creates a private right of action, meaning anyone shielded by the bill could drag a reporter into civil court.

The “intent to incite harm” standard is deliberately vague. Who decides what constitutes intent? Who determines what qualifies as harm? In practice, this hands enormous discretionary power to prosecutors and plaintiffs with an axe to grind. It’s a weapon dressed up as a shield.

The price tag of silencing dissent

Independent journalist Max Bonilla testified before the committee and exposed the fiscal lunacy baked into this bill.

“While the bill claims to expand a program that protects victims of domestic violence and protection to immigrant service providers, there would be significant enforcement costs for attempting to jail independent journalists,” Bonilla stated. He pointed out that the average cost of incarcerating an individual in California runs between $127,800 and $132,860.

Over a hundred thousand dollars per journalist. Not to fight crime. Not to protect citizens. To punish people for asking questions Sacramento doesn’t want asked. And the Senate Appropriations Committee passed it 7-0. Not one dissenting vote.

The suspense hearing is set for August 13. After that, the bill could reach the full Senate floor.

Every conservative — every American who still values a free press — should be revolted by what is unfolding in Sacramento. The First Amendment was not written to protect speech that politicians find pleasant. It exists precisely to protect the speech they despise. When a state legislature drafts a bill named after the journalist it wants to muzzle, we have moved beyond policy disagreement. This is elected officials waging open war on the free press. And if they pull it off in California, do not kid yourself. They will try it where you live next.

Key Takeaways

• California’s AB 2624 would criminalize independent journalists for exposing nonprofit fraud.
• The bill’s author is married to the state’s Attorney General — a stark conflict of interest.
• Overly broad definitions could make publishing someone’s name a jailable offense.
• California would spend $132,000 jailing a reporter rather than investigate the fraud he uncovered.

Sources: The Post Millennial