Establishes the "Not on our dime!: Ending New York funding of Israeli settler violence act" to prohibit not-for-profit corporations from engaging in unauthorized support of Israeli settlement activity
This bill would amend New York’s Not-for-Profit Corporation Law to create a new section prohibiting not-for-profit corporations from providing what the bill defines as “unauthorized support of Israeli settlement activity.” The bill’s short title is the “Not on our dime!: Ending New York funding of Israeli settler violence act.” It defines the prohibited conduct broadly to include aiding or abetting activity tied to Israeli settlement activity that the bill characterizes as unlawful under international law, including the transfer of Israeli civilians into occupied territory, violence against protected persons, forced displacement, annexation, and destruction or seizure of Palestinian property and infrastructure in the West Bank, East Jerusalem, and Gaza Strip.
The bill would make such support contrary to public policy and inconsistent with charitable purposes under state law. It authorizes the Attorney General to seek a civil penalty of at least $1 million against a not-for-profit corporation or its officers, directors, managers, or agents for knowing violations, and it creates a private right of action for individuals damaged by a violation to seek injunctive relief and actual damages, with possible attorneys’ fees. The bill also amends the definition of “charitable purposes” to exclude acts violating the new section and allows dissolution of a charitable corporation for such violations.
In practical terms, the measure would significantly expand state oversight of nonprofit conduct by tying charitable status and corporate liability to a politically and legally contested category of overseas activity. It would affect both domestic and foreign not-for-profit corporations operating in New York, and could expose boards, officers, and organizations to substantial financial and equitable remedies if they are found to have knowingly supported the conduct described in the bill.
The available context shows the bill was introduced and referred to the Assembly Committee on Corporations, Authorities and Commissions, with no recorded votes or committee transcript excerpts provided. Because of that, there is no documented floor debate or formal vote history in the materials supplied. The overall sentiment cannot be measured from votes, but the bill’s framing suggests strong support among its sponsors for restricting nonprofit involvement in Israeli settlement-related activity.
The main point of contention is likely to be the bill’s broad and highly charged definition of prohibited conduct, its reliance on international-law concepts, and its application to nonprofit organizations through civil penalties and private lawsuits. Supporters would likely view it as preventing New York charitable resources from facilitating human-rights abuses, while opponents would likely argue that it targets a specific foreign policy issue, risks constitutional and preemption challenges, and could chill nonprofit advocacy or overseas charitable work.
The bill would add a new section 116 to the Not-for-Profit Corporation Law and revise the statute’s definition of charitable purposes so that conduct violating the new section cannot qualify as charitable. It would also authorize dissolution of a charitable corporation for violations, empower the Attorney General to seek a minimum $1 million civil penalty, and create a private right of action for damages and injunctive relief. The measure would therefore impose new legal exposure on nonprofit corporations, their officers and agents, and potentially foreign and domestic entities operating in New York.
No votes or committee transcript excerpts are provided, so there is no recorded debate to gauge formal support or opposition. Based on the bill’s sponsorship and title, the measure appears to have been introduced with strong support from its backers as a response to Israeli settlement activity, but it is also likely to be controversial because it addresses a politically sensitive foreign policy and human-rights issue. The absence of voting history means the broader legislative sentiment cannot be determined from the supplied materials.
The central controversy is the bill’s broad definition of “unauthorized support of Israeli settlement activity,” which incorporates international criminal and humanitarian law concepts and covers a wide range of conduct in occupied territory. Critics would likely object that the bill singles out Israel-related activity, could burden nonprofit speech and operations, and may raise constitutional, preemption, and extraterritoriality concerns. Supporters would likely argue that New York should not allow charitable entities to finance or facilitate conduct they view as unlawful settlement violence and property destruction.