This bill, titled the "No Tax Dollars for Terror Act," would create new disclosure, funding, and tax-enforcement rules aimed at organizations alleged to support terrorism. It requires anyone compensated to participate in a protest, demonstration, or rally in New York to wear conspicuous identification as a "paid protestor," and it requires the sponsoring organization to file advance notice with the attorney general, provide visible signage at the event, and face civil penalties for noncompliance. The bill also directs the attorney general to create and maintain public registries of organizations employing paid demonstrators and organizations deemed terrorist-supporting.
The measure further mandates that the attorney general make a formal ineligibility determination within 60 days after receiving credible information or a federal designation that an organization has provided material support to a terrorist organization. Once such a determination is made, the organization would be barred from receiving certain state funds, grants, contracts, or appropriations, and the state budget office would maintain a list of ineligible entities. The bill also repeals and replaces Tax Law section 27 to require revocation of tax-exempt status for organizations found to have provided material support to terrorism, with notice, a 60-day appeal period, a suspension of tax-exempt privileges during appeal, and a 10-year bar on reapplying for state or local tax exemptions.
Its impact on state law would be significant, particularly in the Executive Law, State Finance Law, and Tax Law. It would impose new reporting and labeling requirements on protest activity, create mandatory duties for the attorney general, restrict state and municipal contracting and funding, and authorize revocation of tax-exempt status based on terrorism-related findings tied to federal law and federal designations. It also establishes public registries and removes discretion from state officials in making ineligibility determinations, while expressly prohibiting waivers or exemptions.
The general sentiment reflected in the bill text is strongly supportive of aggressive anti-terrorism enforcement, transparency, and protection of taxpayer funds. However, because there are no committee transcripts or recorded votes provided, there is no direct evidence of broader legislative support or opposition in the available materials. The bill is currently listed as in Assembly Committee, suggesting it has been introduced but not advanced through committee action.
The main points of contention likely involve civil liberties, free speech, due process, and administrative discretion. The paid-protestor disclosure requirements could be criticized as burdening protest activity and chilling political expression, while the mandatory ineligibility and tax-revocation provisions may raise concerns about reliance on federal designations, the breadth of the 20-year lookback period, and the suspension of tax-exempt status during appeal. Supporters would likely emphasize transparency, anti-terrorism safeguards, and preventing public funds from reaching organizations linked to extremist activity.
The bill would amend the Executive Law, State Finance Law, and Tax Law to create new disclosure obligations for compensated demonstrators, require public registries of paid-protest organizations and terrorist-supporting organizations, and mandate state ineligibility determinations tied to federal terrorism findings. It would bar state and municipal funding or contracts for listed organizations, and it would replace Tax Law section 27 to require revocation of tax-exempt status for organizations found to have materially supported terrorism, with appeal procedures and a 10-year reapplication ban.
The bill’s framing is strongly punitive toward organizations associated with terrorism and strongly supportive of transparency and taxpayer protection. No committee testimony or vote record is provided, so there is no documented legislative debate in the materials, but the bill’s language suggests a clear pro-enforcement, anti-terrorism posture. The absence of recorded votes or transcripts means broader support or opposition cannot be measured from the available record.
Likely areas of contention include the requirement that paid protesters wear identifying labels, which may be viewed as a burden on speech and assembly, and the mandatory public disclosure of protest sponsors and participants. Another major issue is the bill’s automatic or near-automatic consequences for organizations linked to terrorism designations, including loss of funding and tax-exempt status, which could raise due process and overbreadth concerns. Supporters would likely favor the bill’s strict enforcement mechanisms, while critics would focus on First Amendment implications, administrative fairness, and the breadth of the definitions and lookback period.