Do the Feds Need to Stop Requiring Companies to Give “Donations” to Outside Groups When Settling Lawsuits? (H.R. 732)
Do you support or oppose this bill?
What is H.R. 732?
(Updated May 24, 2018)
This bill would prohibit officials from settling lawsuits filed against the federal government in a way that would require a defendant to make a “donation” of money to outside groups as part of the settlement agreement with the federal government. The Dept. of Justice (DOJ) has been requiring banks and insurance companies to “donate” some of the imposed penalty to selected nonprofits, which in some cases are political activist groups like the National Council of La Raza.
Government officials who violate this prohibition could be removed from office or required to forfeit to the government any money that they hold for the settlement or may be entitled to.
The definition of “donation” under this legislation would exclude a payment by a party to the lawsuit for restitution or otherwise fixing the harm caused by whatever conduct led to the settlement agreement.
Argument in favor
When corporations settle lawsuits with the federal government that money should go to the actual victims or into the Treasury, not to political activist groups.
Argument opposed
It makes sense that federal agencies settling lawsuits mandate that some of the penalties paid by corporations go to nonprofit groups on an approved list.
Impact
Federal employees and agencies that settle lawsuits; nonprofit groups that otherwise would’ve received “donations”; and the DOJ.
Cost of H.R. 732
A CBO cost estimate is unavailable.
Additional Info
In-Depth: Sponsoring Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-VA) cited a lack of Congressional oversight regarding how the funds from these settlements are allocated to nonprofit groups as a primary reason for introducing this bill:
“This bill is oversight and action. Congress must not tolerate Justice Department political appointees using settlements to funnel money to their liberal friends.
This is also an institutional issue. Once direct victims have been compensated, deciding what to do with additional funds recovered from defendants becomes a policy question properly decided by elected representatives in Congress, no agency bureaucrats or prosecutors.”
This legislation has the support of 30 cosponsors in the House, including 29 Republicans and one Democrat.
Of Note: The Wall Street Journal reported that the DOJ’s use of mandatory donation terms actually reduces the total penalty to be paid by a corporation. In the case of Bank of America, a $500,000 donation to La Raza would reduce its total penalty by at least $1 million, whereas providing direct relief to victims would only be counted dollar-for-dollar.
Media:
Summary by Eric Revell(Photo Credit: Flickr user 401(K) 2013)
The Latest
-
IT: 🛢️ New Vermont measure could charge Big Oil for climate damages, and... Do you think Trump is guilty?Welcome to Friday, May 10th, friends... Vermont could be one of the first states to hold Big Oil accountable for the damages read more...
-
Stormy Daniels Takes the Stand in Trump Hush Money TrialUpdated May 9, 2024, 5:00 p.m. EST Adult film star Stormy Daniels, also known as Stephanie Clifford, spent two days on the stand read more... Law Enforcement
-
Vermont Measure to Charge Big Oil for Climate DamagesWhat’s the story? Vermont is expected to become one of the first states to hold Big Oil accountable for the damages caused by read more... Environment
-
IT: Trump's 2016 'deny, deny, deny' campaign strategy, and... How can you help the civilians of Ukraine?Welcome to Wednesday, May 8th, weekenders... As Trump's hush money trial enters it's third week, the 2016 campaign strategy of read more...