Maryland Bill Would Let State Sue Nonprofits Over Israel Donations

By MDBayNews Staff

A controversial proposal moving through the Maryland General Assembly is raising alarms among free speech advocates, religious organizations, and civil liberties groups who warn the legislation could give state government unprecedented authority to police political speech and charitable donations.

House Bill 1184 — dubbed the “Not On Our Dime Act” — would allow the Maryland Attorney General to bring civil lawsuits against nonprofit organizations that provide funding to causes deemed to support Israeli “settlement activity” in the West Bank. The bill would authorize the state to seek at least $1 million in damages from organizations that violate the measure.

Supporters of the bill argue that Maryland taxpayers should not indirectly support activity they believe contributes to violence, displacement, or destruction in Palestinian territories.

But critics say the legislation is far less about human rights and far more about government policing of political viewpoints.

A Dangerous Expansion of State Power

At its core, HB 1184 would empower the state government to investigate and punish charitable organizations based on the political implications of their donations.

That is an extraordinary shift.

Under the bill’s framework, the Attorney General could bring lawsuits against nonprofits for funding activities overseas if lawmakers determine those activities support Israeli settlements. In practical terms, that means Maryland officials would be deciding which international causes are politically acceptable — and which ones are not.

For many constitutional scholars, that raises obvious First Amendment concerns.

Charitable giving and political advocacy have long been recognized by courts as protected forms of speech and association. If the state can penalize nonprofits for supporting one side of a controversial international issue, critics argue, the same logic could easily be applied to other political causes.

Today it might target organizations connected to Israel.

Tomorrow it could target charities tied to Ukraine, Taiwan, environmental activism, religious missions, or virtually any geopolitical issue.

Once government begins deciding which causes are acceptable, the line between regulation and censorship quickly disappears.

Selective Foreign Policy by State Legislatures

Another major concern raised by critics is that HB 1184 effectively turns Maryland lawmakers into foreign policy regulators.

The United States Constitution clearly assigns foreign policy authority to the federal government — not individual state legislatures.

If Maryland begins passing laws regulating charitable activity tied to Israeli settlements, what stops another state from banning donations related to Chinese dissidents, Cuban political groups, or Kurdish organizations?

Foreign policy conducted piecemeal by fifty different states would be chaotic at best and constitutionally questionable at worst.

Maryland legislators may have strong opinions about Middle East policy — but that does not mean Annapolis should attempt to enforce those opinions through civil lawsuits against charities.

A Precedent That Could Backfire

Ironically, the same political activists supporting HB 1184 today might be the first to oppose similar laws tomorrow.

If a state government can punish nonprofits for supporting Israeli settlements, a future legislature could just as easily punish nonprofits for supporting pro-Palestinian activism.

Or environmental organizations.

Or immigration advocacy groups.

Or religious charities operating abroad.

Once the door is opened for the government to punish charitable donations based on political viewpoints, every cause becomes vulnerable.

Maryland Already Has a Reputation for Overreach

This proposal also arrives at a time when many Maryland residents already feel state leaders have been expanding government authority into areas traditionally left to civil society.

From regulatory crackdowns to aggressive taxation policies, critics argue Annapolis has increasingly embraced an interventionist approach to governance.

HB 1184 risks adding yet another example to that growing list — one that touches directly on constitutional rights.

Even Americans who strongly oppose Israeli settlement expansion should pause before endorsing legislation that allows the government to punish private charities for their political associations.

The Bigger Question: Who Decides?

Ultimately, the controversy surrounding HB 1184 raises a fundamental question about the role of government in a free society.

Should state officials have the authority to determine which international causes Maryland nonprofits are allowed to support?

Or should private citizens and charitable organizations retain the freedom to decide where their money goes — even if those choices are controversial?

In a country founded on freedom of speech and association, the answer has historically been clear.

But in Annapolis this year, lawmakers appear ready to test that principle.

---

If passed, the “Not On Our Dime Act” would represent one of the most aggressive attempts by a state government to regulate charitable speech tied to foreign policy.

Whether courts would ultimately uphold such a law remains an open question.

But the broader implications are already clear:

When government starts deciding which causes are acceptable, free speech is rarely far behind on the chopping block.

---

Keep MDBayNews Reporting Free

MDBayNews exists to help Marylanders understand decisions made by state and local leaders — especially when those decisions affect daily life, rights, and public services.

If this article helped clarify what’s happening or why it matters, reader support makes it possible to keep publishing clear, independent reporting like this.

👉 Support Local Journalism

Have a tip or documents to share?

We review submissions carefully and confidentially. Anonymous tips are welcome when appropriate.

 👉 Submit a Tip