H.R.4053 - Stop Funding Rioters Act (119th Congress)
Summary
H.R.4053, the "Stop Funding Rioters Act," aims to prevent individuals convicted of certain felonies, specifically those involving assault on law enforcement or actions during riots that resulted in the destruction of small businesses, from participating in Small Business Administration (SBA) programs. The bill was introduced in the House of Representatives by Ms. Van Duyne and referred to the Committee on Small Business. The Act seeks to ensure that SBA resources are not used to support individuals who have engaged in violent or destructive behavior.
This bill directly targets individuals convicted of specific felonies related to violence and property destruction during riots. It restricts their access to SBA programs, reflecting a policy decision to hold such individuals accountable.
The bill defines specific criteria for ineligibility based on criminal convictions, focusing on offenses related to assaults on law enforcement and property destruction during riots.
Expected Effects
The likely effect of this bill, if enacted, would be to restrict access to SBA loans and programs for individuals convicted of the specified felonies. This could impact their ability to start or grow businesses, potentially affecting their economic opportunities.
It may also deter violent behavior during protests and riots, as individuals might be less likely to engage in such activities if they know it could jeopardize their eligibility for SBA assistance. The bill could also lead to legal challenges regarding due process and equal protection under the law.
Furthermore, the bill may face criticism for potentially disproportionately affecting certain demographic groups who are more likely to be involved in protest activities.
Potential Benefits
- Discourages Violence: May deter individuals from engaging in violent or destructive behavior during protests and riots.
- Protects Small Businesses: Aims to protect small businesses from destruction during riots by denying assistance to those convicted of related felonies.
- Accountability: Holds individuals accountable for their actions during riots by restricting their access to SBA programs.
- Focuses Resources: Directs SBA resources towards individuals who have not engaged in violent or destructive behavior.
- Supports Law Enforcement: Sends a message of support for law enforcement officers by denying assistance to those who assault them.
Most Benefited Areas:
Potential Disadvantages
- Potential for Disproportionate Impact: May disproportionately affect certain demographic groups who are more likely to be involved in protest activities.
- Due Process Concerns: Could raise concerns about due process and equal protection under the law, as it restricts access to government programs based on criminal convictions.
- Limited Scope: Only affects access to SBA programs, which may not be a significant deterrent for all individuals.
- Potential for Abuse: Could be used to target individuals based on their political views or involvement in protests.
- Complexity of Implementation: Determining eligibility based on riot-related convictions may be complex and time-consuming.
Most Disadvantaged Areas:
Constitutional Alignment
The bill's constitutional alignment is complex. While Congress has the power to legislate and set conditions for accessing federal programs, the bill could face challenges under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment if it is shown to disproportionately impact certain groups without a compelling government interest. Additionally, the First Amendment protects the rights to free speech and assembly, and the bill's potential chilling effect on these rights could be scrutinized.
The bill does not appear to violate any specific enumerated rights, but its implementation must be carefully considered to ensure it does not infringe upon constitutional liberties. The Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause could also be invoked if the criteria for ineligibility are vague or applied unfairly.
Ultimately, the bill's constitutionality would likely depend on how it is interpreted and applied in practice, and whether it can withstand judicial review.
Impact Assessment: Things You Care About ⓘ
This action has been evaluated across 19 key areas that matter to you. Scores range from 1 (highly disadvantageous) to 5 (highly beneficial).