Speaker Bosma has introduced HB 1378 which requires the public retirement system (the Indiana State Teacher’s Retirement Fund or the Public Employee’s Retirement Fund) to divest from businesses that engage in action or inaction to boycott, divest from, or sanction Israel. It is being heard in the House Labor Committee.
There is a lengthy “legislative findings” section which, in my mind, is always a red flag. The law (generally) tells you who is required or permitted to do what to whom under what circumstances. Making a policy argument about it in the Code suggests that the value of whatever you are permitting or mandating does not speak for itself. There are a lot of words in the findings, but what particularly stood out are the notions that Israel is uniquely good among Middle East nations and college students are campaigning to boycott against Israel, specifically that efforts to boycott Israel “increasingly occur on college and university campuses nationwide, leading to a climate of intimidation, fear, and violence on campuses in Indiana.”
“Action or inaction to boycott, divest from, or sanction Israel” is defined very broadly as “action or inaction that: furthers; coordinates with; or acquiesces in; an effort by another person to penalize, inflict economic harm on, or otherwise limit commercial relations with the Jewish state of Israel or businesses that are based in the Jewish state of Israel or territories controlled by the Jewish state of Israel.”
It requires the board of trustees of the Indiana Public Retirement System, by January 31, 2017, to develop a list of restricted businesses, businesses that engages in activities to boycott, divest from, or sanction Israel. If the public retirement system has investments in businesses on the list, INPRS will send notice to the business which will then have 90 days to cease the offending activities. It is prohibited from investing in such businesses. It provides immunity against claims based on acts or omissions under the law.
Generally speaking, I think our foreign policy is hindered by thinking of Israel as a special snowflake. Often, I think our interests are aligned with theirs, but sometimes not, and I think our relationship to Israel should ebb and flow based on how closely aligned our interests are — as with any other foreign country. Secondly, that’s much more of a federal concern, and it’s a little bizarre when states get involved in targeting particular countries. (For example, I feel a little weird when, due to State law, I tell some local contractor that to do business with the county, they have to certify that they don’t do $10 million worth of business in Iran.) Finally, the bit about college campuses is a little weird. Which Indiana campus has become violent over this issue?
Good thing there’s a bill prohibit colleges from banning firearms on campus so those students can keep themselves safe in such a hostile learning environment.
“[e]fforts to boycott Israel “increasingly occur on college and university campuses nationwide, leading to a climate of intimidation, fear, and violence on campuses in Indiana.”
Funny, but I must have missed that news story about “intimidation, fear, and violence on campuses in Indiana.” do recall many schools boycotting South Africa based upon its apartheid policies.
So this this count as boycotting the boycott, or as divesting from the divestment? Maybe just sanctioning the sanctions?
This WSJ Law Blog post addresses a similar law passed in Illinois. http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2015/05/19/illinois-lawmakers-pass-divestment-bill-to-counter-israel-boycotts/
The “Findings” ignore the fact that Freedom House classifies Tunisia and Israel as full democracies, and Morocco, Kuwait and Turkey as partial democracies.
And I saw this comment on the WSJ site. I have not heard this quote in years.
To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize.” — Voltaire
The legislature enacted a law to bar doing business with any vendor who also does business with Iran. This was sponsored by a legislator who was convinced that his former employer (from whom he was receiving a healthy pension and health insurance) was doing business in Iran and the state shouldn’t do business with them.
I was part of the team that did the leg work on setting up the list of companies and since the Indiana law was based on a California law I spoke with my counterpart in California about their process. He said that it took 3 people 2 years to set up the list and at the end of the day there were no companies that would be likely vendors. Here is the current California list: http://www.documents.dgs.ca.gov/pd/poliproc/Iran%20Contracting%20Act%20List.pdf
When I was working on it it was primarily Russian gas companies, Chinese Army Industries and some Middle Eastern Conglomerates. The legislator’s former employer was not on the list.
I assume this will end up being similar…
Sometimes even a “short session” of the Indiana legislature is too long.