Nick Shirley blasts California lawmakers for what some have dubbed the ‘Stop Nick Shirley Act’
Nick Shirley Condemns California Lawmakers for the "Stop Nick Shirley Act"
Nick Shirley blasts California lawmakers for what - Independent journalist Nick Shirley has criticized California lawmakers for advancing legislation that he claims aims to shield taxpayer-funded organizations from public scrutiny. The bill, AB 2624, which was recently passed by the state Assembly, has been labeled by critics as the "Stop Nick Shirley Act." Shirley, known for his investigative reporting on nonprofit fraud, argues the law could grant immunity to immigration service providers and other nonprofits, making it easier for them to avoid accountability for misusing public funds.
Shirley's Accusations Target NGO Transparency
During a Wednesday night appearance on "Fox News @ Night" with Trace Gallagher, Shirley expressed frustration over the bill’s intent. "I obviously hit a nerve," he said, referencing the legislation's name. "What's interesting about this bill is that it’s protecting NGOs and nonprofits, which are supposed to be accountable to the public because they receive our tax dollars." He emphasized that these organizations, while often seen as charitable, should be subject to the same level of oversight as for-profit entities.
"These are groups that are funded by our taxes, yet they want to make it so we can’t find out what they’re doing with our money," Shirley added. "That’s the crux of the issue."
Shirley accused the lawmakers of using the bill as a way to deflect criticism from his own reporting. He argued that the measure could deter journalists and watchdogs from investigating fraudulent activities within nonprofits, particularly those involved in immigration services. "If this law passes, it’ll be harder to hold organizations accountable for their actions," he said, highlighting concerns about the potential for misuse of public funds.
Behind the Bill: Mia Bonta's Defense of Immigration Providers
The legislation, formally titled "Privacy for Immigration Support Services Providers," was authored by Assemblymember Mia Bonta, a Democrat from Oakland. Gallagher played a portion of Bonta’s remarks, in which she defended the bill as a necessary protection for organizations facing harassment and threats. "Immigrant service providers have been targeted by doxxing campaigns and personal attacks," Bonta said, framing the law as a shield against undue pressure.
"It’s about ensuring that these groups can operate without fear of being singled out for their work," Bonta explained. "They’re providing essential services, and they deserve protection."
However, Shirley disputed this rationale. He claimed that the bill would prioritize the comfort of organizations over the public’s right to know. "My response is that these groups are committing fraud, and no one will ever question it again when we’ve already seen the evidence of their wrongdoing," he said. This line of reasoning echoes his previous investigations into alleged financial misconduct in both Minnesota and California.
Shirley Links Bill to Past Fraud Cases
In his critique, Shirley referenced specific instances of fraud he uncovered. "The Somalis in Minnesota stole hundreds of millions, if not billions, of dollars," he stated, calling attention to a case where nonprofits were accused of misusing funds. "Then there was the hospice fraud in California, which people initially dismissed as fake, but it turned out to be real." He pointed out that even after exposing these cases, the bill’s author—Mia Bonta—attempted to claim credit for the investigation, suggesting a pattern of exploiting public scrutiny for political gain.
"Her husband actually tried to take credit for exposing the hospice fraud after I did the original reporting," Shirley said. "That’s when I realized they weren’t just defending the organizations, they were protecting themselves."
The journalist accused California Democrats of leveraging the bill to target independent media and individuals who challenge their narrative. "The fraud has been going on for years, and these groups thought they could keep getting away with it," he said. "Now they’re trying to silence the voices that expose their mistakes." Shirley’s claims are part of a broader critique of left-leaning lawmakers, whom he describes as "coming after me" for uncovering systemic issues within the nonprofit sector.
Support for the Bill Among Political Figures
Despite Shirley’s criticisms, the legislation has drawn backing from some prominent figures. In an X post, he noted that the bill would place journalists at civil risk if they investigate fraud involving immigration services, nonprofits, or healthcare facilities. This could result in legal consequences such as injunctions, attorney fees, and statutory damages, he warned, if the accused organizations claim they have a reasonable fear of retaliation.
Rep. Tim Burchett, a Republican congressional candidate, supported Shirley’s perspective, labeling the law as an example of Democratic leadership. "This is a clear case of the left pushing to limit accountability," Burchett said, aligning with Shirley’s argument that the bill prioritizes political protection over transparency. Similarly, Lily Tang Williams, a Republican candidate from New Hampshire, called for taxpayer outrage. "If California signs this bill into law, the federal government must step in to fight back," she said, emphasizing the potential impact on public trust in nonprofit institutions.
Implications for Investigative Journalism
Shirley’s focus on the bill’s effect on free speech and investigative rights has sparked a debate about the balance between protecting organizations and ensuring public oversight. He argued that the law could weaken the First Amendment by allowing groups to claim immunity from scrutiny, even when evidence of misconduct is clear. "This isn’t just about one story—it’s about setting a precedent that lets fraudsters operate with impunity," he said.
Meanwhile, supporters of AB 2624 maintain that the legislation is necessary to safeguard nonprofits from political attacks. They contend that journalists like Shirley, while important, may sometimes overstate their findings or target organizations for partisan reasons. "The bill ensures that organizations can focus on their missions without being unfairly scrutinized," one advocate said. However, Shirley counters that such protections could stifle accountability and allow continued misuse of taxpayer resources.
As AB 2624 moves to the California Senate, the debate over its purpose and impact continues. The bill’s proponents argue it provides essential safeguards for immigration service providers, while critics like Shirley see it as a tool to suppress dissent and protect fraudulent practices. With the legislation poised to shape how nonprofits are held accountable, the question remains: does it shield the public interest, or does it shield those who exploit it?
Fox News Digital has sought comment from Assemblymember Mia Bonta but has not yet received a response. The senator’s husband, Rob Bonta, who serves as California’s Attorney General, has also not publicly addressed the accusations. As the bill advances, the controversy surrounding it is expected to intensify, with both sides framing their arguments as a defense of transparency versus the need for organizational protection.
Shirley’s criticism underscores a growing divide over the role of nonprofits in public life. While he accuses lawmakers of stifling accountability, others argue that the bill is a necessary measure to prevent overzealous investigations from undermining the credibility of essential services. The outcome of this legislative battle could influence how taxpayer-funded organizations are viewed and held responsible for their actions in the years to come.