The ILLICIT CASH Act, sponsored by Mark Warner (D-VA) and co-sponsored by 11 Senators (6 R, 5 D), has been included in the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/senate-bill/2563 This bill would ban anonymous shell companies in the United States, which are commonly used as means of laundering money from illicit activities. This bill was originally introduced in 2019, but its insertion into this year's NDAA makes for an interesting twist.

President Trump has publicly stated that he would veto the NDAA unless Section 230 of the CDA were repealed, but given his (and his organization's) history with money laundering and/or launderers, it wouldn't surprise me if this particular bill is his actual reasoning for threatening to veto the NDAA. It may not be his rationale, but there's a "follow the money" aspect to this that can't be ignored.

There's also a massive archive of information regarding FinCEN files/data which has been compiled by BuzzFeed News, the ICIJ, and hundreds of journalists from around the world. A lot of this data circles around anonymous shell companies, as well as public info. It's a massive rabbit hole.

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/fincen-files

Hard choice here, continue to funnel more money into the military it doesn't really need but miss out on potentially legislation to stop corporate cronyism.

Jamming through a 230 repeal would be really swell.

- The NDAA should be vetoed regardless of this bill. Full of evil shit and big spending.
Don't imagine I need to rehash details here as awareness of it being terrible is pretty high and nonpartisan. Generally only supported by swamp creatures.

- The common tactic of tossing a bunch of other garbage into a bill they know is likely to pass is a generally terrible state of affairs.

- Lefties/dems going 'wtf i love the NDAA now' because some vague anti-business sounding bill is attached to it is pretty sad and not desirable.

- I find its crucially important to consider the effects and details of bills and consider/debate intended and unintended consequences, not just a nice sounding surface-level intention or purpose.

- They come right out and say one of the intended purposes is to expand federal "regulation of digital currencies". Big red flag.

- Some level of addressing money laundering for actual serious crimes is valid and a good idea. I'm not prepared to make comprehensive statements on that atm.

- Reforming corporate laws is also a worthy conversation but i doubt this will be particularly productive on that front.

Much of the language makes me think its about supporting banker monopolies on an international stage.
'anti-terrorism' is used as a premise to attain and exercise more power as it was used so-often after 9/11

At the minimum, there needs to be a volunteer panel with members of all parties similar to voting witnesses that could appeal bans and audit the algorithm.

This post was edited by EndlessSky on Dec 4 2020 12:14pm

regulating a private company? IN CAPITALIST AMERICA????

I agree with cam, addressing shell companies needs to be done, but not as a rider.

Aye lad