UJRefugees.net

Nick Shirley confronts California Democrats over 'Stop Nick Shirley Act,' pressing on First Amendment rights

CJ Womack

5–6 minutes

California lawmakers were confronted at the state Capitol in Sacramento as independent journalist Nick Shirley filmed a video published this week questioning Assembly Bill 2624, a proposal California Republicans have dubbed the "Stop Nick Shirley Act," during interviews with Democratic and Republican legislators about the bill's scope and intent.

"If this bill were to get passed, instead of going after the fraudsters, they’re trying to make it criminal to go after the people that are committing this fraud," Shirley said in the video posted to his YouTube page.

The video centered on California Assembly Bill 2624, authored by Assemblymember Mia Bonta, D-Oakland, which seeks to restrict the public posting of personal information of individuals connected to immigration support services, including nonprofit organizations, legal clinics and health care providers.

The legislation also drew scrutiny in Shirley's video because Assemblymember Bonta is married to California Attorney General Rob Bonta. Shirley repeatedly framed that relationship as a potential conflict of interest while questioning lawmakers about whether the bill would make it harder to expose fraud involving taxpayer-funded immigration services.

"I actually don’t think that this bill violates the First Amendment," Pérez said when asked about constitutional concerns.

"We have ledge [legislative] counsel and ledge attorneys that talk with us about this. Constitutionality is really important to the work."

Biker wrote: ↑Tue Apr 21, 2026 3:06 pm "I actually don’t think that this bill violates the First Amendment," Pérez said when asked about constitutional concerns.

"We have ledge [legislative] counsel and ledge attorneys that talk with us about this. Constitutionality is really important to the work."

QillerDaemon wrote: ↑Wed Apr 22, 2026 3:53 pm

Biker wrote: ↑Tue Apr 21, 2026 3:06 pm "I actually don’t think that this bill violates the First Amendment," Pérez said when asked about constitutional concerns.

"We have ledge [legislative] counsel and ledge attorneys that talk with us about this. Constitutionality is really important to the work."

So Caly-forny should look to Florida's legislative work, where governor executive orders and legislative proposals being unconstitutional are just last Tueday's problem. Then try to hide it even though Florida is supposed to have to most transparent government system aka "Sunshine Laws" of any state. A pride and joy they like to ignore.

This is pretty bad on CA's part; an assembly member and a state AG in a marriage can definitely cause a real conflict of interest. And a legislative councilor not seeing and pointing that out or the constitutionality of such proposed laws is a real concern about partiality on their part.

Who wrote: ↑Wed Apr 22, 2026 4:14 pm

QillerDaemon wrote: ↑Wed Apr 22, 2026 3:53 pm

Biker wrote: ↑Tue Apr 21, 2026 3:06 pm "I actually don’t think that this bill violates the First Amendment," Pérez said when asked about constitutional concerns.

"We have ledge [legislative] counsel and ledge attorneys that talk with us about this. Constitutionality is really important to the work."

So Caly-forny should look to Florida's legislative work, where governor executive orders and legislative proposals being unconstitutional are just last Tueday's problem. Then try to hide it even though Florida is supposed to have to most transparent government system aka "Sunshine Laws" of any state. A pride and joy they like to ignore.

This is pretty bad on CA's part; an assembly member and a state AG in a marriage can definitely cause a real conflict of interest. And a legislative councilor not seeing and pointing that out or the constitutionality of such proposed laws is a real concern about partiality on their part.

Wow that sounds terrible fortunately we have a Supreme Court where a Justice would never be married to a lobbyist