Preventing Violent Offenders from Being Released by Bail Charities

In the summer of 2020, charitable bail funds like the Minnesota Freedom Fund received massive donations from far left activists, politicians, and celebrities – including then-Senator Kamala Harris – to bail protesters out of jail.

But many of the people these organizations help release are facing serious charges. A CNN investigation found that between 2019 and 2021, 24% of defendants whose bail was posted by The Bail Project had been charged with a violent crime, while 35% faced felony charges and had at least one prior violent offense. CNN also found that at least nine people released by charitable bail funds were later arrested for murder.

Despite the risks to public safety, some charitable bail funds openly admit they post bail for defendants without considering the pending charges. Greg Lewin, Executive Director of the Minnesota Freedom Fund, stated: “I often don’t even look at a charge when I bail someone out.”

These organizations also reduce accountability to appear in court because the defendants do not have a personal financial stake in showing up. According to CNN, 42% of the 500 defendants bailed out by the Minnesota Freedom Fund in 2021 and 2022 failed to appear in court, compared to roughly 22% of defendants assisted by commercial bail companies.

H.R. 6260, the Keeping Violent Offenders Off Our Streets Act, introduced by Rep. Scott Fitzgerald, amends the federal criminal statute dealing with insurance-related crimes to include corporate, for-profit, and non-profit entities that post bail for defendants, subjecting charitable bail funds to federal insurance fraud laws and state licensing requirements, and requiring their employees to pass criminal background checks.

We must make sure that our legal system puts safety and accountability before woke movements and political agendas.
  

---

Calling Out Dangerous Soft-On-Crime Cashless Bail Policies

Bail is not meant to punish defendants — it is designed to ensure those charged with crimes appear in court for required proceedings. If defendants attend all required appearances, all bail money is returned at the conclusion of the case, regardless of the outcome.

In recent years, however, many liberal states and cities have enacted cashless bail and so-called “bail reform” policies that minimize or eliminate cash bail requirements before trial. These reckless policies allow soft-on-crime judges to release dangerous offenders back onto our streets with little more than a promise to appear in court — even in some cases involving violent crimes.

The results have put public safety at risk. After New York’s bail law passed, a 2023 study found that approximately 72% of violent felony offenders released without bail were re-arrested. Before the law took effect, the recidivism rate for violent felony offenders was 62%.

This should be common sense: Families deserve to know which jurisdictions have adopted dangerous cashless bail policies when deciding where to live, work, raise a family, or travel.

H.R. 5625, the Cashless Bail Reporting Act, sponsored by Rep. Mark Harris, requires the Attorney General to publish a list of state and local governments that implement reckless bail “reform” policies allowing people who have been accused of certain violent crimes – including murder, rape, sexual assault, carjacking, assault, and robbery – to be released pending trial on personal recognizance or upon execution of an unsecured appearance bond.

House Republicans are keeping our promise to make America safer by calling out reckless soft-on-crime policies and working to keep violent criminals off our streets. 

---

Establishing Accountability and Transparency in Court Monitorships

Today, federal district courts can appoint court monitors to oversee state and local agencies with few commonsense guardrails in place.

While monitors are intended to help agencies implement corrective action in cases involving misconduct or civil rights violations, some monitorships have become costly, open-ended arrangements with little transparency or accountability. In certain cases, monitors have remained in place for more than a decade, costing taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars with few limits on their fees, duration, or scope of authority.

House Republicans are bringing forward this legislation to strengthen accountability, protect taxpayer dollars, and ensure monitorships remain focused on delivering results — not becoming permanent bureaucracies.

Rep. Andy Biggs’ bill, H.R. 8365, the Monitor Accountability Act, codifies the Department of Justice's recommendations to establish term limits on monitors, cap fees, allow for public feedback on the selection of monitors, and provide a public accounting of monitors’ activities to ensure court monitors do not abuse their positions.

House Republicans will continue working to root out government waste, fraud, and abuse and protect hardworking taxpayers’ dollars.