[Baltimore Sun] Jonathan Schanzer and Howard Slugh - Last month, Florida Gov. Charlie Crist signed a bill ordering his state to divest its pension fund from businesses that work with Iran's energy sector. The legislation, led by Adam Hasner, Republican majority leader of Florida's House of Representatives, passed unanimously in both chambers of the legislature. Unfortunately, the state legislation is unconstitutional. Only new federal legislation can legally allow states to divest from Iran. In 1996, Massachusetts restricted state businesses from working with companies that dealt with Myanmar, formerly called Burma. Massachusetts sought to press Myanmar's military junta to take steps toward democracy and provide better treatment for dissidents. In 2000, the Supreme Court unanimously struck down the Massachusetts law in Crosby v. National Foreign Trade Council. The House and Senate are considering the Iran Sanctions Enabling Act to authorize states to pass divestment laws aimed at Iran's energy sector. The bill would cure any constitutional conflict. It would integrate the state sanctions as an element of congressional sanctions, rather than leaving them outside the congressional framework. Broad bipartisan support of this bill is a sign that Congress sees sanctions - on both the state and federal levels - as an important tool to weaken Iran. Despite the bill's wide popularity, some in Washington oppose it. William Reinsch, former commerce undersecretary in the Clinton administration and current president of the National Foreign Trade Council, claims that "a unified U.S. foreign policy - not multiple state sanctions or divestment laws - is best suited to address" the Iran challenge. Jonathan Schanzer, a former intelligence analyst at the Treasury Department, is director of policy at the Jewish Policy Center.
2007-07-27 01:00:00Full ArticleBACK Visit the Daily Alert Archive