Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Credo Mobile

HOME

ABOUT US

OUR ISSUES

Federal Budget

Information & Access

Nonprofit Advocacy

Regulatory Policy


PRESS ROOM

ACTION CENTER

PUBLICATIONS

THE WATCHER

OUR BLOGS


SIGN UP

Receive news, updates, and alerts!

DONATE

Help support our work


OTHER SITES

FedSpending.org

RTK NET

NPAction

Working Group on Community Right-to-Know

Citizens for Sensible Safeguards

Open the Government

OMB Watch Logo
February 22, 2005 Vol.6, No.4:   


Published: 02/22/2005

Printable Version
Email to a Friend

See OMB Watch's Combined Federal Campaign list checking background page and learn more about the Treasury Department Guidelines.




CFC Cites Treasury Guidelines to Justify Anti-Terror List Requirement

The Combined Federal Campaign (CFC) has filed a motion to dismiss a lawsuit challenging its requirement that participating charities check employee names against two government terrorist watch lists. The CFC motion claims the Treasury Department's Voluntary Anti-Terrorist Financing Guidelines as authority and cites activities by private foundations as justification for its actions. These guidelines have been widely criticized and are currently under review by Treasury. The motion provides plaintiffs with partial victory in the suit by stating CFC's intention of conducting a formal rulemaking on the list-checking requirement, giving the public an opportunity to comment. The background information in the motion reveals that the current list-checking rule was developed in a closed process with a coalition representing some of the largest CFC participating charities.

OMB Watch is one of 12 plaintiffs that have sued to block enforcement of CFC's employee list-checking requirement, claiming that it is unconstitutional and was implemented in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act. The motion cites Treasury's Voluntary Guidelines as authority, but misrepresents the suggestions made by the guidelines by equating employee list checking for all participating charities (CFC's requirement) with the guidelines suggestion that foreign recipient organizations be checked. The plaintiffs must respond to the CFC's motion by April 11.

The CFC motion also attempts to justify its employee list-checking requirement by noting that three foundations (Ford, Rockefeller and Charles Stewart Mott) have implemented general certification requirements for their grantees. However, the foundation certification requirements do not require employee list checking. Instead, they contain general language asking grantees to certify that foundation funds will not be used to support terrorism.