The Alliance Defense Fund (ADF), an Arizona nonprofit, has started an effort to encourage ministers to "use their pulpits to preach about election candidates this September." 501(c)(3) nonprofits, including churches, are prohibited from endorsing or publicly opposing political candidates or intervening in candidates' elections. The group would like if one sermon prompts an Internal Revenue Service (IRS) investigation that becomes a court battle, leading towards an outcome ruling the tax provision unconstitutional.

The ADF press release states; "The new initiative will equip, protect, and defend pastors who wish to exercise their First Amendment right to openly discuss the positions of political candidates and other moral and social issues from the pulpit. Participating pastors across the country will deliver a sermon along these lines in their own churches Sept. 28."

The Wall Street Journal reports; "Alliance fund staff hopes 40 or 50 houses of worship will take part in the action, including clerics from liberal-leaning congregations. About 80 ministers have expressed interest, including one Catholic priest, says Erik Stanley, the Alliance's senior legal counsel."

Americans United for Separation of Church and State (AU) responded with a press release denouncing the initiative, saying the "Religious Right group's plan to ask churches to violate federal tax law on electioneering is deplorable."

Leaders of the Senate Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee, Senators Joseph Lieberman (I-CT) and Susan Collins (R-ME), have introduced a report titled "Violent Islamist Extremism, the Internet, and the Homegrown Terrorism Threat," based on hearings held by the Committee that looked into violent homegrown terrorism. They warn, "that the threat of homegrown terrorism is on the rise, aided by the Internet's capacity to spread the core recruitment and training message of violent Islamist terrorist groups."

Prior to the release of the report, OMB Watch along with many other groups sent a memorandum urging the committee to "tread lightly and carefully in this area, and to make every effort to preserve free speech and association rights." Legislation to address the problem, the Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act (S. 1959) is stalled in the Senate. The memo describes numerous concerns including the free speech implications and the unease of singling out of one religious group.

Our memo states; "If the Internet is a focus of efforts to stop 'homegrown terrorism' it should be because it can be a tremendous tool for dissemination of vast amounts of material that could counter the messages of the terrorists. The Internet, and the free speech it facilitates, can be an antidote to terrorism."

The American Civil Liberties Union issued a press release, which quoted Caroline Fredrickson, director of the ACLU Washington Legislative Office; "Though the need to prevent criminal acts of violence is unquestionable, targeting communities based on religious beliefs is unacceptable and unproductive. We will only end up stigmatizing the Islamic community and creating a nation of Islamophobes. We should not be legislating against thought and we should certainly not be regulating religious or unpopular thought. "

To read our coalition letter click here. And see this related article "Study Commission or Thought Police?"

According to BNA Money and Politics ($$), "Senator John D. Rockefeller (D-WV) is distributing draft legislation meant to advance efforts to reform the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA).

Rockefeller is the author of the Senate-approved version (S. 2248) which includes retroactive immunity provisions.

In response to news that such a "deal" has been taking place, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has sent out an action alert asking that you write to the U.S. House of Representatives opposing any efforts to grant retroactive telecom immunity in any upcoming FISA legislation.

Meanwhile, as the FISA stalemate continues, Representative Heather Wilson (R-NM) tried to attach the Senate-passed bill with retroactive legal immunity for telecommunications companies. Her amendment narrowly failed, 11-10.

Click here and write to your representative opposing telecom immunity!

Indiana's primary was Tuesday May 6 and news reports detailed accounts of nuns and students who were unable to vote.

The effects of the Supreme Court decision were also felt outside of Indiana in various state legislatures. In Kansas, lawmakers approved a voter ID measure similar to Indiana's law. It would not go into effect until 2010, and some expect a veto from Governor Kathleen Sebelius. And in Missouri under a proposed constitutional amendment, voters could decide whether to enact a similar photo ID requirement for voting.

These events illustrate why voter education and poll-worker training should be expanded under the Help America Vote Act (HAVA). Voting should be made easier rather than harder. A compelling editorial in the New York Times titled, "Voting Rights Are Too Important to Leave to the States," recommends that Congress "set minimum voting rights standards that would apply nationwide and ensure that all eligible Americans could vote."

Congress should also regulate voter challenges at the polls. Parties and candidates often use bad-faith challenges as a dirty trick — to intimidate voters or to slow down voting in certain neighborhoods. Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, Democrat of Rhode Island, has a good bill that would require challengers who are not election officials to sign an affidavit stating why they believe a specific voter is not eligible.

"Yet, the congressional officials in charge of implementing the new disclosure system have provided no guidance, forms, or even computer passwords that thousands of lobbyists will need to comply with the new disclosure system required by the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007."

This reporting will apply not only to lobbying firms and organizations with in-house lobbyists; individual lobbyists also will have to report their campaign contributions and payments to charities linked to officials. Lobbying organizations and individual lobbyists will use the new forms to report their contributions, as well as payments for events honoring government officials, or charitable contributions to entities linked to members of Congress.

President Bush announced the nomination of three new members for the Federal Election Commission (FEC) which could possibly resolve the current impasse facing the six member agency. An inability to confirm nominees has left the FEC without a quorum, and with only two commissioners, "the agency [is] paralyzed in the midst of a heated presidential campaign."

And the nominees include Democrat Cynthia Bauerly and Republicans Donald McGahn and Caroline Hunter. Ellen Weintraub would remain on the commission as a holdover and the nomination of Steven Walther also is pending before the Senate. Opposition to the controversial nomination of Hans von Spakovsky, a former Justice Department official, has continued the FEC stalemate and President Bush refuses to remove his nomination. However, according to the New York Times, "Republican officials were now willing to allow each of the nominees to be voted upon separately"

David Mason, the current Republican chairman, was not renominated. A spokesman for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) said; "A full commission was virtually assured if the White House maintained its own Republican nomination of David Mason, who was cleared for confirmation. By abandoning Mr. Mason and instead sticking by Mr. von Spakovsky, the White House has abandoned experience and independence for partisan loyalty. That is the White House's choice. It is a regrettable one. Nonetheless, we will work towards the confirmation of the remaining nominees and expect to defeat Mr. von Spakovsky."

As Bob Bauer notes, "It is not hard, on these facts, to make out the politics." Mason indicated previously that John McCain may not be eligible to withdraw from the presidential primary public financing system. The situation is described with this blog's title, "Throwing FEC Commissioner Mason Under the Bus to Help Senator McCain?" which predicts, "that Republicans ultimately allow separate votes. They need the FEC to approve Sen. McCain's expected request for public financing in the general election portion of the campaign. They need that more than the Democrats now need a functioning FEC."

An article in the Washington Post shows an interesting connection; campaign spending and influence on policy. The National Association of Home Builders, one of the biggest corporate donors to politicians, stopped its campaign contributions "as a protest" until they considered that Congress was adequately regarding the weak housing market. "The decision showed how closely interest groups tie their donations to the actions they hope lawmakers will take on their behalf — a connection lobbyists do not want to flaunt for fear of legal and political repercussions."

According to the Center for Responsive Politics, the top ten Political Action Committees' (PACs) campaign contributions increased 9.3% from the 2001-2002 cycle to the 2005-2006 cycle. Unfortunately, to get favorable legislative results, withholding campaign contributions could be an effective strategy for the privileged. If only the less wealthy or even groups that do not make contributions, and perhaps even voters, can have such an influence.

On May 1, 2008, in a 2-1 decision the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit ruled a North Carolina law prohibiting political action committees from accepting individual contributions of more than $4,000 to be unconstitutional.

In North Carolina Right to Life v. Leake, the Court of Appeals found that the contribution limit as applied to committees making only independent expenditures did not further the state's interest in preventing corruption, therefore burdening the right of political association. As in the Supreme Court's Wisconsin Right to Life decision, the Fourth Circuit Court also found that it was unconstitutional to rely on contextual factors to determine whether a communication "supported" or "opposed" a candidate. The opinion states such "standards typically lead to disputes over their meaning and therefore litigation."

[A]ny attempt to identify communications as election-related without focusing on words that explicitly label them as such threatens to infringe on protected First Amendment liberties. . . . Therefore, . . . a communication can be deemed the "functional equivalent of express advocacy only if [it] is susceptible of no reasonable interpretation other than as an appeal to vote for or against a specific candidate." The purpose of this requirement is to avoid chilling political expression by forcing a speaker to have to defend his communication from regulation.

Some consider the case to be an "issue that is surely headed to the Supreme Court either in this case or in another case, such as the SpeechNow.org case." SpeechNow.org is challenging federal campaign finance law as too restrictive of independent political groups and as a violation of the First Amendment.

An article in BNA Money and Politics ($$) reports that the new Form 990 requires organizations to provide more information to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) on their political activities.

Referencing a recent court decision that determined that the IRS should not have revoked the tax exempt status of a 501(c)(4), Craig Engle of the law firm Arent Fox, commented that the "IRS has a mixed record in being able to back up its efforts in court. . . . [the decision] might encourage similar [501(c)(4)]groups to increase their political involvement."

The four-page Schedule C of the new Form 990 requires filers to describe their "direct and indirect political campaign activities." It also asks for detailed information about Section 527 political organizations to which a filer has contributed. Another part of the schedule asks for detailed information about a filer's lobbying activities, including direct lobbying to influence legislation, as well as "grass roots" lobbying to influence public opinion.

When the draft Form 990 was released OMB Watch submitted comments on the political activities section, Schedule C.

A few days after the Supreme Court upheld the Indiana voter ID law, a press release announced that Senators Russ Feingold (D-WI) and Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) and Representative Keith Ellison (D-MN) introduced legislation to allow Election Day registration at polling places for all federal elections. "The Election Day Registration Act addresses chronic problems with the American electoral process — low voter turnout and archaic voter registration laws. Election Day registration is also seen as preferable to advance registration since voters are actually present when they register, reducing opportunities for fraud." On May 1, S.2959 was introduced in the Senate and HR 5946 in the House.

And meanwhile, after continuously denying third-party voter registration assistance on the Department of Veterans Affairs' (VA) property, the VA has issued a directive that creates a "voter assistance program." This includes offering assistance to all incoming patients, and for the first time, the directive also provides a process for allowing third-party voter registration drives. This news comes after an exchange between Senators Feinstein (D-CA) and Kerry (D-MA), and VA Secretary James B. Peake over whether VA facilities should be designated as "voter registration agencies" within the definition of the National Voter Registration Act. Senator Feinstein's press release calls that directive "a major step forward in providing voter registration access to veterans in the department's care."

"The directive stops short of designating VA facilities as voter registration agencies. However, the directive requires that VA facilities create comprehensive voter registration plans to assist veterans in registering to vote. It also requires the VA to publicly post voter registration information for veteran facility inpatients and requires that the VA facilities provide absentee voter applications if patients cannot leave the facility."

Unfortunately, the directive may be limited to patients, which may not include resident of homeless shelters on VA property or outpatients who come to VA facilities to receive services.

Read an AlterNet article on the VA's change of policy here.

Despite their continued appeal, the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) revealed the names of 65 members on its website. Originally NAM filed a lobbying report that cited the pending case. NAM is opposed to a provision in the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act that requires groups to disclose those that contributed at least $5,000 each during the first quarter of the year and actively participated "in the planning, supervision or control of such lobbying activities." NAM argues that the requirement violates their First Amendment rights.

NAM continues to challenge the requirement in a case pending at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. According to BNA Money and Politics ($$); "NAM said at that time that it would continue to pursue an appeal of the court decisions upholding HLOGA. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit granted April 28 NAM's request for an expedited appeal process . . . The move by the D.C. Circuit to allow an expedited appeal could permit a decision before the next lobbying-disclosure filing deadline date of July 21, according to a NAM lawyer."

For more background; from the latest OMB Watcher, "Court Upholds Stealth Lobbying Disclosure".

Last week the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) filed a second complaint with the Federal Election Commission (FEC) against the organization Freedom's Watch. Now the DCCC has asked the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) to investigate whether the group should lose its tax-exempt status. The DCCC believes the group should instead file as a 527 political organization rather than a 501(c)(4).

Freedom's Watch spokesman Ed Patru was quoted in the Politico, describing the IRS filing as a "massive case of selective indignation.' Patru said the DCCC is suffering from both a 'fundamental misunderstanding of the regulations governing 501(c)(4) communications' and an agenda that isn't popular with voters."

"The IRS, on the other hand, has signaled that it is closely monitoring the political activities of nonprofit groups this year, which means there may be more traction for the DCCC's charges there [as opposed to the FEC]."

On Apr. 28, 2008, the League of Women Voters of Florida and several voting rights advocates filed a new lawsuit challenging a Florida voter registration law that imposes prohibitive fines on voter registration groups and risks preventing eligible Florida citizens from registering and voting in the 2008 elections.

Under Florida law, fines are levied against charities for each voter registration not submitted within ten days of its completion. For each late registration, a nonprofit conducting a voter registration drive would be fined $50, posing a tremendous financial burden on nonprofits seeking to legally conduct voter registration drives.

As quoted in a press release by her organization, Dianne Wheatley-Giliotti, president of the League of Women Voters of Florida and a plaintiff in the suit, said,

"This law makes it extremely risky for our volunteers and for our organization to conduct voter registration drives in Florida… The escalating fines make voter registration drives prohibitively expensive, even for individuals who just want to help once a month. The threat of paying costly fees will chill registration efforts and keep eligible voters from the voter rolls."

To learn more, read the League of Women Voter's press release on the suit here and check out OMB Watch's Sept. 2007 article on the Florida voter registration rules Nonprofits Challenge Two Florida Laws Regulating Voter Registration.

Update:
The Brennan Center for Justice issued a press release announcing that the third-party voter registration law will not be enforced until July. "As a result, groups and individuals who conduct voter registration drives in Florida can proceed with their voter registration activities without fear of being fined under the law, until at least early July 2008."

The Supreme Court, voting 6-3, ruled against a constitutional challenge to Indiana's voter identification law, requiring voters to show a government-issued photo ID. Opponents of the law argue that having to present such a photo ID will prevent some poor, elderly and minorities from voting. The law will now be in effect for next week's Indiana primary. Bloomberg.com news says that the Court "gave Republicans an election-year victory." This recent decision could also encourage other states to pass similar measures.

Justice John Paul Stevens wrote the court's lead opinion. "In sum, on the basis of the record that has been made in this litigation, we cannot conclude that the statute imposes 'excessively burdensome requirements' on any class of voters. The opinion also states that it "is fair to infer that partisan considerations may have played a significant role in the decision to enact SEA 483 [the Indiana voter ID law]," but the "state interests identified as justifications for SEA 483 are both neutral and sufficiently strong."

Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT) responded with these remarks; "Today the Supreme Court failed to protect access to the ballot box for some of the most vulnerable Americans. We have seen an effort by this administration, its political appointees and some partisans to use the specter of purported 'voter fraud' for political advantage. They do so at the expense of vulnerable communities and have excluded millions of elderly, low-income, disabled, and minority voters, even though in-person voter fraud has been proven time and time again to be a myth."

Read the Associated Press story here.

The 501(c)(4) organization, U.S. Term Limits, now has some more trouble. The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC) has filed a complaint with the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) claiming that the group violated the law by not disclosing on its Web site that contributions made to the group are not tax-deductible.

Roll Call ($$) reports that the "complaint against U.S. Term Limits comes as the Internal Revenue Service is stepping up its enforcement of nonprofit organizations that engage in political activity, particularly 527s and 'social welfare' groups that register under section 501(c)(4) of the tax code. The DSCC's complaint to the IRS is the first time that the committee has sought to strip an outside political group of its tax-free status."

Meanwhile, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) filed a second complaint with the Federal Election Commission (FEC) against the organization Freedom's Watch. The DCCC complaint alleges that Freedom's Watch ran a television "attack ad that directly and illegally advocates the defeat of a Democratic candidate and also for failing to disclose the names of the donors funding that ad."