A mark up hearing was held today (February 27) on a compromise bill introduced this morning, the Global HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria Reauthorization Act of 2008, that will expand upon the law passed in 2003. The United States Leadership Against HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria Act (PL 108-25) prohibits grants to any group that "does not have a policy explicitly opposing prostitution and sex trafficking."

CQ ($$) reports that a "Democratic draft that had been circulating for nearly a month threatened to raise a longstanding social-policy feud, with Bush's global AIDS plan — one of his few overseas initiatives to win broad bipartisan support — hanging in the balance. It pitted Democrats pushing to get rid of the abstinence-only requirements and family planning restrictions against Republicans who say the changes would funnel money to abortionists overseas." The draft bill eliminated the anti-prostitution requirement.

Unfortunately, the compromise HR 5501, that passed out of committee maintains the requirement that groups receiving grant money have a specific policy opposing prostitution and sex trafficking. Such a pledge gives the government the right to dictate the speech and activities it does not fund.

The House Judiciary Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties Subcommittee passed a resolution, with a 6-4 vote, authorizing a subpoena to former Ohio Secretary of State Kenneth Blackwell for testimony about the 2004 election. On January 29, Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers (D-MI) and Subcommittee Chairman Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) wrote a letter to Blackwell to "explore the state of voting rights and the allocation of resources to end voter suppression and voter fraud," but he has refused to appear voluntarily. The Associated Press quoted Conyers; "Mr. Ken Blackwell, wherever you are in North America today, please know that we are not sending the gendarme for you this moment," said Conyers. "I do not like to issue subpoenas. ... The only problem is we can never reach him."

Following this vote a hearing was held on voter suppression. Witnesses included Asheesh Agarwal, deputy assistant attorney general, Civil Rights Division, Department of Justice; Tom Emmer, deputy minority leader, Minnesota State House of Representatives; J. Gerald Hebert, executive director, The Campaign Legal Center; Lorraine C. Minnite, assistant professor, Barnard College; Hilary O. Shelton, director, Washington Bureau, NAACP.

And today (February 27), the House Appropriations Financial Services Subcommittee held a hearing on election administration issues. Meanwhile, in the Senate, the Committee on Rules and Administration held a hearing to examine abusive robocalls and vote caging practices. A few of those testifying were to discuss experiences at the state level with implementing efforts to limit robocalls.

The House is expected to vote soon on the recommendation to create an independent office to consider ethics complaints made against lawmakers. The task force, led by Representative Michael Capuano (D-MA), was created last year as part of the House's overall effort to reform House ethics standards. Many expect passage of the measure that will set up the Office of Congressional Ethics (OCE), a panel of six board members appointed by the House speaker and the minority leader, with current members and lobbyists ineligible to serve. The body will review alleged ethics violations and then refer matters for further investigation or other action to the House ethics committee.

According to the New York Times; "Inquiries could be started by two members, and the panel would have up to 30 days to conduct a preliminary investigation. At the end of that time, the panel could vote to end the investigation. If a second phase is agreed upon, it could take up to 45 additional days before a required referral to the ethics committee. The report to the panel could recommend no further action, more inquiry or simply provide the facts of the case."

Relying on the Wisconsin Right to Life (WRTL) decision, a newly formed 527 committee argues that they can broadcast their ads, and that under WRTL the pieces are issue advocacy. The 527, the American Leadership Project (ALP), claims that it will not engage in express advocacy and will focus its efforts on issues that are important to the middle class such as the economy.

Meanwhile, Bob Bauer (also Senator Barack Obama's lawyer) at moresoftmoneyhardlaw.com argues that their actions violate federal campaign finance law and the group should be considered a political committee.

It is questionable if this ad titled "Tell Hillary to Keep Working" from ALP could in fact subject to an "interpretation other than as an appeal to vote for or against a candidate." It appears to be very supportive of Senator Clinton's candidacy.

ALP spokesman Roger Salaazar stated; "We are not going to be airing any advertisements that contain express advocacy on behalf of a federal candidate. These are issue ads that focus on issues that are important to the middle class."

According to the election law blog, the ad "is exactly the kind of election-related speech that the Roberts Court seemed to bless with a huge exemption in WRTL." Given that it is unclear whether or not it is issue advocacy, that statement is also questionable.

Whether a group engaged in express advocacy can spend an unlimited amount of money is the subject of the SpeechNow.org case. Read OMB Watch coverage of the SpeechNow.org case here.

People For the American Way (PFAW) has a petition that will be sent to Congress urging the rejection of retroactive immunity for telecom companies that assisted with the warrantless wiretapping program. Click here to sign the petition. PFAW has also just completed a compilation of activists across the country that sent in video testimonials opposing immunity. The Senate passed a bill last week to reform the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) that includes retroactive immunity, but the House has so far refused to give in, which is why this petition is so important. Read OMB Watch coverage from the latest Watcher, "House Forces Expiration of Protect America Act".

Click here to watch PFAW's video and to sign the petition.

S.1959, the "Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007" was the subject of a protest in Portland Maine. Sponsored by Senator Susan Collins (R-ME), the bill would set up a government commission to study U.S. based terrorism. The commission would examine and report on what the bill calls "violent radicalization," "homegrown terrorism" and "ideologically based violence."

The Portland Press Herald reports that the protesters are concerned about the bill's vague language that could lead to a violation of free speech rights. The speakers at the rally considered the proposal to be "reminiscent of the House Un-American Activities Commission, which investigated suspected Communists during the 1950s and is now seen widely as part of a shameful chapter in U.S. history."

Maureen Block, the rally's organizer, said the bill would use fear and intimidation to try to silence people whose views challenge authority. Shortly before the rally, Collins' office distributed a news release about the bill. The news release notes that the measure would not criminalize any behavior, but only study threats.

Read OMB Watch coverage of the bill here, "Study Commission or Thought Police?"

The U.S. District Court of the Northern District of California ruled that the Treasury Department must release to the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights (LCCR) of the San Francisco Bay Area documents detailing complaints from people who claim they were wrongly placed on a terrorist watch list. The lawsuit challenges Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC), seeking further information about how Treasury manages its list of 6,000 suspected or known terrorists and others, called the Specially Designated Nationals (SDN) list.

The LCCR press release states that increasingly "private companies, including banks, mortgage companies, car dealerships, health insurers, landlords and employers, screen consumers' names against the OFAC list. Few people in the United States are actually on the list, but sharing a first, last or even middle name with someone on the list can trigger a 'false positive' match. Consumers discover the OFAC alert when they are told that they cannot make a purchase, open an account, or do business because their name appears on a terror list. On March 28, 2007, Treasury Department Secretary Paulson testified before the Senate Appropriations Committee that the Treasury Department had received 90,000 calls over a one-year period regarding the OFAC list and that the Treasury Department was 'concerned' about the serious hardship on ordinary Americans wrongly flagged as terrorists or drug traffickers."

The lawsuit began when LCCR filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request in August 2005 that requested OFAC information on the SDN list dating from 2000. Without receiving any documents from Treasury, LCCR filed a lawsuit in May 2007.

The recent decision ordered Treasury to release certain records, such as public emails, letters, and petitions that requested names to be removed from the list. The San Francisco Chronicle reported that the judge "refused to order the department to provide a breakdown of phone calls made to the agency's public hot line - more than 90,000 in a recent one-year period, according to congressional testimony - or to describe the nature of the inquiries and how they were handled. She also declined to require information on how the department verifies the accuracy of the list and handles complaints, saying officials had found no such documents."

The U.S. Supreme Court did not consider the Citizens United case during its February 15 conference, and now a decision on whether the Court will review the challenge to Federal Election Commission (FEC) rules will wait until February 22. Citizens United is a 501(c)(4) organization claiming that television ads for its film, Hillary: The Movie, should not be subject to donor disclosure requirements under FEC rules. Citizens United's lawyer James Bopp had previously requested that the Court rule on the case during its current term. The government has asked the group's lawsuit be dismissed, claiming that previous Supreme Court decisions have supported disclosure of the financial sources of electioneering messages.

BNA Money and Politics ($$) reports that the "court had been scheduled to consider the motions in the Citizens United case during a private conference of the justices on Feb. 15, but no result was announced when orders in dozens of other cases were made public late Feb. 15 and again on Feb. 19."

The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) has released two important fact sheets for tax exempt organizations. One is on the IRS complaint process, and the other is on the examination and compliance checks process. The referral form to make a complaint against a tax exempt organization can be found here.

Revisions to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) remain at a stand still. The House turned down a 21 day extension of the temporary Protect America Act, law governing electronic surveillance, with a 229-191 vote. Rather than taking action on the Senate's bill that would provide retroactive immunity for companies, House Democrats will let the law expire holding firm for a conference of the bill. The President asserts that this will put our nation at risk. Clearly using fear tactics to get Congress to act, President Bush commented yesterday, "terrorists are planning new attacks on our country. Their goal is to bring destruction to our shores that will make September the 11th pale by comparison." Bush has repeatedly pledged his support for the Senate measure, and promised to oppose any more extensions or temporary bills.

On the other hand, some argue that having the law expire will have no immediate detrimental effect; the law's provisions remain in effect for a year, giving Congress time to debate. This fact sheet from Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) argues that surveillance will not end.

Acting in protest, House Republicans left the chamber yesterday Feb. 14, angry that Democratic leaders did not call up the Senate passed bill.

As expected after the Federal Election Commission (FEC) issued a draft advisory opinion in January that SpeechNow.org cannot accept unlimited contributions from donors, the group plans to now file a federal lawsuit. SpeechNow.org is challenging the campaign finance law that requires that they become a "political committee" in order to advocate for or against candidates. As a registered as a political committee, its contributions would be limited to $5,000 from individuals. Represented by the Institute for Justice and the Center for Competitive Politics, they are requesting a preliminary injunction and ask that an expedited hearing on that request be scheduled within 20 days.

A press release states; "SpeechNow.org is not a PAC or a political party, it takes no corporate or union money-only individual contributions-and it will never donate to or coordinate with candidates or political parties. It is simply Americans talking to Americans about an issue of vital public importance: the right to speak freely about politics and whom to elect to secure it."

According to a Roll Call ($$) article, "If Speechnow.org ultimately wins in court, the group agreed that other activists, conservative and liberal alike, could copy its carefully crafted bylaws, raise unlimited cash from individuals and begin running ads in favor of or opposing candidates, expenditures that would be disclosed to the FEC."

The IRS is investigating a California pastor's involvement in the presidential campaign of Republican Mike Huckabee. Pastor Wiley Drake, of Buena Park First Southern Baptist Church in Buena Park, California received a letter from the IRS stating, "Because a reasonable belief exists that the Church has engage in political activities that could jeopardize its tax-exempt status as a church under section 501(a), this letter is notice of the beginning of a church tax inquiry described in IRC section 7611(a)."

The Alliance Defense Fund is serving as Mr. Drake's counsel in the matter.

Read more here

Do you like OMB Watch? Would you like to boost our fragile self-esteem? Then please vote for us in the Golden Dot Awards, presented annually for excellence in online campaigning by the Institute for Politics, Democracy & the Internet at George Washington University.

OMB Watch has been nominated for Best Issue Advocacy Blog. The nomination is for all three of our blogs: Advocacy Blog, Budget Blog, and Reg•Watch.

Vote here: polc.ipdi.org/GoldenDots/voting.htm

(OMB Watch has the utmost respect for the other candidates and has vowed to run a clean campaign.)

In Ohio, a federal judge has upheld a previous decision to ban certain restrictions on "third party" voter registration activities. A coalition of voter advocacy groups led by Project Vote sued the state challenging an Ohio law that required compensated voter registration workers register with the state after completing an on-line training course and had to turn in voter registration applications directly to the secretary of state or local board of elections. Any violation would result in criminal charges. The lawsuit charged that these regulations were intimidating and a disadvantage to registration drives, particularly in low-income and minority areas.

The Court's opinion in Project Vote v. Kenneth Blackwell can be read here.

As expected, the Senate passed a measure to revise the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), S.2248, granting retroactive legal immunity for telecommunications companies that helped with warrantless surveillance. After weeks of debate and votes on amendments, the bill remains basically the same as it did when passed by the Senate Intelligence Committee. None of the amendments passed that would have in any way reduced executive spying powers.

The New York Times describes the events; "After more than a year of wrangling, the Senate handed the White House a major victory on Tuesday by voting to broaden the government's spy powers and to give legal protection to phone companies that cooperated in President Bush's program of eavesdropping without warrants."

The temporary extension expires February 16, leaving little time for a House-Senate conference to resolve the very different measures. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) has introduced a 15 day extension to allow time to complete negotiations, but President Bush has said he would refuse to sign it. Now Congress will be up against the argument that if the Senate version is not simply accepted or if the current law is left to expire, the country will be vulnerable to a terrorist attack. This ignores the fact that current investigations can continue until August or possibly later, and the FISA court can still be used to get approval for new wiretaps. As a quote from Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT) explains; "Some people around here get cold feet when threatened by the administration."

The main discrepancy between the two chambers is the issue of immunity, and House Democrats argue that the administration has not provided enough evidence to justify providing such retroactive immunity. In a letter to White House Counsel Fred Fielding, House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers (D-MI) said, "refusal to provide the requested information belies its position on the importance of legislation: rather than the Administration giving Congress all the information it needs, the Administration has provided a slow trickle of information to only selected members of Congress, almost assuring that Congress cannot adequately consider its requests." Conyers' letter also requested additional. In addition, House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman John Dingell (D-MI) and two subcommittee chairs sent a dear colleague letter urging House Members to avoid rushing into a decision on retroactive immunity.

Kay Guinane, director of nonprofit speech rights for OMB Watch and Laurette Edelmann, assistant director of the New Hampshire Center for Nonprofits, discussed the 2008 election and its impact on philanthropy. Read the transcript of the online discussion here.

Senate Rules Committee Chairwoman Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) and Senator Arlen Specter, (R-PA) have introduced legislation to regulate "robocalls." Feinstein's press release states; "The measure introduced by Feinstein and Specter would not ban robocalls, but instead places sensible restrictions on how and when the calls can be made — including limiting the hours within which calls can be made, limiting the number of calls that can be made to each household, and requiring callers to identify themselves at the beginning of the call."

Similar measures have been introduced in the House. CQ ($$) reports that Representative Virginia Foxx (R-NC) introduced H.R. 248 last year to "direct the Federal Trade Commission to prohibit politically oriented prerecorded calls to telephone numbers listed on the federal do-not-call registry. Democrats Jason Altmire of Pennsylvania and Zoe Lofgren of California have introduced similar measures (HR 372, HR 1383), but none has gained traction yet and prospects for action grow slimmer as the November elections approach."

Another case is on "the fast track." The Supreme Court's online docket shows that the Citizens United motion to expedite the case is on the Court's conference agenda for February 15.

BNA Money and Politics ($$) reports that the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) lawsuit that is trying to block enforcement of a disclosure provision of the new lobbying and ethics law, has in fact been put on a fast-track schedule that could lead to a court decision before the first disclosure reports are due on April 21. Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly said in a court order filed Feb. 8 that a briefing schedule was agreed on that ends in March. All parties agreed to convert the application for a preliminary injunction to a request for a decision on the merits. Therefore, if a ruling is in favor of the government on the merits, the case will be dismissed.

NAM officials have indicated that they do not know whether they will comply with the new law's disclosure requirement if the association does not get a court order blocking the provision. The association argues in its lawsuit that the provision violates the First Amendment rights of NAM and other trade groups to speak out on policy issues and lobby to protect their interests. . . . NAM announced Feb. 6 that it had filed the suit asking the federal district court in Washington to block enforcement of Section 207 of HLOGA, which requires increased disclosure by lobbying organizations of their members and affiliates. The organization said the requirement would lead businesses to curtail their membership in associations because of fear of possible economic retaliation for taking an unpopular stand on policy issues.

An article in BNA Money and Politics ($$) addresses "whether the Internal Revenue Service [IRS] needs to focus so heavily on facts and circumstances as the primary test to determine if the groups have violated prohibited political activity rules" and the complexities that arise given the new Federal Election Commission (FEC) electioneering communications rule that allows nonprofits to broadcast issue ads that mention a candidate during periods before an election as long the funding of the ads are disclosed.

Engle of Arent Fox said that in the Wisconsin Right to Life decision the Supreme Court warned the FEC against taking a "free range facts and circumstances approach" to analyzing issue ads. The court told the agency to nail down a test that would more mechanically spit out the answer on whether something was or was not an electioneering communication. This prompted practitioners to ask if IRS might do the same thing. Everything we do is facts and circumstances. So I have no answers, I just have facts and circumstances," Judith Kindell, IRS senior technical adviser to the director of exempt organizations said repeatedly at the ABA session.

An online tutorial has been created on how to engage with congressional level politics, leading a step by step tour through web sites. For example, the tutorial starts with the fundamentals; "Can I Vote?" directs the visitor to their state's Secretary of State's web site, and then if they need to register, another site is also provided. Subsequently the next web sites include biographical information on the candidates and members of Congress, candidate platforms, incumbent voting records, and campaign contributions.

This is a very valuable resource that exemplifies how the Internet can increase civic engagement. The companion article to the tutorial, "Tech Tools for the American Voter and the 2008 Congressional Elections", clearly states the purpose of such a tool; "All Americans have a civic responsibility to vote for the national, state, and local leaders who will make the decisions that affect us, our families, our community, and our nation now and well into the future. To vote responsibly requires that we learn about the candidates." The article points out resources and tools that can be used to make informed decisions on whom to elect to office. One resource mentioned is Fedspending.org launched in 2006 by OMB Watch. "OMBWatch.org believes that it is essential to know how the 'government spends money so that citizens can hold elected officials accountable for the national priorities they set."

Check out the tutorial here.

Even though they gave themselves more time to consider amendments, none of the amendments offered to improve S.2248 have passed. Two amendments offered by Senator Russ Feingold (D-WI) failed. One was meant to block "reverse targeting," which is when a foreign subject is the surveillance target while in actuality the intended target is in the U.S. The second amendment would have given the FISA court the ability to prevent the government from using information about Americans when obtained in a way that was later decided as illegal. Another failed amendment was offered by Senator Ben Cardin (D-MD) that would sunset the FISA bill in four years instead of six.

Debate on amendments will continue on Monday, with a vote expected on retroactive legal immunity to companies being sued for their alleged participation in the warrantless surveillance program. CQ ($$) reports that a unanimous consent agreement to limit debate on Tuesday could possibly result in final passage later that day.

If a bill passes as planned in the Senate, there is very little time between Tuesday and the Presidents Day recess that begins February 15 for a conference between the Senate and the House, which is why Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), has filed a bill that would extend the current law for another 15 days.

A blog posting titled "Bird-Dogging and Blogging the Primaries" observes that "until now, it would have seemed implausible that nonprofits and presidential politics would go hand-in hand. Activism is ubiquitous in communities; yet, on the whole the organizations that facilitate and conduct it are ignored by policy makers and politicians." The blog is promoting the new V3 campaign which shows candidates' responses to questions regarding the nonprofit sector created by Robert Egger. The campaign encourages nonprofit advocates around the country to ask candidates for local, state and federal office what their plans are to work with and support the nonprofit community. According to the V3 website; "The V3 Campaign will give you the tools you need to legally engage candidates in your city and state to determine their plans for the nonprofit sector. Learn how the candidates plan to support the causes and strengthen the organizations that are important to you."

The Chronicle of Philanthropy will be hosting an online discussion next Tuesday February 12, at noon, Eastern time on the election and what it means for nonprofits. Experts on philanthropy and politics will be answering questions and if a question is submitted in advance, there is a better chance that it will be answered during the discussion. To submit a question, click here. The discussion is open to everyone, not just subscribers, so go ahead and ask a question!

The National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) has filed a lawsuit, National Association of Manufacturers v. Taylor, in federal court challenging Section 207 of the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007, charging that the disclosure rules violate the First Amendment because they are "vague, overbroad and burdensome." The provision being challenged requires registered lobbying organizations and associations to disclose the names of any members that contribute more than $5,000 to the lobbying of the organization who "actively participate in the planning, supervision, or control of such lobbying activities." The provision was meant to disclose "stealth coalitions." NAM also requested a preliminary injunction to prevent enforcement of the provision until the case is decided. A press release from NAM quotes President John Engler extensively ;

It would require associations like the NAM to release the names of many members who contribute more than $5,000 for lobbying activities, violating their right to privacy. The penalties for failure to disclose this information are severe. It is safe to assume that as businesses become aware of the serious implications of this law, many of them will curtail their membership in trade associations. The effect will be to compromise their First Amendment right to express their opinions in the legislative process, and also undermine trade associations which play a critical role in the development of public policy by government.

Last week the California Assembly passed a bill that would require big foundations ($250 million in assets and more) to disclose the race, gender and sexual orientation of their board, staff, and even grantees and business contracts. The bill is now headed to the State Senate. The Chronicle of Philanthropy ($$) outlines what is included in the bill.

• The number of grants and percentage of dollars going to organizations where at least 50 percent of the board, of staff members, are members of ethnic minorities, or are lesbians, gays, bisexuals, or transgender people.
• A breakdown of the number of grants and percentage of dollars that go to organizations that serve different ethnic groups or sexual orientations, as well as the percentage of contracts awarded to businesses owned by members of those groups.

Reportedly, the measure was put forth by the Greenlining Institute, a public-policy organization in Berkeley that says foundations are too secretive about their giving and not enough awards go to organizations led by minorities. Many have come out in opposition, arguing that it would result in burdensome reporting requirements, and violate privacy rights.

For example this LA Times opinion piece claimed that if the Bush administration were to propose such a measure; "The criticism would be swift and unambiguous: This is absurdly intrusive and a violation of privacy. Foundations would organize to oppose any such legislation. . . . Imagine being the employee who has to ask each co-worker about his or her sexual identity and history. Many of these foundations have relatively small staffs; there won't be many secrets if this bill becomes law."

An editorial in the Wall Street Journal reports that the Greenlining Institute has already begun lobbying House Ways and Means Chairman Charlie Rangel (D-NY) for Congressional hearings. Orson Aguilar, associate director of the Greenlining Institute, was quoted in the Chronicle of Philanthropy article to say this "is just the first step in the group's plans to get lawmakers involved. 'We're definitely going to be putting pressure on Congress and the new [president] to look at this,' he said."

The House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties will hold an oversight hearing on voter suppression this Friday, February 8. In preparation, last week Committee Chairman John Conyers (D-MI) and Subcommittee Chairman Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) sent a letter to former Ohio Secretary of State Kenneth Blackwell, requesting his testimony at the hearing. The letter stated;

The hearing will explore the current state of voting rights and the allocation of resources to end voter suppression and voter fraud. There were a number of election irregularities in Ohio during the 2004 Presidential Election. Cumulatively, these irregularities, affected hundreds of thousands of voters. As we look forward to the 2008 Presidential Election, the Committee seeks to explore policies that should be implemented to avoid future voting problems and ensure that every American can exercise their right to vote.

After days of negotiations over how to proceed with a bill to revise to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), CQ ($$) has reported that the Senate will now vote next week with two days of debate after coming to an agreement as far as which amendments to allow. Meanwhile, allowing Congress more time, President Bush has passed a 15 day extension (until Feb. 16) of the Protect America Act.

Another [Senator Russ] Feingold [D-WI] amendment would require the attorney general and the director of National Intelligence to certify that the tapping of communications is limited to those involving at least one specific individual target outside the United States, with the "significant purpose" of obtaining foreign intelligence information. A second [Senator Dianne] Feinstein [D-CA] amendment would seek to establish that FISA is the exclusive means for conducting electronic surveillance. A measure by Benjamin L. Cardin, D-Md., would sunset the bill after four years, instead of six years, as currently written. The Feinstein and Cardin amendments would have to meet the 60-vote threshold. Republicans pressed for the threshold to head off any amendments that would significantly change the bill, which was negotiated with the White House.

In his final State of the Union speech, President George W. Bush called on Congress "to permanently extend Charitable Choice;" provisions in a number of federal laws that require states to include faith-based organizations among the service providers whenever they offer the same contracts to other private, nonprofits.

The following night Bush visited the Jericho Program, a religious provider of services to ex-offenders. While there he commented that it was a mistake to oppose the government support of religious groups. "There was the notion that somehow that there needed to be a clear separation of church and state, and therefore, we shouldn't be using taxpayers' money to help programs that were helping to meet important national goals."

Many criticize Bush's efforts for either not doing enough to religious nonprofits or for crossing the line between church and state in using tax dollars to promote religion. And since the creation of the Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives, grants have not been more available to religious nonprofit organizations. This was reiterated in a New York Times Op-ed written by two former employees of the office. "Over the past six years, federal grants to faith-based programs have shifted away from the local 'armies of compassion' praised by Mr. Bush and toward large, national organizations with religious affiliations."

Instead, to ensure that the separation of church and state is upheld, federal dollars must be used for purposes other than proselytizing. In addition, there are many underlying problems. Regardless what type of service providers receive federal funding, the government must sufficiently invest in domestic policies.