Homeless citizens encounter hurdles that can make registering to vote a difficult process. They often have problems establishing residency. Adding to these obstacles are new voter identification requirements that are gaining ground across the country. It is often difficult for homeless citizens to maintain identification because they are transient, their belongings are sometimes destroyed, and they are sometimes subjected to police sweeps. Thus, many homeless citizens do not have birth certificates or identification cards.

However, there are ways to overcome some of these challenges. It is not necessary for a U.S. citizen to have a fixed address to vote. A citizen living in a shelter or on the street can also vote. It is necessary, however, to have a valid mailing address. A voter registration or confirmation card is often sent through the mail after the person has registered. If the card is returned to election officials as undeliverable, then the individual might not be registered.

In many areas, organizations, such as shelters, churches and community groups can provide homeless citizens with valid addresses.

An Article by the Pew Center on the States mentions that "Judicial opinions in recent years have upheld the notion that requiring a traditional dwelling can pose a hardship to some voters. Court decisions from a number of states have stated that street corners, parks and other public places can be used to establish local voting precincts."

Some registrars accept the precise location on the street where the homeless citizen is staying, but the registrars need a mailing address to send voter information, including a registration card, to the individual.

In June a federal appeals court struck down Federal Election Commission (FEC) rules dealing with coordination rules between candidates and outside groups. Reportedly, the FEC has not appealed the court decision ordering a rewrite of the rules. According to BNA Money and Politics ($$), "FEC Chairman Donald McGahn indicated at a commission meeting July 28 that the FEC could consider issuing advisory rulings on pressing issues in the run-up to the November election, including questions about permissible pre-election activity that may have been raised by the Shays III ruling. McGahn said that political parties and others may have questions about issues such as whether their plans for get-out-the-vote activities comply with the law."

A recent Watcher article addressed the possibility that FEC coordination rules on grassroots lobbying efforts may become more serious as the result of the June 13 ruling. An FEC complaint was filed seeking an investigation into an ad that featured House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and former Speaker Newt Gingrich. Pelosi was running for re-election in a June 3 primary and the ad aired in her district within 90 days of the primary election, and it was not paid for by Pelosi's campaign. The FEC coordination rules prohibit referencing a candidate within 90 days of a primary and 120 days of a general election. The complaint seeks an investigation into a possible case of illegal corporate contribution to Pelosi's campaign.

On April 28, 2008, the Brennan Center, filed a lawsuit on behalf of the League of Women Voters (LWV) of Florida, the AFL-CIO of Florida, and the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) Council 79, challenging a revised Florida voter registration law that imposes excessive fines on voter registration groups and risks preventing eligible Florida citizens from registering and voting in the 2008 elections. The law does not have any exceptions for innocent mistakes or potential state misconduct.

The law creates a punishing and complicated tiered regime of deadlines and fines: $50 fines for each form turned in more than 10 days after collection; $250 for each form turned in past a registration deadline; and $500 for each lost form. The fines apply to each and every form that is lost or late. The fines are $250, $500 and $1000, respectively, for any group or individual found to have done any of the above willfully. Plaintiffs argue that even with reduced—but significant—fines, the law is so vague that its cumulative effect could be just as risky to non-profit voter registration groups largely operated by volunteers as the earlier version of the law.

The LWV sought a preliminary injunction to prevent the Secretary of State from enforcing the law. They argue that the law continues to be too vague and does not provide sufficient information of its enforcement. "Amended Law has impermissibly 'chilled' their First Amendment rights and will negatively affect general voter registration and, in particular, will affect those who rely on Plaintiffs to participate in the political process most harshly, such as disabled persons and members of low-income communities." Their request for a preliminary injunction was denied on Aug. 6.

The court argues that the revised version of the law should ease the parties' complaints. According to the court, the changes made to the law "substantially reduce the alleged burdens imposed on Plaintiffs' First Amendment rights." The court further argues that the law is in the best interest of the state; "ensuring voters are properly and timely registered, Florida's interests in protecting its voters are equally impaired by unintentional or negligent mishandling of registration applications."

The NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund (LDF) issued a press release today unveiling a new program called "Prepared to Vote," which is designed to protect voter rights.

"Prepared to Vote is a program designed to raise every voter's awareness of the many obstacles in the electoral process that could affect their right to vote in the 2008 election. Through Prepared to Vote we hope to ensure that every eligible voter casts a vote that counts," said John Payton, LDF President and Director-Counsel.

According to the LDF press release, the Prepared to Vote program was "[i]nspired by the Freedom School Model from the Civil Rights Movement … [and] seeks to empower communities of color by providing essential information prior to Election Day. Program components include community-based workshops, the dissemination of user-friendly materials, meetings with election officials, and a dynamic educational website preparedtovote.org."

The Prepared to Vote program is designed to address issues that have served as barriers to voting in past elections. Some of the issues that the program will address are "voter ID requirements, voter purges, faulty voter rolls, poorly trained elections officials, and felon disfranchisement statutes," among other issues.

The program seeks to ensure that voters are not disenfranchised in the upcoming Presidential Election and that "America's democratic processes are administered uniformly and fairly in communities of color." To that end, LDF will deploy field attorneys to 10 states to prevent voter disfranchisement.

The U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral arguments in Canyon Ferry Road Baptist Church v. Unswort, a challenge to Montana's election campaign reporting laws. The Canyon Ferry Road Baptist Church held an event in May 2004, and during which the Rev. B.G. Stumberg urged parishioners to sign petitions at the church in support of a constitutional ban on gay marriages. Advocates filed a complaint arguing that the church inappropriately held an event to support a political cause subject to the state's political contribution reporting requirements. The Montana Commissioner of Political Practices had previously ruled that the church should have reported its activities to get voters to pass a constitutional ban on gay marriage.

Reportedly; "Lawyers for the church filed a lawsuit in federal court, arguing the parishioners' rights to free speech and religious expression under the First and Fourteenth amendments were being trampled by the 'vague' and 'ambiguous' election laws."

The Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007 requires lobbyists and all lobbying organizations to file forms to the Senate and House by July 30 and Jan. 30 reporting contributions to political action committees, federal campaigns, and expenditures for events that honor officials covered by the law. A Wall Street Journal article describes some new understanding into lobbyists' contributions and other activity because of the new lobbying disclosure report, LD-203. "While many candidates decry special interests' influence in Washington, new reports show campaigns received $140 million from lobbyists in the first half of 2008." The public can search the disclosure reports in the House and Senate.

As of July 28, before the filing deadline, CQ Politics reported that "nearly $1.2 million is listed as 'honorary expenses' and another $300,000 as meeting expenses — all of it associated directly with either legislative or political events tied to lawmakers or government officials."

And CongressDaily ($$) details the confusion surrounding the new reporting requirements. "Lawyers advising clients on the LD-203 forms said guidance issued two weeks before the July 30 deadline caused a scramble to understand the changes. And lingering confusion over changes in requirements for reporting contributions by PACs and expenses at social events for lawmakers appears to have led to inconsistencies in those areas." The guidance might be revised before the next reporting deadline in January. Pam Gavin, the Senate's superintendant of documents, said; "In terms of the forms, it's as paint-by-the-numbers as you can get."

A new web site has been set up, Pass223.com, to gain support for the Senate Campaign Disclosure Parity Act (S. 223) with the hopes that it will eventually be approved by the Senate. S.223 would require senators to file their contribution reports electronically.

Currently, presidential candidates and candidates running for the House of Representatives file their campaign contributions in electronic form. Electronic filing speeds the process by which campaign contribution data reaches the public over the Internet, allowing citizens and journalists to more easily spot a conflict of interest or an inappropriate contribution. Filers in the Senate do not file electronically, delaying disclosure by weeks and possibly months.

Senator John Ensign (R-AZ) continues to block the bill by insisting on adding an amendment that would force charities, religious organizations and other nonprofits to disclose their donors when they file ethics complaints against senators. OMB Watch supports S.223 and recognizes that in order for it to pass, Ensign's amendment must be removed.

By going to Pass223.com you can find out instructions on how to call your senators along with a suggested script, and instructions on how to report back on how they stand on the issue.

The Washington Independent recently did a story on how illogical it is that this bill remains stalled. "Voters hoping to learn who's contributing to their lawmakers this election season instead find a gaping hole: Due to antiquated rules requiring senators to file campaign disclosures on paper, the records of upper chamber members take weeks to process. The procedure means that donations made closest to November's elections will go largely unseen until well after the last vote has been cast. [. . .] Meanwhile, observers can continue to scratch their heads over why the upper chamber can't evolve into the 21st Century."

The John Hopkins Listening Post Project released a report describing their findings from a 2007 survey of 872 nonprofit organizations nationwide in four fields (children and family services, elderly housing and services, community and economic development, and the arts). The survey meant to find out "how recent challenges are affecting nonprofit engagement in policy advocacy, and how this varies by field, size of agency, or other factors. Moreover, we know very little about what factors affect the willingness of nonprofit organizations to engage in lobbying and advocacy, or what forms their involvement takes."

They found that the majority of nonprofits do engage in such activity, but only devote very little resources to it, either because of funding or staffing issues. The report reiterates the importance of nonprofits' role in policy and advocacy work.

Read the report "Nonprofit America: A Force for Democracy".

Check out the book Seen but not Heard: Strengthening Nonprofit Advocacy, OMB Watch's comprehensive analysis released last year.

A new 527 group called The Real Truth About Obama, Inc. ("RTAO"), has filed a lawsuit in federal court against the Federal Election Commission (FEC) and the Department of Justice to prevent them from enforcing FEC reporting rules for political committees. RTAO plans to run issue ads examining the Democratic presidential candidate's position on abortion and other policy positions issues.

The group's lead attorney, Jim Bopp Jr., won the Wisconsin Right to Life (WRTL) case last year against the FEC. Bopp argues that this 527 should not have to disclose their activities with the FEC, including independent expenditures and electioneering communications. The group registered with the FEC on July 29.

According to a press release from the James Madison Center for Free Speech; "Its first project is about Obama's radical pro-abortion views and voting record. However, RTAO fears that it will be deemed a federal PAC, if it does the project, because of the FEC's enforcement actions arising out of the 2004 election where various issue-advocacy 527s, such as the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, were fined for failure to register as a federal PAC, even though they only engaged in issue advocacy."

RTAO's abortion information project includes a website, www.TheRealTruthAboutObama.com, and a radio ad called Change. The website is not operational due to the FEC's enforcement policies that prevent RTAO from raising money for the project. The lawsuit challenges this rule. The Change ad does not have any express words of advocacy of his election or defeat, such as "vote for" or "defeat."

It seems a bit peculiar that the group is arguing that it will only engage in legitimate issue advocacy, yet plans to focus on the public policy positions of one candidate, Barack Obama. That in itself suggests that the content could possibly be interpreted as an appeal to vote for or against a candidate. Even though in RTAO's lawsuit, they extensively cite WRTL, it was in that case that the Court decided that an ad can be regulated "only if the ad is susceptible of no reasonable interpretation other than as an appeal to vote for or against a specific candidate."

RTAO challenges the FEC's "express advocacy" definition. "[T]he FEC continues to enforce its vague and overbroad rule defining 'express advocacy,' even where the communication does not contain such explicit words. If an ad is deemed to contain express advocacy, it becomes an 'independent expenditure,' which is forbidden to corporations, such as RTAO, must be reported to the FEC, must contain a disclaimer, and can trigger PAC status."

Check out this blog that references the new Atlantic Philanthropies report, "Why Supporting Advocacy Makes Sense for Foundations." The post states;

Advocacy is broader than just lobbying. For example, various forms of advocacy that a foundation can support include research of public policy issues and policy development, community organizing, coalition building, litigation, regulatory activity, mobilizing public opinion, mass campaigns and more. Foundations have unique opportunities in that they can also convene grantees, constituents, and other stakeholders to explain why advocacy is important and to directly address social, economic and political conditions which bar access to participation in our democratic society.

And in the Financial Times, Patricia Bauman, the manager of the Bauman Foundation discusses her work funding social change.

The Foundation supports the tools of advocacy: public education, litigation, science, policy-oriented research, engagement with the corporate sector and legislative lobbying. We believe we get much more "bang for the buck" through advocacy than through direct services or small-scale projects; it takes "patient capital" since the results can take years or even decades, but we believe that long-term investment in the right grantees is the right approach.

In Monday's National Journal, ($$) the "Rules of the Game" column examines how the Supreme Court, as some perceive, is attacking campaign financing reform initiatives. As election law scholar Rick Hasen says, "We could well be looking at a situation where the only campaign finance laws that are constitutional are disclosure laws and voluntary public financing systems."

It's only a matter of time, say some observers, before other core provisions of the election laws come before the high court. Indeed, Indiana election lawyer James Bopp Jr., who's led the recent string of legal challenges, argues that the time is ripe. "I think the soft money ban is readily susceptible to a First Amendment challenge," he said. That may seem far-fetched to those who brush off recent developments on the high court. But when it comes to campaign finance restrictions, this court is proving more than eager to embrace deregulation.

According to BNA Money and Politics ($$),"it would be practically impossible" for the Federal Election Commission (FEC) to complete a new rule on the disclosure of bundled campaign contributions from lobbyists in time to affect the 2008 election.

Chairman Donald McGahn said, "simple math dictated that there are not enough days left in the 2008 campaign season for the so-called bundling rule to be completed in time. Even if the FEC promptly finished the rulemaking process, the law that calls for bundling disclosure requires a three-month period before a new rule could actually go into effect." Under the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act, the FEC is required to write a new rule on bundling, the disclosure of campaign money that is collected by a lobbyist from other contributors and passed along to a candidate.

On Monday the FEC approved two advisory opinions (AO), including one ruling that the Club for Growth Political Action Committee (CFG PAC) must include "stand by your ad" disclaimer, including 10- to 15-second television commercials. The Campaign Legal Center has publicly voiced their approval with the FEC's unanimous decision.

The FEC press release states; "The Commission determined that CFG PAC's ads were public communications subject to the Act's [Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act] disclaimer requirements, and spoken disclaimers could not be omitted. In discussion, Chairman McGahn noted that this AO only concerns non-candidate ads."

Meanwhile, the Center for Competitive Politics criticized the decision. "The redundant 'stand by your ad' requirements needlessly reduce the amount of time that citizen groups can spend communicating with their fellow citizens. [. . .] Instead of substantive political messages like 'no taxation without representation' citizens are left to hear that the organization paying for the ad, in fact, approves of it."

The commissioners also approved a new expedited meeting schedule that includes at least three meetings in September, as opposed to the normal once a month meeting.

On Thursday, July 31, the House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on Terrorism, Nonproliferation, and Trade will hold a hearing titled "Foreign Aid and the Fight Against Terrorism and Proliferation: Leveraging Foreign Aid to Achieve U.S. Policy Goals." The hearing's title seems to suggest that nongovernmental organizations will be addressed, yet there is no such representative. There should be a witness that can discuss the positive role played by civil society organizations.

The witnesses include terrorism "expert" Steven Emerson. The Muslim Public Affairs Council has released an action alert stating that "Emerson has a proven track record of anti-Muslim bigotry and is not a credible expert on foreign aid and non-proliferation."

"MPAC is concerned that testimony from Emerson will lead to reckless policy-making. This will undermine U.S. interests of achieving peace and stability in the Muslim world. MPAC calls upon all Americans to act now and urge Congressman Sherman to ensure that the hearing include qualified experts who can balance the bias of Emerson, or cancel the panel."

The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) released a memorandum for exempt organization (EO) revenue agents detailing how they should examine cases involving allegations of political activity on the Internet as part of the Political Activity Compliance Initiative (PACI). For example, in figuring out whether an exempt group is engaging in prohibited political activity, the IRS agents are to consider the "number of 'clicks' or electronic proximity between an exempt organization and the site of a political message," and "the context of the link is another significant consideration."

As the MSNBC article referenced earlier, the IRS is also concerned with what the Internet means for how easily 501(c)(3) groups can become involved in political activity. The IRS memo states; "Experience indicates that there are numerous cases involving potential political campaign intervention in the form of communications posted on Web sites operated by section 501(c)(3) organizations. Many of these communications include links to Web sites of other organizations."

In February the IRS warned 501(c)(3) organization about linking to other websites that may be considered partisan if the links indicate support or opposition for candidates. The memo discusses cases of linking to unrelated organizations and linking to related organizations, such as a related 501(c)(4). The IRS will continue to rely on the "facts and circumstances" test.

"EO will pursue the case if the facts and circumstances indicate that the section 501(c)(3) organization is promoting, encouraging, recommending or otherwise urging viewers to use the link to get information about specific candidates and their positions on specific issues. Again, analysis of the context around the link is a key factor."

[T]here are situations where a section 501(c)(3) organization itself (1) takes a position on an issue, and (2) provides information about candidate positions on the same issue, placing the organization at risk of having intervened in a political campaign. The risk arises, and the case should be pursued, even if the two elements are in separate parts of the organization's Web site, or if one element is on the Web site and the other is not.

An article from MSNBC's online magazine, Contribute, discusses the ways that 501(c)(3) organizations, according to the report, actually engage in illicit campaign intervention.

The report argues that partly because of the Internet, the line between issue advocacy and illegal partisan electioneering becomes crossed more often and easily. "[I]t's OK to put on such events as a voter registration drive or voter forums - or a get-out-the-vote push, as long as all are nonpartisan. Clearly, some issues and causes are aligned more with one party than another - Al Gore and global warming, or George Bush and troop support in Iraq, for starters."

As they should, "501(c)(3)s are considering their potential for political advocacy. [. . .] To help Minnesota nonprofits walk the line — and skirt the ban on political activity — this group created the Minnesota Participation Project, a Web site to help the state's nonprofits define and conduct permissible, nonpartisan voter recruitment efforts." Such voter registration activities are a vital characteristic to 501(c)(3) groups.

"But woe to those nonprofits that go too far. Indeed, the difference between issue advocacy and political intervention can get pretty murky sometimes — and there's a need for clarity that has become especially urgent in this era of instant communication."

Referencing the NAACP and the All Saints Episcopal Church cases; "the IRS actions sent a stringent — albeit mixed - message to the nonprofit community."