The NAACP press release says:

Investigation concludes Association did not violate tax laws or commit undue political intervention

The Internal Revenue has informed the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) that it has concluded its examination of NAACP activities and determined the Association did not violate conditions of its tax exempt status....

The IRS launched an examination of the NAACP on October 8, 2004 after receiving complaints from several Republican members of Congress who said their constituents believed NAACP National Board of Directors Chairman Julian Bond crossed the line of non-partisanship in a speech at the NAACP 2004 National Convention critical of Bush administration policies.

“It’s disappointing that the IRS took nearly two years to conclude what we knew from the beginning: the NAACP did not violate tax laws and continues to be politically non-partisan,” said NAACP President and CEO Bruce S. Gordon. “Tax-exempt organizations should feel free to critique and challenge governmental policies under the First Amendment without fear of IRS intervention.”

“The good news is that we are vindicated,” said Bond. “The bad news for us and other freedom loving Americans is that it was initiated for partisan purposes to threaten our right to free speech. We’ll continue to speak truth to power.”

Ministers back Blackwell, challenge IRS
Columbus - A national coalition of Christian ministers threw down the gauntlet Monday, endorsing Secretary of State Ken Blackwell for governor and challenging an IRS crackdown on political activities by churches.

Implored by the Rev. Russell Johnson of Fairfield Christian Church in Lancaster to "show your heart," the 28 ministers calling themselves Clergy for Blackwell said they had a legal right and moral responsibility to endorse the Republican secretary over Democratic Rep. Ted Strickland. The group noted the candidates' contrasting positions on issues such as abortion, same-sex marriage and placement of the Ten Commandments in public buildings....

Asked about the endorsements, IRS spokesman Chris Kerns declined to comment. Donald Tobin, who teaches courses on tax-exempt organizations at Ohio State University, said he saw nothing improper. He said the event was not held on church property and didn't employ church resources and the pastors emphasized they were speaking as individuals.

• a proposed Interim Rule that would have exempted grassroots lobbying broadcasts from a federal rule banning such ads 60 days before an election or 30 days before a primary if they mention legislators, governors or the President if they are running for federal office (the "electioneering communications" rule)
• a motion to begin a full blown formal rulemaking process to consider a grassroots lobbying exemption, and
• a motion to authorize the FEC's General Counsel to draft a proposed rule, including alternatives submitted by all Commissioners, to consider a formal rulemaking process.

At first Commissioner Ellen Weintraub, acting for the Democrats, objected to the proposed Interim Rule because a full rulemaking process has not taken place. But when just such a procedure was proposed, she and the other Democratic Commissioners blocked it. Then they effectively blocked discussion of the issue for the foreseeable future by voting down a motion authorizing the FEC's attorneys to prepare draft rules for consideration and discussion, claiming they want to wait for guidance from the courts. But the law gives the FEC, not the courts, the authority to create exemptions from the "electioneering communications" rule.

While opinions on what should be done about genuine issue ads swept up in the ban on sham issue ads differ, the public deserves consideration of the merits of proposals to protect grassroots lobbying broadcasts. Today the three Democratic Commissioners blocked such discussion. It was a loss for civic participation and grassroots involvement in democracy.

Posted by Kay Guinane, 02:47:58 PM



Federal Court Halts FL Barriers to Voter Registration Drives
The Aug. 29 Miami Herald reports that

Third-party groups such as the Florida League of Women Voters, which had stopped voter registration drives because of stiff fines for violations, are back in business, thanks to a federal judge in Miami.

U.S. District Judge Patricia Seitz on Monday deemed unconstitutional a state voter registration law that affected nonpartisan groups -- but not political parties registered in Florida. Seitz issued a preliminary injunction to stop the state from enforcing the law and rejected the state of Florida's bid to dismiss the lawsuit brought by the league and others last spring.

People For the American Way Foundation issued a report today that documents the recent spread of new regulatory, legislative, and administrative tactics that suppress votes.

“Jim Crow is being reincarnated as an entrenched bureaucrat or politician raising barriers to the ballot box, and it is becoming much harder for many Americans to exercise their right to vote. The barriers range from obvious to insidious to unintentional, and they are proliferating across the nation,” said PFAW Foundation President Ralph G. Neas. “Racial minorities, students, the poor and senior citizens are bearing the brunt of new rules and regulations that discourage and limit voting.”

The report, titled The New Face of Jim Crow: Voter Suppression in America, includes overviews of how the following policies and other emerging strategies are erecting new barriers to the ballot box:

• Overly strict voter identification requirements that make it harder for the up to 10 percent of Americans who do not have government-issued photo IDs to cast a vote;
• Burdensome voter registration rules that hobble the efforts of churches, community activists and nonprofits to register voters in traditionally disenfranchised communities, including minorities, students and immigrants;
• Provisional ballots that are cast, but often go uncounted—for example, more than one million provisional ballots went uncounted in 2004;
• Long lines and unequal distribution of resources at the polls, disproportionately affecting low-income neighborhoods;
• Felon disenfranchisement policies that make it difficult for men and women who have finished their sentences to regain voting rights and sometimes disenfranchise non-felons.

Election law attorney Bob Bauer sees precedent for a decision on the merits:

In the recent years, the FEC Commissioners have managed some sensible, bipartisan resolution of difficult issues with major implications for political participation on all sides of the political and ideological divide. The Internet rules are an example....In the case of grassroots lobbying, the various interests coming together in support of this proposed exemption are hardly unified in their politics. They are, in fact, certain to oppose one another much of the time on major issues. All of them, however, have an interested in just this conflict--in pursuing it honestly and directly, by public appeals on issues, which cannot be done at particularly crucial times without the benefit of the proposed exemption from the 30 and 60 day pre-election advertising "blackouts"...As a regulatory challenge, this is much like the Internet rules: there is no clear partisan advantage--no disadvantage, really, except for to politicians uncomfortable with too much broadcast criticism, or to reformers haunted by imagined scenarios for "cheating".

Cole County Circuit Judge Richard Callahan is hearing arguments on a challenge to a new Missouri law requiring voters to show photo identification to cast ballots. The law is among the first nationally in a still relatively young movement - one intended to prevent voter fraud, as supporters tell it; or to suppress certain voters, as opponents claim. A federal judge in Indiana upheld that state's voter photo ID law in April. But in Georgia last month, a state and federal judge each issued orders blocking that state's law. The Missouri decision will swing the pendulum one way or the other - forming a symbolic two-out-of-three-states consensus (at least temporarily, since appeals could reverse the trial court decisions in any one of those states).

"On Aug. 29, the Federal Election Commission will consider adopting a rule, to take effect immediately, that authorizes unions, other nonprofits and business corporations to finance 'grass-roots lobbying' ads in the period before November elections. Without this rule, any such ad, on any policy issue, within 60 days of the general election would be prohibited if it referred to elected officials who happened also to be candidates. The proposed rule tightly would condition this exemption on the content of the ads, strictly disallowing any electoral messages in support of or opposition to the named candidate."

In targeting individual churches the way political organizers traditionally pinpointed certain wards, Focus on the Family is filling a void left by the near-collapse of the Christian Coalition and stepping into an area where recent Republican Party efforts have created resentment among evangelicals...

The Rev. Barry W. Lynn, executive director of the Washington-based group Americans United for Separation of Church and State, charged that "Dobson's drive to build a church-based political machine will jeopardize the tax exemption of participating congregations."

Trevor Potter, a former FEC chairman who is now president and general counsel for the Campaign Legal Center, charged that the proposal was a backdoor attempt by opponents of the 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act “to reopen the issue ad loophole” closed by that legislation. “This is the same coalition that opposed the passage of BCRA,” Potter said.

Von Spakovsky said he believes his proposal is “narrowly drawn and does not exempt the electioneering communications that Congress sought to subject to BCRA’s funding and reporting restrictions, i.e., ‘sham issue ads’ that have an electioneering purpose.”

The six-page Feb. 21 letter from Chairman Charles Grassley (R-Iowa) and ranking Democrat Max Baucus (Mont.)--released in response to a Freedom of Information Act request from BNA--posed a broad range of questions to George, including queries related to his vision for the agency, his office hours, how he treats TIGTA employees, and his management style and practices that in part could reveal his leadership

The senators' letter asked some narrow and pointed questions as well, such as whether George received gifts from foreign tax representatives or Internal Revenue Service officials. The senators submitted 35 questions to George in their letter and asked for a response by March 7.

The six-page Feb. 21 letter from Chairman Charles Grassley (R-Iowa) and ranking Democrat Max Baucus (Mont.)--released in response to a Freedom of Information Act request from BNA--posed a broad range of questions to George, including queries related to his vision for the agency, his office hours, how he treats TIGTA employees, and his management style and practices that in part could reveal his leadership

The senators' letter asked some narrow and pointed questions as well, such as whether George received gifts from foreign tax representatives or Internal Revenue Service officials. The senators submitted 35 questions to George in their letter and asked for a response by March 7.

How much can states regulate political messages? It is a question asked by Attorney Jim Bopp has filed a petition for a Supreme Court review in a case involving Alaska Right to Life committee. The group (a 501(c)(4)) argues that it can sponsor political messages without being required to use a PAC.

Alaska unconstitutionally imposes PAC-style restrictions on those that make "electioneering communications," including nonprofit corporations, the Alaska Right to Life petition to the Supreme Court argues. Under federal law, anyone making an "electioneering communication" need only file a one-time report of the activity to the FEC. But, Alaska treats these organizations the same as it treats PACs by requiring prior registration and mandating ongoing periodic reporting of all the group's contributors and expenditures, the petition says.

Unlikely with the Senate's packed schedule, nonprofit advocates can breathe a little easier for the moment - the anti-advocacy language contained in the House passed bill (see www.ombwatch.org/gseresourcecenter) is not currently within the Senate version.

Posted by Jennifer Lowe, 09:43:40 AM