It appears that the confirmation of one member (Hans von Spakovsky) to the Federal Election Commission (FEC) held up the rest. Four nominees have been serving recess appointments that expire with the end of the congressional session and with those seats vacant, the six-member commission will not be able to operate. The Senate did not confirm them yesterday, and now many are worried about what this means for the enforcement of campaign finance laws in an election year. As Roll Call ($$) described the scenario, leaving the "elections regulator largely toothless." Read this blog from the Campaign Legal Center making a case against von Spakovsky's confirmation.

A federal judge in Florida granted an injunction on Tuesday to stop enforcement of the state's "no match, no vote" voter registration law. The law requires the name of a registrant be matched with a Social Security number or driver's license number.

The suit was filed by the Florida branch of the NAACP, the Haitian-American Grassroots Coalition, and the Southwest Voter Registration Education Project.

The plaintiffs asserted that more than 14,000 Floridians have been kept off the roles since the law took effect on January 1, 2006. The same matching requirement — which is extremely prone to error — was also stopped in Washington State by a federal judge in 2006.

U.S. District Judge Stephan Mickle ruled that the law "stands in direct conflict with accomplishing the full purposes and objectives of HAVA." HAVA — the Help America Vote Act — was passed by the U.S. Congress in 2002 in the wake of the 2000 election debacle.

To learn more check out…

• Judge's order
• Article by the Brennan Center for Justice "Federal Judge Blocks Florida Registration Law"
• News story in the Miami Herald

As the 2008 election nears, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) will reportedly contact and educate groups about the limits on political activity. As the press calls in a warning about nonprofits' (501(c)(4)'s) involvement in elections, the IRS has responded. According to BNA Money and Politics; ($$)

Lois Lerner, IRS's exempt organizations director, said in a news briefing that the new look at compliance by organizations exempt under tax code Section 501(c)(4) would be in addition to an ongoing program to assure compliance by Section 501(c)(3) charitable organizations. Lerner noted that there are major differences in the rules for the two types of groups. The 501(c)(4) entities, known generally as "social welfare" organizations, are allowed to be involved in political campaigns, as long as it is not their "primary purpose."

The IRS also plans on looking at direct contributions to political candidates, which 501(c)(3) charities are prohibited from doing. To read the 2008 IRS "implementing guidelines" for exempt organizations, click here.

The Federal Election Commission (FEC) is expected to finalize the new rule for funding "electioneering communications" upon approving the explanatory text known as the explanation and justification (E&J). The E&J gives some examples of the types of ads that corporations may or may not sponsor.

There are a few problems with this E&J. As Bob Bauer writes in a blog posting; "What more can be said if, after the explanation, the Commission's course of interpretation is no more predictable than before? Under the rule, an ad may include "indicia of express advocacy" (references to candidates, elections or voting), or it might not: either way, it might be exempt or it might not."

According to BNA Money and Politics, ($$) "The first electioneering-communications report for the current presidential campaign came from the Club for Growth.net, which told the FEC that it received new funding for its television ads targeting Republican presidential candidate Huckabee."

Meanwhile Citizens United has announced that it has filed a lawsuit against the FEC, arguing that issue-oriented television ads are protected by the First Amendment and should not be subject to disclosure requirements. Remember, the disclosure requirements were not addressed in the Wisconsin Right to Life case, and even though one of the FEC's alternatives in the proposed rulemaking removed disclosure, the final rule left the requirements intact. The lawsuit focuses on ads the group plans to air for a film about Senator Hillary Clinton (D-NY).

The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) has already started receiving complaints related to the 2008 election. Americans United for Separation of Church and State (AU) have filed a complaint with the IRS, asking for an investigation into Liberty University Chancellor Jerry Falwell Jr. AU charges that Falwell used school resources to endorse Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee. Falwell hosted the candidate at Liberty University and then sent an e-mail message on Liberty University letterhead endorsing Huckabee. An AU press release states;

In a "Liberty News Alert" dated Dec. 1, 2007, Falwell wrote, "Recently, Governor Mike Huckabee called to brief me on the progress of his campaign for the presidency. I invited the Governor to speak to the Liberty University students in Convocation on November 28. He graciously accepted. I was so impressed with the Governor's sincerity and his positions on the issues that are important to conservative Christians that I personally endorsed Governor Huckabee before he left Lynchburg." . . . The alert was accompanied by an article from a university-run online publication implying that Huckabee is God's candidate.

Leaders of nonprofit organizations are allowed to endorse candidates as private individuals, but are prohibited from using their organization's resources to support or oppose candidates. Additionally, the IRS does not comment on what organizations or people it is investigating.

After Senator Feinstein (D-CA) asked Senator Ensign (R-NV) to withdraw his amendment referencing a letter sent by a diverse group including OMB Watch, Ensign has responded with a resounding no. The Senate Campaign Disparity Act (S. 223) would require Senate candidates to file their campaign finance reports electronically, and its passage remains doubtful. Roll Call ($$) reported; "In a letter Monday to Senate Rules and Administration Chairwoman Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), Ensign rejected her entreaty to drop his insistence on offering a controversial amendment that would require nonprofits that file Senate ethics complaints to disclose their donors." Read this blog entry from the Campaign Legal Center.

Nonprofit groups created to educate the public and lobby on issues have started inserting themselves into the presidential primaries, adding an unexpected wild card to wide-open elections in both parties. The groups provide a new avenue for routing millions of dollars into an election cycle already awash with spending by traditional political organizations.

This Washington Post article continues by condemning 501(c)(4) organizations that are prevalent in primary campaigns in Iowa and New Hampshire, warning that such activity could increase in the future and that the groups should, "proceed with caution." However, the public is not likely to understand that, with "nonprofit" in the headline, they are talking about 501(c)(4) organizations. Most will infer that nonprofits are becoming too involved in the campaigns and there is something wrong with this. The ramifications of the Washington Post article are uncertain, but confusion can lead to overreaction by regulators and cause use the public to question the work of legitimate nonprofits during an election.

The Post article states; "The nonprofits are competing with the campaigns for voter attention, especially in early-voting states such as Iowa and New Hampshire, and their advertising, phone calls and mailings could help diffuse the candidates' own messages." What about the many nonprofits that are competing for the candidates' attention? One example in the article illustrates why issue groups use campaigns to get attention for an issue. Friends of the Earth Action criticized Sen. Hillary Clinton's inaction on global warming issues. Their ads asked the public to call Clinton and "tell her we've had enough of corporate polluters and billion-dollar giveaways." Now Clinton has proposed two amendments to a bill to address their concerns.

With the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) "on the lookout," 501(c)(4)s will have to be able to show their primary purpose is not to influence the outcome of elections. But there is plenty of constructive work to be done. Countless nonprofit advocacy groups continue to make a beneficial contribution to the election process, such as by helping to conduct voter registration drives and sponsoring candidate debates and forums.

The work of advocacy organizations during an election strengthens a very necessary, diverse dialogue on important issues. An example mentioned here before, is the Primary Project. This blog post from the Alliance for Justice gets it; "It is my strong belief that we as a society benefit from the discourse of a variety of voices in an election year—to which I say to my nonprofit friends, let me hear you now." And this San Francisco Chronicle editorial highlights another great example, the Heartland Presidential Forum organized by the Center for Community Change, Iowa Citizens for Community Improvement, and hundreds of grassroots groups around the country. "The organizations hosting the forum understand this - they are community groups whose bread and butter is the patient one-on-one relationship-building that builds movements, and they see elections as but a moment in a long process of social change. But moments count.