The New York Times first reported that Verizon Wireless rejected a request from NARAL Pro-Choice America to use Verizon's mobile network for a text-message campaign. Verizon held that, "it had the right to block 'controversial or unsavory' text messages" while the other wireless carriers accepted the program. Text messaging is increasingly being used as a powerful tool by political candidates and various advocacy campaigns. Supporters can be informed of various updates, calls to action, or even reminders to vote. "But legal experts said private companies like Verizon probably have the legal right to decide which messages to carry. The laws that forbid common carriers from interfering with voice transmissions on ordinary phone lines do not apply to text messages."

"In turning down the program, Verizon . . . told Naral that it does not accept programs from any group 'that seeks to promote an agenda or distribute content that, in its discretion, may be seen as controversial or unsavory to any of our users.'"

Now it turns out that Verizon will allow NARAL to use its network. "The decision to not allow text messaging on an important, though sensitive, public policy issue was incorrect, and we have fixed the process that led to this isolated incident," Jeffrey Nelson, a company spokesman, said in a statement."

After Verizon reversed its policy Nancy Keenan, NARAL's president, issued a press release saying, "Let's hope Verizon has learned a lesson today: citizen participation in democracy is neither 'unsavory' nor 'controversial.'"

Bob Bauer at moresoftmoneyhardlaw.com draws together recent occasions where issue advertising has come under heavy scrutiny; the MoveOn.org ad, the Wisconsin Right to Life Supreme Court ruling, and now Verizon. "It is a question really making the rounds these days: who will be heard on an issue, or denied?"

"While Wisconsin Right to Life, other nonprofits and the unions resist government restraints on their speech, large companies with control over communications channels can influence access and volume with large consequence for the quality of debate."

And see this NPAction story on using cell phones in advocacy.

The LA Times reports that All Saints Episcopal Church in Pasadena, California has announced that the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) investigation which began June 2005 has now been closed. The IRS will not revoke the church's tax-exempt status because of a 2004 anti-war, anti-poverty sermon delivered by its former pastor Rev. George F. Regas on the Sunday before the 2004 presidential election, despite the IRS determination that "the Church intervened in the 2004 Presidential election campaign." The letter the IRS sent to All Saints says; "We note this appears to be a one-time occurrence and that you have policies in place to ensure that the Church complies with the prohibition against intervention in campaigns for public office."

The church has now asked the Treasury Department to investigate if the investigation was politically motivated and whether officials from the Justice Department had become involved in the matter.

The All Saints press release states; "Synagogues, mosques, and churches across America have no more guidance about how the IRS rules now than when we started this process over two long years ago. The impact of the letter leaves a chilling effect cast over the freedom of America's pulpits to preach core moral values. We have no choice but to demand clarification on this matter with the IRS."

BNA Money and Politics ($$) describes the investigation as, "a test case for freedom of the pulpit and a focal point of the debate over free speech in churches."

BNA Money and Politics ($$) reports that Lois Lerner, director of exempt organizations for the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), predicts that the number of tax-exempt organizations that will violate IRS rules for engaging in prohibited political activities will increase during the 2008 presidential campaign. During a panel discussion at the annual meeting of the Council on Governmental Ethics Laws (COGEL), Lerner commented that she hoped the number of actual violations would decline as IRS continues to try to educate people about the law's requirements.

Despite this alarmist prediction and the increased number of complaints received from the 2006 election season, there was overall a low level of violations by 501(c)(3) organizations.

"Despite such assurances from the government officials, private attorneys involved in the discussion noted that the campaign finance laws and tax laws regulating political activity continue to be unsettled and evolving in reaction to the decisions of regulatory agencies and the courts."

In 2005 a complaint was filed with the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) charging that Focus on the Family, a 501(c)(3), violated IRS guidelines because of increased political campaign activity. Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) alleged that Dobson violated IRS code by using Focus on the Family resources to campaign for or endorse Republican candidates. The Citizens Project in Colorado also filed a complaint against Focus on the Family due to a magazine article that used persuasive language to imply support for Bush.

The Denver Post reports that the IRS has now determined that Focus on the Family chairman James Dobson's endorsement of 2004 Republican candidates did not call for the revocation of the organization's tax-exempt status. After an audit, the IRS ruled that Dobson acted as an individual and not on behalf of the nonprofit. The IRS does not release audit findings, but audited organizations may do so. And according to the letter the IRS sent to Focus on the Family, the audit; "Revealed that Dr. Dobson's reported remarks did not occur in publications of Focus on the Family, did not occur at functions of Focus on the Family, and did not involve Dr. Dobson suggesting that he was speaking as a representative of Focus on the Family."

The Federal Election Commission (FEC) has dismissed an enforcement case in which the blog Daily Kos was charged with violating campaign finance law by posting blog entries that support particular federal candidates. The FEC denied that the site should be regulated as a political committee. See this posting at Daily Kos on the case.

The Federal Election Commission (FEC) reached an agreement with Citizens Club for Growth Inc., and if approved by the court, would end a lawsuit before the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. It would be the largest civil penalty the FEC ever collected after an enforcement case moved to litigation. Club for Growth has agreed to pay $350,000 for failing to register with the FEC as a political committee and report its contributions and expenditures.

The group spent at least $1.28 million between 2000 and 2004 expressly advocating the election or defeat of clearly identified federal candidates. The FEC found that its major purpose was to influence federal elections and met the statutory definition of a political committee, and was therefore required to register and report with the Commission.

Club for Growth issued a press release stating it is a separate legal entity from the group that will be paying the fine, Citizens Club for Growth Inc. Earlier this year Citizens Club for Growth Inc. (a 527 organization) sold its name to a new group, Club for Growth, a 501(c)4.