According to the Denver Post, Priests and deacons serving in the Archdiocese of Denver will be prohibited from donating money to political candidates and from making endorsements under an upcoming directive from Archbishop Charles Chaput. The directive states that clerics "may not publicly participate or endorse political campaigns or initiatives, or publicly affiliate themselves with groups whose primary purpose is to do so." This is of interest because it seems that they would not be allowed to donate in the capacity as a private citizen, separate from their occupational role as a priest. While charities, educational institutions and religious organizations cannot make donations to campaigns, individuals can do so in a personal manner, and not on behalf of an organization.

A federal judge has denied a preliminary injunction request by SpeechNow.org. The 527 group filed a lawsuit against the Federal Election Commission (FEC) in February 2008, challenging federal campaign finance laws that prohibit contributions of more than $5,000 per year to political committees as an unconstitutional violation of free speech and association rights. SpeechNow.org contends that it is unconstitutional to require organizations to comply with the contribution limits for political committees as long as the speech is independent of any candidate or party, funded only by individuals, and therefore can not be corrupt. The case will likely will be appealed to the D.C. Circuit.

Bob Bauer at moresoftmoneyhardlaw.com commented that "Judge Robertson's decision against SpeechNow will not in the long run have done this organization much harm, and it may have done it a favor. [. . .] his opinion highlighted that case's difficulties, particularly the ones that the Supreme Court—speaking hear of the majority deciding cases like Davis—may pounce on."

In a very suspicious manner, the decision states; "SpeechNow's carefully constructed test-case embodiment of 'independence' does not shield it from reasonable campaign finance regulation. [. . . ] neither does the First Amendment require Congress to ignore what its members surely know — that an organization may be legally independent under FEC rules while nonetheless functioning as a fully integrated arm of a major political party."

As Bauer describes, "Robertson decides to locate SpeechNow within a controversy in which it has had no part, and in doing so, he tries to lighten his persuasive burden in arguing the constitutional merits of its claim. In effect, he moves the argument from the activity to the actor, and he implies that the actor is somewhat disreputable and its position not properly given much weight.

The ruling comes to the opposite conclusion on this issue as the Fourth Circuit in the recent North Carolina Right to Life v. Leake case.

The Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA) has released an audit report addressing improvements in educating and enforcing the prohibition against political activities for tax-exempt organizations. The purpose of the audit was to determine the effectiveness of the Internal Revenue Service's (IRS) Political Activities Compliance Initiative (the Initiative). The audit addressed how effective the IRS is in addressing alleged incidences of political campaign intervention and "whether actions had detected repeated campaign intervention by previously identified organizations."

The audit found that the Initiative could be improved "to ensure that tax-exempt organizations receive timely notification that they might be involved in prohibited political activity. Also, the EO function needs to clarify why certain referrals are not included in the Initiative."

Recommendations laid out in the audit include :

• ensure that all referrals of potentially prohibited political intervention are reviewed in a timely manner.
• Improve the consistent understanding of prohibited political intervention criteria.

The IRS expects an active 2008 election cycle, and will start the Initiative even earlier this year. To read the full report, click here.

In June of last year, Americans United for Separation of Church and State (AU) requested that the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) investigate Bill Keller for possibly violating the political campaign intervention prohibition for tax exempt organizations. Keller has a call-in show on a Tampa television station and a Web site called Liveprayer.com. On May 11, 2007 Keller warned listeners; "if you vote for Mitt Romney, you are voting for Satan!" Now, the public is aware that the IRS is in fact investigating the case. According to the St. Petersburg Times, "the IRS gave him a week to assemble documents and videos of his television programs. . . Keller said he is prepared to fight if his ministry loses its tax-exempt status."

It has been two months since the controversial Supreme Court decision upholding Indiana's voter identification law requiring photo ID for anyone casting a ballot. Since the Supreme Court left open as applied challenges in federal court and state constitution challenges, two lawsuits in Indiana have already been filed.

The League of Women Voters of Indiana filed a lawsuit in Marion County against Indiana Secretary of State Todd Rokita. The lawsuit argues that it has the standing to sue on behalf of its members because the statute burdens potential voters and would cause the league to have to spend a great of deal resources assisting voters without the required ID. According to the Indiana Lawyer, "the suit says the 2005-passed Indiana voter ID law violates the Indiana Constitution's Article 2, Section 2, which states citizens only need to meet the age, citizenship, and residency requirements in order to cast a vote in-person. Any change the legislature might make must come through a constitutional amendment, not a statute, which didn't happen here, the suit says."

Co-counsel William Groth said, "It's a strict question of constitutional interpretation. Our argument will turn on whether the voter ID law imposes a new substantive requirement, or whether it's merely regulating the mechanics of the voting process. It's a subtle and nuanced distinction, but our Indiana caselaw supports that this must be a constitutional amendment."

The suit mentions two specific election examples where individuals were restricted from voting because of the ID law, including the famous May 2008 Indiana primary incident when 12 elderly nuns were not even allowed to cast provisional ballots because they didn't have the required ID.

In a separate lawsuit filed in Indiana, Robbin Stewart challenges the law for philosophical reasons. "It's different when going to an airport or driving a car, because those aren't constitutional rights, he said."

The Chronicle of Philanthropy ($$) has an interesting article on how nonprofits are utilizing the excitement of this election season.

As the November 4 presidential election draws nearer, Maria Rodriguez, executive director of the Florida Immigrant Coalition, has her eye on the calendar. Her organization is conducting its first voter-mobilization project and hopes to sign up 4,300 new Haitian, Latino, and community-college student voters and get 9,000 members of those groups to the polls. The coalition is one of many charities and foundations that are seeking to tap into unusually strong voter enthusiasm this year to recruit new foot soldiers in the fight for social causes both locally and nationally.

If you want your organization to get involved in the election, check out this free webinar from NonprofitVote.org. The webinar training on how to develop an effective plan for your organization's nonpartisan voter outreach activities, "Making a 2008 Voter Engagement Plan for Your Nonprofit," will be held on Thursday June 26 2:00-3:00pm EST. Topics will include how to integrate voter engagement work into daily activities, and the dos and don'ts of nonpartisan voter engagement. Sign up here.

By unanimous consent, the Senate finally approved five members of the Federal Election Commission (FEC). After the new members are sworn in, the agency will be back to full working order, and should be very busy. CQ Politics reports; "After months of squabbling over new members for the Federal Election Commission, the Senate confirmed five new officials Tuesday with little fanfare, putting the long-defunct commission back in working order. . . . Priorities for the group include new disclosure rules for lobbyists who bundle campaign contributions, requests for matching funds, and certifying public funds for the general election, said FEC spokesman Bob Biersack."

The current issue of the Chronicle of Philanthropy ($$) has an opinion piece titled " How to Guarantee Respect for Public-Interest Lobbyists." It addresses some of the negative consequences of the growing disdain towards lobbyists that has led to the presidential candidates' public purge of any such connections. In response, "to restore public faith in democracy, nonprofit groups need to do even more lobbying and advocacy. While it is critical to clamp down on unethical lobbying, nothing should be done to dampen interest in advocacy by the nation's more than one million charities." A proposed set of ethical principles to guide public interest lobbying is laid out in the article.

• Public-interest lobbying must add civic value.
• Public-interest lobbying must be inclusive, engaging the community, particularly those most affected by the public policy being advocated.
• Smart and ethical lobbying must be credible, and must follow all laws and regulations.

Although we do not fit into stereotypes, public-interest lobbyists are making a tremendous difference across this country every day against all odds. However, only if policy makers hear far more of America's voices can they govern in accord with what the people need. Lobbying is not only a constitutional right, but also a moral responsibility of nonprofit groups to improve the quality of life. So lobbying always needs to be a key part of nonprofit activities and one that we do with impeccable attention to ethics and the law.

The opinion piece was written by David Cohen, a senior fellow at Civic Ventures and Council for a Livable World, and Larry Ottinger, president of the Center for Lobbying in the Public Interest.

The Pew Internet and American Life Project has recently released a new report titled "Internet and the 2008 Election". The survey found that 46 percent of all Americans have used the internet, e-mail or cell-phone text messaging to participate in the political process. In addition, 35 percent of Americans have watched online videos related to the campaign, and 10 percent have used social networking sites to engage in political activity. Voters are increasingly making campaign contributions online, and more are using the Internet to get unfiltered information.

These findings show that people not only want to use the Internet to become informed, but also as a means to participate in our democracy. This speaks to the need to have an effective process of communicating with our elected representatives, and the importance of online advocacy campaigns.

The Senate is likely to quickly confirm five Federal Election Commission (FEC) nominees. CQ Politics discusses the list of issues that await a FEC with a complete quorum. These include writing regulations to implement new bundling rules in the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007, rewriting rules regarding "advertisements run in tandem by presidential candidates and the national parties. . . The commission also faces five months' worth of investigations, cases and complaints that are waiting for action, as well as several pending requests for advisory opinions from various groups and at least one now defunct 2008 presidential campaign."

And as a column by Eliza Carney from the National Journal" ($$) describes the situation, "with a backlog of pending regulatory issues that have piled up since January, the new commission will be playing a game of catch-up for the rest of this election season."

According to an Alternet article, an attorney for the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), "told a federal appeals court Thursday that the VA could not conceive of any circumstance where voter registration drives could occur at its facilities." For the most part the atrocious decision to ban registration drives at VA facilities has largely been absent from major newspapers, but the New York Times has now covered the recent federal appeals court hearing.

An appeals court this week (June 12) considered whether restrictions on voter registration drives at the VA's campus in Menlo Park, CA are unconstitutional. The court is revisiting the question of whether Steve Preminger, chair of the Santa Clara County Democratic Central Committee has standing to question the constitutionality of the VA's policy.

According to the Alternet article, Owen Martikan, assistant U.S. attorney representing the VA said "voter registration drives would interfere with patient medical care and also violate the federal Hatch Act, which limits federal employees from participating in political campaign activities." However, veterans are not federal employees.

In May, the department took the broader step of issuing a ban on all outside groups from registration drives on its properties. Scott Rafferty, a lawyer representing Preminger, said "Just because veterans live on these campuses does not mean they should be deprived of the rights of free association and free speech."

The White House formally nominated Matthew S. Petersen for the Federal Election Commission (FEC), completing a panel of members for Senate consideration. President Bush announced his plans to nominate Petersen last month to replace controversial FEC nominee Hans von Spakovsky. Howard Gantman, an aide to Senate Rules Committee Chairman Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) told BNA Money and Politics ($$) that the Petersen's nomination could be advanced to the Senate floor for a vote within days. The Senate committee still must receive a routine report on possible conflicts of interest prepared by the Office of Government Ethics in cooperation with the FEC.

Meanwhile, a controversy has broken out over another Republican nominee, Donald McGahn and his previous role as an attorney for former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-TX). Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), has requested the Senate Rules Committee hold a new hearing on McGahn's work for DeLay's political action committee.

The American Bar Association Section of Taxation recommended guidance to be included in the 2008-2009 Treasury Department Internal Revenue Service (IRS) guidance priority list. The section asked for guidance in a range of practice areas including exempt organizations. Among many other recommendations, the request included guidance on "acceptable methods for determining whether an organization is conducting political activities (including both candidate campaign intervention and improper private benefit to partisan interests) as its primary activity (consistent with section 527 exemption), or as a less-than-primary activity (consistent with non-charitable section 501(c) exemption)."

OMB Watch filed comments on IRS guidance priorities urging the creation of a bright line definition of partisan intervention in elections.

Americans United for Separation of Church and State (AU) have asked the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) to investigate a Minnesota church whose pastor declared that Christians cannot vote for either Senator Hillary Clinton (D-NY) or Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) in the presidential election. Pastor Gus Booth said in a May 18 sermon at Warroad Community Church in Warroad, MN, that Christians "cannot support Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama. Both Hillary and Barack favor the shedding of innocent blood [abortion] and the legalization of the abomination of homosexual marriage."

The Warroad Pioneer, a local weekly newspaper covered the sermon under the headline "Local pastor uses scripture to oppose presidential candidates Clinton and Obama." Booth sent the paper's article to both AU and the IRS. Americans United's mission is to preserve the separation of church and state as guaranteed by the constitution to ensure religious freedom for Americans, according to its Web site. According to AU's press release, the group also received an e-mail from the pastor noting that he had used his pulpit for partisan purposes. The email stated; "I am writing you to let you know that I preached a sermon in my church on Sunday, May 18, 2008, that specifically addressed the current candidates for President in the light of the Bible,' Booth wrote. 'As you can see from the attached newspaper article, I specifically made recommendations as to who a Christian should vote for."

In the press release, Rev. Barry W. Lynn, AU executive director, "called Booth's actions a flagrant violation of federal tax law. Churches and other tax-exempt organizations are free to address moral issues but are not allowed to engage in campaign intervention."

In March the Voter Education Committee (VEC), a 527 organization, sought a constitutional challenge to Washington state law which requires any organization found to support or oppose a candidate or ballot issue to register as a political committee and have their finances regulated. VEC considers the definition of "political committee" to be constitutionally vague. And recently last week on June 2, the U.S. Supreme Court denied the hearing of the case. The Supreme Court decision lets stand the Washington State Supreme Court ruling that VEC should have registered as a political committee.