Nonprofit Issues - Advocacy Blog

Advocacy Blog:

Advocacy Blog

Monday, December 20, 2004

Restricting Private Funds for Legal Aid Programs Unconstitut
A press release from the Brennan Center for Justice summarizes a federal court ruling holding a 1996 rule applying Legal Services Corp. restrictions to other funds unconstitutional. The judge's opinion is online- Click here

Posted by Kay Guinane, 04:39:56 PM

NPR Discusses Independent Political Groups
NPR recently discussed the impact of independent political groups on its show, Morning Edition. Click here to go to NPR's page to listen.

Posted by Jennifer Lowe, 09:35:30 AM

New Ohio Bill Moderates Electioneering
A new Ohio bill, sure to be signed by Gov. Bob Taft, would force groups that have anonymously financed "issue ads" that resemble political ads to disclose who's financing their efforts and would ban use of corporate and labor cash for such ads within 30 days of an election.

It will also increase the amount that would quadruple the amount individuals may give to candidates from $2,500 to $10,000 for each primary and general election and caps the amount candidates may accept from county parties at $250,000.

For the full article, check out the Toledo Blade.

Posted by Jennifer Lowe, 09:20:10 AM

Wednesday, December 15, 2004

Blog Mention
The nonprofit blog was mentioned recently in The Center for Regulatory Effectiveness' WatchDog Watch blog.

Click here to read the entry.

In the entry, WatchDog Watch accused OMB Watch of not blogging on conservative nonprofit issues, yet calling itself nonpartisan.

I welcome Winston's e-mails on exactly what comprises a conservative nonprofit issue, since any issue that effects 501(c)(3)s ends up touching all of nonprofits.

For example, I posted a blog entry on the IRS audit of the NAACP. Frankly, many nonprofits, both progressive and conservative, are concerned about the audit, given the number of nonprofits who engaged in issue advocacy this election year. Asking the IRS to make a clear statement as to their definition of issue advocacy is hardly partisan.

The Nonprofit Advocacy Project is a department of OMB Watch that serves as a watchdog regarding the rights of nonprofits to engage in free speech.

Nonprofit advocacy is essential to the democratic process. Charities, foundations and other groups should not be discouraged from speaking out on issues. These groups are invaluable resources that play a unique role in policy debates. Nonprofits have unique experience and information that must be taken into account in public decision-making. The sector is devoted exclusively to the public interest, providing citizens with a collective voice. The federal government, including the administration and Congress, should encourage wide nonprofit participation and open debate on issues.

Posted by Jennifer Lowe, 12:14:29 PM

Tuesday, December 14, 2004

Tax code and Nonprofits
FYI - There is a great article in the Wall Street Journal that cuts right to the heart of the question of issue advoacy and nonprofits during election time. "The IRS could eliminate much of the confusion by adopting the same standard the Supreme Court did in Buckley v. Valeo and not consider anything other than "communications that expressly advocate the election or defeat of a clearly identified candidate." It has resisted doing that out of a belief that the language would allow too much election-influencing activity among nonprofits. The IRS claims that it has "clear and concrete" criteria for determining who gets investigated. If so, maybe the agency could share them with the public." Wall Street Journal 12/14/04

Posted by Jennifer Lowe, 05:42:09 PM

Wednesday, December 01, 2004

AD REFUSAL DEEMED VIOLATION
A federal appeals court has ruled that the city's mass transit agency (MBTA) violated the First Amendment by refusing to put up a nonprofit's ads because they encourage the use of marijauna. The MBTA should have known that they can't deny ad space on the basis on content.

In 2003, the same nonprofit, Change the Climate, sued the government over the placement of ads in terminals of Washington, D.C.'s Metro system. Judge Paul L. Friedman of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia ruled that the government’s attempt to censor the ads was illegitimate and constitutionally impermissible. He issued a permanent injunction against Istook’s appropriations rider, saying that, “there is a clear public interest in preventing the chilling of speech on the basis of viewpoint.” The injunction prohibits the enforcement of the law.

As a result, Change the Climate and other groups can again display their ads — criticizing drug policies — on the subways and at bus stop shelters.

Click here to read the whole story...

Posted by Jennifer Lowe, 02:44:29 PM

Latest Entries by Theme

All Themes

Faith-Based Initiative

Elections and Issue Advocacy

Church Electioneering

Nonprofit Accountability

Charitable Giving

Speech and Lobbying Rights

Grants Streamlining

Charities and Security

General

Nonprofit Voter Mobilization