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.”

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".

"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."

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.”

Majority Leader Frist said today it is unlikely the Senate will take up the legislation when Congress returns in September. "Unless it comes up by unanimous consent, which we don't have yet, it is unlikely we'll be able to address it in the four weeks" that the Senate is in session in September, Frist said. Congressional leaders intend to be in session only the four weeks in September before adjourning for the elections, although a lame-duck session is expected beginning in November. The Senate Banking Committee approved its GSE bill more than a year ago, but it has been stalled on the calendar. The GSE bill would likely reduce Fannie and Freddie's holdings of mortgages and mortgage-backed securities, which represent a major source of their profits. Democrats oppose the measure, contending that it could disrupt the mortgage market and spark volatility through the housing sector.

[Sen. Hagel] said the Senate should act on Shelby’s bill (S 190) to overhaul regulation of Fannie and Freddie. That measure was approved by the panel along party lines last summer and has been stalled since.

Panel members seemed more optimistic Wednesday that some kind of a compromise could be reached on that bill in time for Senate passage in September.

Posted by Jennifer Lowe, 02:19:17 PM



Decision By Fannie, Freddie, May Spur Legislation
CQ is reporting that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac's plans to limit its investment portfolio could mean that S. 190, a bill overhauling regulation of that company and Fannie Mae this year.

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