Yesterday's oral argument before the Supreme Court in Wisconsin Right to Life, suggests that the grassroots lobbying rights of 501(c)(3) organizations may get greater protection in the court's upcoming decision. In the oral arguments the attorney for the Federal Election Commission (FEC), Paul Clement, admitted that 501(c)(3) organizations would have an "inspirational" challenge to the electioneering communications rule because we cannot establish political action committees (PAC). (The FEC's defense to the rule has been that it does not ban broadcasts that mention federal candidates, but only requires them to be paid for with funds raised separately by a PAC.)

The amicus brief from charities clearly had an impact on the Court.

Early in the oral argument Chief Justice John Roberts asked Clement, "Can I understand you to suggest we ought to draw a distinction in as-applied challenges between a 501(c)(3) organization and a corporation?" To which Clement replied, "I think a 501(c)(3) corporation has a much better as-applied challenge if they can bring it. And that's the as-applied challenge that's sort of been discussed in some of the amicus briefs. The problem is Appellee (WRTL) is not in a position to do that, because they are a 501(c)(4) corporation."

OMB Watch will post a summary of the oral argument on our website in the next few days. In the meantime, the complete transcript of the oral argument is here.

The charities' amicus brief was written by attorneys Robert F. Bauer, Karl J. Sandstrom and Ezra W. Reese of the firm Perkins Coie. Charities that signed the brief are:

National organizations:

• Alliance for Healthy Homes
• American Conservative Union Foundation
• Center for Lobbying in the Public Interest
• Independence Institute
• Independent Sector
• NARAL Pro-Choice America Foundation
• National Council of Jewish Women
• National Council of Nonprofit Associations
• National Legal and Policy Center
• National Low Income Housing Coalition
• OMB Watch
• Violence Policy Center

State organizations:

• California Association of Nonprofits
• The Housing Alliance of Pennsylvania
• Nonprofit Coordinating Committee of New York, Inc.
• The North Carolina Center for Nonprofits
• Pennsylvania Association of Nonprofit Organizations

CQ ($$) reports that with any luck, the House lobbying reform bill will be complete by the end of May. "Democrats hope a leadership-endorsed bill will be introduced by the end of this week, but even the chairmen involved in drafting it say they don't yet have a clear idea of what will be in the measure or when it will pass." The article describes the areas of contention that have slowed down drafting the measure, including grassroots lobbying disclosure.

Lobbyists and Democratic aides involved in drafting the bill say the grass-roots provision is likely to end up in the House legislation but may not survive a conference with the Senate, which stripped such regulations out of the bill (S 1) that passed in that chamber Jan. 18.

The Hill reports that many groups are growing weary in the time lapse between the Senate passed ethics and lobbying reform bill and the one yet to be introduced in the House. "Growing nervous over possible further delay, ethics reform groups have stepped up their pressure on the House to introduce its companion piece to the Senate's lobbying reform bill." In response, efforts to uphold Congress' and the public's attention on the issue are crucial to avoid a final bill that is weak. Originally the bill was planned for the end of March, and now hopefully there will be a floor vote within the next few weeks, stretching into May.

CongressDaily ($$) reports that Democratic leaders plan to move quickly on lobbying and disclosure legislation when the House returns from its recess, and a bill is expected to be introduced later in April.

One major flashpoint in the debate is whether to require individuals or groups to disclose attempts to motivate grassroots activity on issues. Opponents of the provision hope to replicate the success they had during the Senate debate, when they succeeded in stripping a provision requiring disclosure of so-called Astroturf lobbying.

Meanwhile, some are opposing legislations that has thus far moved quickly, the Executive Branch Lobby Reform Act, to require senior executive branch officials to keep track of all contacts with lobbyists and other individuals outside the government. As already known, the National Right to Life (NRLC) organization is adamantly opposed. In this afternoon's edition of CongressDaily, the NRLC Legislative Director Douglas Johnson was quoted as saying that the bill would more appropriately be "1984." We already live in a time when surveillance and data mining is unfortunately a reality, and yet some are more concerned that disclosure of lobbying activities is a more intrusive example of a big brother society. This is perplexing because such efforts simply aid the public, providing a transparent system that provides citizens with the valuable information of who is working behind the scenes.

On March 28, 2007, LSC-funded Legal Services for New York City, LSC-funded South Brooklyn Legal Services, and Farmworker Legal Services of New York filed a petition for a writ of certiorari asking the Supreme Court to hear Velazquez/Dobbins v. LSC. The plaintiffs, who are represented by the Brennan Center for Justice, challenge LSC's "physical separation" requirement, 45 CFR 1610.8, which requires LSC-funded legal services programs to establish a physically separate office with separate personnel to spend their non-LSC funds on types of legal representation of which the federal government disapproves. The plaintiffs' challenge initially resulted in the issuance of a preliminary injunction by the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The petition to the Supreme Court comes in response to a U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit opinion in September 2006 that lifted the District Court's injunction and sent the case back to the District Court for further proceedings. The plaintiffs allege that the Circuit's ruling is contrary to Supreme Court rulings in Rust v. Sullivan, United States v. American Library Association, and Legal Services Corporation v. Velazquez. Based on original reporting by Brennan Center staff.

An article in the National Journal ($$) explains the position of OMB Watch in the struggle to get a grassroots lobbying disclosure provision in the House lobby reform bill that has yet to be introduced. An approach that strictly requires grassroots firms to disclose is discriminatory in that only one type of group is targeted. All who equally engage in grassroots lobbying should report, this way the public will benefit by getting the most useful information.

OMB Watch, on the other hand, wants the House bill to cover not just outside firms hired by clients to run grassroots campaigns but all entities that must register under existing lobbying rules and that spend a certain threshold amount on grassroots activities, said Kay Guinane, OMB Watch's director of nonprofit speech rights.