Author of Seen but not Heard: Strengthening Nonprofit Advocacy, and Executive Director of OMB Watch, Gary Bass has written an op-ed appearing in the Chronicle of Philanthropy addressing the importance of advocacy in the nonprofit sector. Research detailed in the book presents important findings, for example, while more than eight out of 10 charities surveyed say they have either lobbied or testified before a governmental body, most of them do so infrequently.

Lobbying has increasingly become a dirty word. It is associated with backroom deals negotiated by those with lots of money. It is unseemly, made all the more ugly by the likes of the disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff. Yet Americans have fought wars to defend our constitutional right to lobby. The First Amendment says it is "the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." It is among the most cherished of democratic principles: the right to organize and advocate for policy changes.

Read the op-ed for some vital cause as to why nonprofits should engage in advocacy, "and how it should become the ordinary instead of the extraordinary.

On Nov. 8 in Washington, DC, the Aspen Institute will host a panel discussion on the book, its implications, and its recommendations. The panel will include authors Gary D. Bass and Kay Guinane of OMB Watch and will feature responses from leaders in the nonprofit and philanthropic sector. RSVP to aspenevents@aspeninstitute.org by Friday, Nov. 2. For more information, contact Erin Taber at (202) 736-5855.

The Senate Judiciary Committee is scheduled to consider reforms to the Foreign Intelligence Surveilance Act (FISA) this Wednesday (Oct.31). This follows the Senate Intelligence Committee's passage of S.2248. The committee's report on the bill highlights what occurred during their closed door mark up hearing. The report states that telecommunications companies participating in the surveillance program received regular letters affirming that President Bush authorized the program. During the markup, Senator Bill Nelson (D-FL) offered an amendment to strip the provision granting immunity to telecommunications companies from the bill, but his amendment was rejected 3-12.

Scheduled to testify at the Judiciary hearing's is Assistant Attorney General Kenneth Wainstein of the Department of Justice's national security division. A second panel will hear from Edward Black, president and CEO of the Computer & Communications Industry Association; Patrick Philbin, partner at Kirkland & Ellis and former DOJ deputy assistant attorney general for national security; and Morton Halperin, director of U.S. advocacy at the Open Society Institute. Beforehand, the committee's leaders, Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT) and Senator Arlen Specter (R-PA) will be able to review confidential documents that the White House Counsel's Office previously showed to members from the Senate Intelligence Committee.

For an excellent breakdown of the bills before Congress to amend FISA, read this from the Center for Democracy and Technology.

Act Now! Tell your Senators to reject efforts to grant retroactive immunity to telecom companies that assisted in the administration's illegal wiretapping.

Reportedly, a list of polling places in Pennsylvania will not be publicized because state officials are concerned that terrorists could disrupt elections. This decision was influenced by the terrorist bombings that occurred days before Spain's national elections in 2004. However, information on individual polling places will remain available on the state voter services web site. Many nonprofit organizations that conduct get-out-the-vote efforts will certainly face difficulties because of this.

Furthermore, the attacks in Spain before that country's national elections in 2004 did not target polling places, and the U.S. had a national election in 2004 as well which was plagued by a shortage of machines, disproportionate disenfranchisement of the poor and minorities, and machine irregularities, but there certainly were not any terrorist attacks that year on U.S. soil. And if someone did want to attack a polling location, they could still simply call the state or county elections bureaus.

On October 18, Senators Charles Schumer (D-NY), Arlen Specter (R-PA), Thad Cochran (R-MS), and Tom Harkin (D-IA) introduced SJR 21, a proposed Constitutional amendment that would overturn the 1976 Supreme Court opinion in Buckley v. Valeo. The proposed amendment states, "Congress shall have power to regulate the raising and spending of money, including through setting limits, for campaigns for nomination for election to, or for election to, Federal office."

The Center for Competitive Politics refers to the resolution as the "anti-first amendment resolution," for allowing "further regulation of political speech by imposing restrictions on campaign spending."

Politico reports, "[t]he senators did not offer any plans for a new campaign finance system, but instead voiced their disapproval of the current, increasingly arcane regulatory scheme. . . . All in all, a real long shot."

Don't miss this hilarious video clip of Stephen Colbert doing a spoof of the Federal Election Campaign Act's (FECA) application to his campaign for presidency. He has signed papers to get on the Democratic and Republican primary ballots in South Carolina. Now many are asking whether Colbert risks violating election law with the show promoting the campaign. What would happen to the show as the election nears? Faced with a similar situation earlier this year, NBC decided to stop airing Law & Order reruns featuring Fred Thompson.

Bob Bauer at moresoftmoneyhardlaw.com describes Colbert's candidacy as it relates to campaign finance restrictions.

The split screen he used to make the point is about as good a jab at the inner contradictions and porous boundaries of the law as any found in standard anti-reform critiques. It might end here, or it might go farther. It appears that Colbert will flirt with violating the law, or build a piece or two around the flirtation, but since he has hired Wiley Rein, he seems also prepared to keep to the legal side of the line—mostly. If he just walks the line from time to time—as visible as the line can be—regulators will have little appetite for challenging Colbert.

Colbert's first-line of defense is to establish that his show is a news show, entitled to the protections of the "media exemption." Assuming that he is successful there—as he would be, most likely— then the question is whether his hosting of the show as a candidate presents any special issues, now and perhaps under the electioneering communication prohibition, effective within the 30 day period prior to the South Carolina primary.

The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) has released this new pamphlet, Compliance Guide for 501(c)(3) Public Charities. The packet includes information on activities that may risk a group's exempt status, information on recordkeeping, changes to be reported to the IRS, required public disclosures, and more resources for charities. And also see this brochure for charities.

With a vote of 13-2, the Senate Intelligence Committee passed the bill to revise the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). The measure does have retroactive legal immunity for telephone carriers and would not require the FISA court to issue a warrant for surveillance of a foreign suspect who might have communications with a U.S. resident, but the administration would have to submit its surveillance and minimization procedures to the court for approval. The bill would also sunset after six years.

CQ ($$) reports that the "FISA court would have to approve several aspects of warrantless surveillance of targets reasonably believed to be outside the United States, such as the targeting procedures used, according to Rockefeller and Bond." Senate floor debate of the bill might occur around mid-November.

Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR) offered an amendment that passed to require the government to obtain a warrant when targeting an American overseas for surveillance. Wyden and Senator Russ Feingold (D-WI) were the only Members who voted against the bill.

Reports say that some Members on the Senate Judiciary Committee, which has not yet scheduled a mark up, will give the bill much more resistance. A press release from Feingold stated; "I am deeply disappointed that it included retroactive immunity for anyone alleged to have cooperated with the Administration's illegal warrantless wiretapping program."

Read the story in the Washington Post, New York Times, and The Hill.

The Panel on the Nonprofit Sector, a committee appointed by Independent Sector, has released Principles for Good Governance and Ethical Practice: A Guide for Charities and Foundations. The document outlines 33 practices or principles that charities and foundations can use to evaluate their organization's policies to ensure that they are keeping with the law. A review of more than 50 self-regulation systems took place before this process was complete. The Chronicle of Philanthropy ($$) reports that "some nonprofit officials at the National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy and elsewhere questioned whether self-regulation was the best way to make organizations more accountable, as well as how the principles could be enforced. They suggested that the emphasis should be on shoring up existing legislation and regulations. For more information, click here and to download the guide, click here.

Considering its free speech week, this Washington Post opinion piece (Oct. 17) should be commended. The presidents of NARAL Pro-Choice America and the Christian Coalition of America wrote in support of the fundamental, nonpartisan issue of free speech and the right of citizens to participate in the political process. They reference the events that occurred last month between Verizon wireless and NARAL Pro-Choice America's application for a text-messaging program that enables people to voluntarily sign up to receive updates by texting a five-digit code. "Free speech shouldn't stop when you turn on your computer or pick up your cellphone." Only after vigorous public objection did Verizon change its mind.

This issue is broader than one organization, one company or one topic. The issue is how communications companies can believe they have the authority to block content in the first place. Both of our groups, with other organizations across the political spectrum, are working to raise our members' awareness of the potential for discrimination in communications and of the impact it could have on how we engage in political advocacy in an ever-evolving technological world.

Yesterday House Democratic leaders stopped floor action on HR 3773, the RESTORE Act, postponing a vote after a threatened Republican "motion-to-recommit" that could have destroyed the bill's chances. The motion would have taken the bill off the floor and sent it back to committee for an amendment ensuring the measure would not prohibit any form of surveillance of Osama bin Laden, al Qaeda or any other designated terrorist organization. They plan to put off further action on the bill until next week.

This blog described the events perfectly; "House Republicans ran procedural circles around the majority party, who was forced to remove their FISA reform bill from the House calendar. The House hoped to move in time to send a message to the Senate."

Meanwhile, today the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence is holding a closed hearing to mark up its version of a bill to amend the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). Reportedly, the Senate version has a provision granting legal immunity for telephone carriers. According to the Washington Post; "Senate Democrats successfully pressed for a requirement that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court review the government's procedures for deciding who is to be the subject of warrantless surveillance. They also insisted that the legislation be renewed in six years." With support of the White House, the Senate bill also does not include "basket" warrants, which would allow the FISA court to issue a single order that could include a large number of targets. We will provide more information on what is included in the Senate's bill once it is made public and reported out of committee.

Update:Senator Chris Dodd (D-CT) has placed a hold on the Senate FISA bill.

As a result of more than 650 comments on the proposed changes to the Form 990, reportedly the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) has rewritten parts of the draft and continues to do so. The Chronicle of Philanthropy ($$) reports that the IRS is eliminating several questions, including one that would have required charities to tally the total compensation of their officers, directors, and other key employees, and calculate that total as a percentage of their total expenses. Also being removed is the requirement that nonprofits calculate their fund-raising expenses as a percentage of total contributions and questions comparing operating expenses to an organization's net assets.

OMB Watch submitted comments, saying the "IRS should take the time necessary to produce a useful and truly improved Form 990. We suggest that the IRS provide a new draft of the Form 990 based on comments the agency receives from this proposal. The second draft should allow for public comment before moving to finalize the form."

The Chronicle will host an online discussion of the 990 changes on Wednesday, October 24 to go over what the changes proposed could mean for nonprofit groups, how groups can influence the final version of the form, and how to prepare to meet the new reporting challenges. The discussion is open to everyone, not just subscribers. To find out more information and to submit your questions in advance, click here.

For 90 minutes this morning (Oct.17) the House will debate the RESTORE Act, HR 3773, the surveillance bill meant to fix some of the problems with the Protect America Act (PAA), amending the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). Yesterday the Rules committee decided to go ahead with floor consideration of the bill without allowing lawmakers the chance to try to alter it. The only changes allowed have already occurred, with combining the two slightly different versions approved by the House Judiciary and Intelligence Committees last week. Additionally, an amendment will be included in the rule for floor debate that would allow a court to issue temporary surveillance orders when an application is under appeal. It would also require any administration request for assistance from telecommunications companies to cite the section of law with which it is in compliance.

During the Rules Committee numerous amendments were blocked much like those offered during the mark up hearings last week. One would have offered retroactive legal immunity to companies that participated in the National Security Agency's surveillance program. Unfortunately an amendment that would have required individual warrants for communications where one party is a U.S. citizen was also voted down.

The Bush administration has threatened to veto the bill if it passes in its current form. In a statement issued Oct.16; "The bill does not result in permanent FISA modernization and it contains no retroactive liability provision. H.R. 3773 therefore falls far short of providing the Intelligence Community with the tools it needs to collect foreign intelligence effectively from individuals located outside the United States."

Civil libertarian groups have split. The ACLU has come out in opposition to the RESTORE Act, while other groups though realizing that the bill is not perfect, support the bill for the improvements from current law. The Center for Democracy and Technology and the Center for National Security Studies are urging passage of the bill. Importantly, the RESTORE Act increases some oversight of the program absent in the PAA.

Did you know it is National Freedom of Speech Week? Nonprofits, schools, individuals, and communities nationwide should help celebrate the first amendment all week, and of course all year round.

Medea Benjamin, co-founder of the anti-war group Code Pink, and Ann Wright, a retired Army colonel, have been arrested in the U.S. while protesting the Iraq war which placed their names in an FBI-run database, the National Crime Information Center (NCIC). Canada relies on the database to screen visitors and when the two women visited the country in August, they were told they would have to apply for "criminal rehabilitation" and pay $200 if they wanted to visit again. Neither did, and when Benjamin and Wright walked into Canada at Niagara Falls, they were denied entry because of their anti-war-related arrests. Read the Associated Press article here. "Now, Benjamin and Wright are asking why the names of people arrested during peaceful protests would be included in an FBI-maintained database meant to track fugitives, potential terrorists, missing persons and violent felons." For more information, see the Code Pink website.

Code Pink now has a petition running calling "on the FBI to stop including minor non-violent offenses on a database meant for serious crimes. We call on the Canadian government to reverse its policy and extend a warm welcome to U.S. peacemakers and other social activists who use the time-honored tradition of engaging in civil disobedience as a way to change unjust policies."

Significant amendments were voted on yesterday during both the House Judiciary and Intelligence mark up hearings on HR 3773, the Responsible Electronic Surveillance that is Overseen, Reviewed, and Effective Act of 2007 (RESTORE Act) a bill to amend the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). The passage of these measures ultimately improved the bill.

During the Intelligence Committee hearing, Representative Rush Holt (D-NJ) offered an amendment, which passed, with four provisions. The amendment would:

• reaffirm that FISA is the only basis for conducting domestic surveillance;
• require the administration to "fully inform" Congress on any surveillance programs put into place since the Sept. 11, 2001;
• increase the number of FISA court judges and personnel handling FISA warrants;
• and mandate the FISA court to examine and approve how guidelines are applied for surveillance targeting.

An amendment also passed that would require quarterly court reviews of the "minimization" procedures used to protect the privacy of U.S. citizens unintentionally covered in surveillance. Representative Jan Schakowsky (D-IL) introduced an amendment requiring the FISA court to approve guidelines for making sure that individual warrants are sought when "the significant purpose" of planned surveillance is to target people believed to be in the U.S. Click here to read Holt's statement on yesterday's hearing. And be sure to read this blog posting which with the accurate headline, correctly says, "Thank you, Jerry Nadler."

Similar amendments passed during the Judiciary hearing. These include an amendment offered by Representative Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) to direct federal judges to assess government compliance with the procedures and guidelines of the court orders. Representative Sheila Jackson-Lee (D-TX) introduced an amendment requiring the minimization of surveillance of U.S. citizens when a "significant purpose" of the government's acquisition of information is to obtain the communications of a person reasonably believed to be located in the U.S. Robert Scott (D-VA) offered an amendment that would require the attorney general and director of national intelligence to submit to the appropriate committees of Congress a copy of the application to acquire communications of non-American citizens outside of the U.S.

Also to note are the amendments introduced in both committees that were fortunately voted down, such as an amendment to make the Protect America Act permanent, an amendment to remove all provisions requiring authorization to conduct surveillance of non-U.S. citizens located outside the U.S., and an amendment to provide retroactive legal immunity to communications companies who might have cooperated with administration surveillance efforts.

Staffers are now working on reconciling these amendments, and this base bill is expected to be brought to the House floor for a vote next week.

In August the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Louisiana asked that payments to churches totaling $120,000, approved by the legislature as part of a general appropriations bill were stopped. In response, on Oct. 5, a federal judge in Louisiana issued an order stating that "non-neutral, direct money grants of taxpayer funds to favored houses of worship are clearly unconstitutional." The ACLU argued that the legislative earmarks violated the First Amendment's Establishment Clause. The grants were not subject to oversight or competitive bidding and the appropriations bill offered no justification for them. The judge found that the grants lacked any specified secular purpose, as required by First Amendment protections prohibiting the government from endorsing religion.

Click here to read the court order blocking payments and here to read the judge's decision regarding the ACLU's standing to sue.

Both the House Judiciary and the House Intelligence Committee passed HR 3773, the Responsible Electronic Surveillance that is Overseen, Reviewed, and Effective Act of 2007 (RESTORE Act). The bill is meant to reform the Protect America Act (PAA) which passed hastily in August to amend the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). The bill is expected to be sent to the House floor for a vote next week.

The RESTORE Act would require more judicial and congressional oversight of foreign intelligence surveillance. The director of national intelligence and the attorney general would have to certify that the surveillance targets are not U.S. citizens, permanent residents or businesses incorporated in the U.S., and that a significant purpose of the surveillance is to obtain foreign intelligence information. CQ ($$) reports that the "application to the court also would have to describe the so-called minimization procedures the government employed to lessen the aggregation and retention of sensitive information about U.S. citizens. It would bar the dissemination of non-public information gleaned from Americans that was not necessary to foreign intelligence-gathering or law enforcement." For a comparison between the PAA and the HR 3773, click here.

Many civil liberties organizations are concerned that the RESTORE Act does not have a requirement for individual warrants to monitor the telephone calls or e-mails of U.S. citizens who come into contact with suspected foreign terrorists. Some groups would like this to be amended so individual court orders are required when surveillance targeted at people abroad intrudes on Americans who are communicating with people overseas.

Meanwhile, Representative Rush Holt (D-NJ) a member of the Intelligence Committee also introduced a measure to reform the PAA, HR 3782, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Modernization Act of 2007.

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) supports Holt's bill and is most concerned with the lack of individual warrants in the RESTORE Act. An ACLU statement on the RESTORE Act can be read here.

The New York Times today discusses the issue of whether telecommunications companies should have legal immunity for helping the government with their surveillance, which is not currently in either House bill, but offered as an amendment during mark up and voted down.

Changes to the House bill were occurring rapidly today and more changes could be made before it is brought to the floor. Check back for more information, and read this article from the latest Watcher.

In response to the Protect America Act (PAA) signed into law in August which temporarily reformed the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), Democrats are now working on a new, hopefully more conscious piece of legislation to revise FISA. The House Select Intelligence Committee is scheduled to mark up a bill next Wednesday and according to CQ ($$), Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD) has postponed plans to brief reporters on the bill, originally planned for today (Oct.5). Reportedly the bill would not grant retroactive liability protection to telecommunications firms that cooperated with government surveillance, a top priority for the administration, because the White House has not provided Congress with documents about those activities. House Intelligence Committee Chair Silvestre Reyes (D-TX), "said he favors a requirement that intelligence agencies secure a warrant for monitoring communications involving U.S. citizens in the United States beyond a short emergency period, even if the target of the surveillance is a foreigner located outside the country."

Reyes said the administration should be required to decide within 72 hours whether someone inside the U.S. is involved in a terrorist activity, and if so, the administration must get a warrant to continue monitoring their communications. If they are not, the monitoring activity must stop. However, it is not clear if those provisions will be in the new bill.

Civil liberties advocates are concerned that House Democrats will introduce a bill that hews too closely to the administration's desires. The Congressional Progressive Caucus, which includes 71 House Democrats, issued a statement calling for greater involvement by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court in overseeing government anti-terrorism surveillance, and no "amnesty" for telecommunications companies.

Click here to read the Congressional Progressive Caucus' position on revising FISA.

Roll Call ($$) reports that Senator Barack Obama (D-Ill.) "derailed a plan blessed by Senate leaders to vote on controversial Federal Election Commission White House nominee Hans von Spakovsky, a move giving Democrats time to breathe in the ongoing Senate stalemate on FEC nominees." Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) and Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) agreed to a deal that included having a voice vote on the commission nominees only if no Senators objected to von Spakovsky's nomination. However, Obama and others expressed concern that von Spakovsky's nomination was too controversial and should therefore go through regular proceedings. The latest news is that there still is no agreement regarding an individual vote for von Spakovsky. If he is not confirmed the other three FEC nominees would remain pending, but if von Spakovsky is confirmed, the Senate would then vote on the remaining nominees. The Hill reports that "Von Spakovsky's opponents agreed to the deal because it would allow senators to vote against his appointment while voting in favor of the other nominees."

This comes as organizations continue to pressure Congress to oppose von Spakovsky. Read letters from the Campaign Legal Center, the Brennan Center, and the Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights Under, and Public Citizen. Click here to read the letter from the Campaign Legal Center, Common Cause, Democracy 21, the League of Women Voters, Public Citizen and U.S. PIRG urging that there are separate votes on the nominees.

In July we reported that the Congressional Management Foundation (CMF) is working on a project to attempt to solve a problem facing Members and their staff, excessive amounts of e-mail that often causes their systems to crash. Congressional staffers are frustrated with the amount of email while advocates are upset and worried that the correspondence they send to Members might not be getting any attention. Participants in online action campaigns often rely on organizations to research the issues, track legislation, and write correspondence, making participating quick and easy.

CMF hosted a forum bringing together advocacy groups and congressional offices. The forum will result in a report with recommendations for Congressional offices and advice to advocacy groups and vendors trying to get messages to Congress.

Technical barriers such as logic puzzles, misperceptions that vendors send out spam, confusing user experiences and a lack of universal standards (keep in mind Members' offices basically are 540 small businesses) contribute to the problem, according to Mike Panetta, assistant vice president of public affairs and emerging media for the consultant group Grassroots Enterprise. "It's an arms race," said Panetta, also D.C.'s shadow representative. "And at the end of the day, an arms race really hurts the people."

The United States Supreme Court has declined a request to review the case Velazquez/Dobbins v. Legal Services Corporation which challenged the constitutionality of a federal rule that restricts access to lawyers for low-income people. Under the rule, the only way for a legal aid office to use non-federal dollars on certain work, such as representing clients in class action lawsuits or providing assistance to certain categories of legal immigrants, would be to establish a physically separate facility, with separate staff.

The Brennan Center represents the plaintiffs and issued a press release which states; "Complying with this 'physical separation requirement' is so expensive that virtually none of the 138 LSC grantees around the country — which are already so under-funded that they can only represent a small fraction of eligible clients — have been able to comply. For example, plaintiff South Brooklyn Legal Services would have to turn away 500 more people each year if it set up a separate office."

A federal district court in Brooklyn issued a preliminary injunction against the physical separation requirement in December 2004. After an appeal by the government defendants, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held in December 2006 that the district court had used the wrong legal standard, and lifted the preliminary injunction. It is that decision that the Supreme Court today declined to review. The case now returns to the District Court for the court to apply the new legal standard described by the Court of Appeals.

For background from OMB Watch, click here.