Philanthropy News Digest had a "5 Questions For" column with OMB Watch Executive Director Gary Bass. The questions addressed nonprofit advocacy, particularly how philanthropic support of advocacy is changing. During which, Bass commends a new report on the topic from Atlantic Philanthropies.

He states that a question that continues to stir confusion is whether you can still lobby if you receive public-sector funds and questions on nonpartisan voter engagement.

I firmly believe that from his bully pulpit, the new president, whether it is McCain or Obama, should strongly encourage nonprofits to be involved in a broad range of advocacy activities. I also think foundations have a crucial role to play in helping nonprofits express their voice and in creating a positive framework for change in America. You can't sustain the kind of change I'm talking about — big-vision change — with bake sales.

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.

CQ ($$) reports that the Senate will take up a rewrite of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) after returning from the July 4th recess on July 8th. On June 25 the Senate voted 80-15, to limit debate on a motion to proceed to the bill (HR 6304).

Those who oppose the bill argue that the privacy of U.S. citizens would be jeopardized and the administration's warrantless surveillance program would be protected from any determination of illegality. During debate, Senator Chris Dodd (D-CT) said; "we are about to make another great error because of fear, because we fail to understand that balancing legitimate interests of our security and our rights ought not to be compromised. That is what the FISA courts were created to do - to balance rights and fears over legitimate concerns about our security being jeopardized. So I rise once again to voice my strong opposition to the misguided FISA legislation before us, as it will come in the next day or so."

When the bill is considered in July, three amendments will be considered :

• An amendment offered by Senators Dodd, Russ Feingold (D-WI) and Patrick Leahy (D-VT) would strip the bill of its immunity provision.
• An amendment offered by Senator Arlen Specter, (R-PA) would require the lawsuits' dismissal unless a federal district court determines the assistance "was provided in connection with an intelligence activity that violated the Constitution of the United States."
• Senator Jeff Bingaman (D-NM) plans to offer an amendment that would stay all the pending lawsuits until 90 days after Congress receives the inspectors general report on the president's surveillance program required by the legislation.

For a few blogs worth reading on the issue, check out Secrecy News and Wired.com's Threat Level Blog.

Contact your Senators' office and tell them to vote "no" on the FISA bill.

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.

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 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.

The Congressional Management Foundation (CMF) has released a very interesting new study titled, "Communicating with Congress How the Internet Has Changed Citizen Engagement." It reports on the results of survey research with over 10,000 citizens about their correspondence with Congress. A CMF press release highlights that nearly 100 million adult Americans contacted Congress in the last five years. With consequences for citizens, Congress, and advocacy organizations, the study provides a lot of valuable information. For example, the study found that "organizers of grassroots advocacy campaigns, and the groups and causes for whom they work, play the role of trusted educators and facilitators of communications between citizens and Members of Congress. They are part of something bigger than a one-time advocacy campaign, and they should understand and respect their role in the democratic dialogue."

Articles about nonprofit advocacy issues are:

• IRS Drops Investigations of United Church of Christ and First Southern Baptist

• Senate Report on Homegrown Terrorism and the Internet Generates Criticism

• Comments Blast Proposed Affiliation Rule for HIV/AIDS Grantees

President Bush has nominated a new nominee for the Federal Election Commission (FEC), as The Hill describes, "to jump-start negotiations with Senate Democrats." To replace Hans von Spakovsky Bush nominated Matthew Petersen, currently a Republican staffer on the Senate Rules and Administration Committee.

Meanwhile, after the Senate Rules Committee was unable to get a quorum on Wed. May 21 to vote on whether to approve three new FEC commissioners, the Committee successfully did so the following day. Hopefully these nominations will move to the Senate floor for confirmation soon.

After the committee's vote, Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) issued comments in a press release stating; "This vote means the FEC is one step closer to restoring a working quorum. This vote comes not a moment too soon. It is unconscionable that in the middle of a presidential election year, with campaign committees spending millions of dollars, that we don't have our federal election watchdog in place."

Controversial Federal Election Commission (FEC) nominee Hans von Spakovsky withdrew his name from consideration, and now observers are more optimistic that the FEC will soon be up and running. Von Spakovsky's confirmation was problematic due to his positions on voting rights while in the Justice Department. Some Democrats blocked his nomination because of his work to suppress the voting rights of minorities and the elderly, such as by promoting voter ID requirements. Von Spakovsky's recess appointment expired at the end of last year without Senate confirmation. Senate Democrats continued to insist on a separate vote on von Spakovsky while Senate Republican leaders, pushed to have von Spakovsky approved along with the other FEC nominees as a single package.

In his letter of resignation, Spakovsky explains, "[t]his process has been extremely hard on my family and quite frankly, we do not have the financial resources to continue to wait until this matter is resolved."

The Washington Post quoted Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV); "His withdrawal today is a victory for our electoral process. With Mr. von Spakovsky now removed, I anticipate that we will be able to swiftly put a functioning FEC in place."

Millions of Americans, especially in rural and low-income urban areas don't have high speed Internet access. The Communications Workers of America (CWA) is running a public policy and awareness campaign, Speed Matters, advocating for a national high speed network. Last year OMB Watch helped spread the word about the Speed Matters project. Speed Matters used thousands of online speed tests from regular Americans across the country to develop a state-by-state report on Internet connection speed. In preparation for CWA's second annual speed test report this summer, they need as many people as possible to take the speed test. The report will be released around the time of the Democratic and Republican National Conventions to make sure high speed Internet access is on both parties' agendas.

In the 21st century with new Internet capabilities, civic participation is enhanced with advanced high capacity communications networks. With the Internet, Americans can get informed of important issues from their backyard, to across the world, and then act on those of importance to them. Not only do voters rely on the Internet, but the government relies on it to provide information and forms and those without access to such information are, in effect, penalized.

As CWA describes; "The emergence of a new communications system — one based on high speed interactive networks designed for voice, data, and video communications — opens up tremendous opportunities for improving the quality of our economic, civic, and personal lives. A true high speed digital network offers advantages far beyond increased entertainment choices; it will accelerate business development and innovations in telemedicine, interactive distance learning, and e-government."

Please take the speed test now. Or visit www.speedmatters.org for more information. And tell your friends and family about the speed test!

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC)'s authority could soon extend to regulate nonprofits. Senators Daniel Inouye (D-HI) and Byron Dorgan (D-ND) have introduced S.2831, the FTC Reauthorization Act of 2008. A Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee press release states the bill "expands the Commission's authority to regulate non-profits for unfair or deceptive acts or practices. Currently, some non-profits have used their tax-exempt status as a shield to block FTC enforcement action." The FTC proposal would expand the definition of "corporation" to include tax code Section 501(c)(3) and 501(c)(4) organizations.

BNA Money and Politics ($$) reports that Morey Ward, of counsel with Morgan Lewis & Bockius, said during a session on exempt organizations at the American Bar Association Section of Taxation meeting that "Under the current Federal Trade Commission Authorization Act, the definition of 'corporation' is not perfectly clear,' Ward said. 'They have been effective in going after charities in some limited instances but feel that they are hampered, and have been up on the Hill testifying that they really need to get into the areas of fraudulent charities, certainly, but possibly inefficient charities as well."