At an American Bar Association teleconference, Judy Kindell, senior technical adviser to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) director of exempt organizations, commented on some important issues for charities. BNA Money and Politics ($$) reported on Kindell's comments. 501(c)(3) organizations are "prohibited from engaging in campaign activity, defined as any activity that favors or opposes candidates for public office. This can include endorsement of candidates, contributions to candidates or to political action committees, public statements for or against particular candidates, and distributing materials prepared by the organization or other organizations that favor or oppose candidates." 501(c)(4), (c)(5), and (c)(6) organizations can get involved in campaign activity as long as it is not their primary activity.

Kindell also commented on the Political Activity Compliance Initiative (PACI) that began in 2004. "IRS has only revoked the tax exemption of five organizations—one of them was not even for political activity—and has made its main goal to educate tax-exempts on the issues. Where necessary, IRS also issues letters telling them there is no change in their tax status but advising them not to engage in prohibited activities again." For more on the PACI program, see our IRS enforcement resource center.

Another important topic touched upon was lobbying and the notion that 501(c)(3) groups are not allowed to lobby, which is not true. "Eric Gorovitz, counsel with Adler & Colvin in San Francisco, focused on the lobbying rules, saying he hoped to dispel a widely held myth that lobbying is somehow inappropriate for charities. [. . .] 'Charities that work on issues where there is a community that is underserved, or where stories have been left out of policy debates, are expressly empowered to participate in those debates,' he said."

A column by Eliza Newlin Carney at National Journal.com ($$) discusses how the Internet and new online techniques effect campaign finance laws.

From ads embedded in video games, to unprecedented online fundraising, to targeted Web messages that track users with secret "cookies," political uses of the Internet have exploded in 2008. But as candidates and citizens alike have pushed boundaries, they have taxed the elasticity of existing election laws and campaign finance rules. Several recent Internet-related controversies have raised a host of policy and legal questions involving privacy, transparency and copyright issues.

Such examples discussed are VoterVoter.com, which the Federal Election Commission (FEC) is set to rule on today (Oct. 23). VoterVoter.com is a service where anyone can pay for others' Internet ads and have them run on radio and TV stations. Another similar service is SaysMe.tv.

"Lawyers for both groups say that an FEC draft response awaiting final approval proposes rules that would squelch the free speech of citizens who are enjoying a political platform for the first time thanks to new technologies. [. . .] Previous FEC regulations have exempted political activity on the Internet from most campaign finance rules."

The Washington Post reports that the Justice Department Office of Legal Counsel issued a legal opinion allowing the Justice Department to distribute a $1.5 million grant to World Vision, a Christian aid group that makes religious belief a condition of employment. More so, the legal opinion sheds light on the office that interprets laws across the government. "Much of the work of the office remains secret. But legal experts predict that more rulings will be made public in the waning days of the Bush administration, as officials try to lock in policies they favor before a successor takes the stage."

In the legal memo, the administration says it can avoid laws that prohibit giving taxpayer money to religious groups that hire only staff members who share their faith. The New York Times reported that "statutes for some grant programs do not impose antidiscrimination conditions on their financing, and the administration had previously allowed such programs to give taxpayer money to groups that hire only people of a particular religion. But the memorandum goes further, drawing a sweeping conclusion that even federal programs subject to antidiscrimination laws can give money to groups that discriminate."

The memo stated that the anti-discriminatory language can be avoided because of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. "It sometimes permits exceptions to a federal law if obeying it would impose a 'substantial burden' on people's ability to freely exercise their religion. The opinion concluded that requiring World Vision to hire non-Christians as a condition of the grant would create such a burden." However groups are allowed to hire by faith when using private funds.

The Alliance for Justice has released a new fact sheet for 501(c)(3) organizations on how to interact with political campaigns and parties. To read Permissible Nonpartisan 501(c)(3) and Partisan Campaign Contact on Voter Engagement/Protection Efforts, click here. The fact sheet is focused on voter protection issues, and when 501(c)(3) voter-protection groups can talk with political candidates or parties.

The State Department and U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) told six African governments to stop giving contraceptives donated by the United States to the Marie Stopes International family planning organization for distribution to their populations. According to the Associated Press, this was done because of the charity's work in China.

"The move affects Ghana, Malawi, Sierra Leone, Tanzania, Uganda and Zimbabwe and follows a determination by USAID that the organization is a major player in a U.N. program in China that the administration says promotes coerced abortion and sterilization. [. . .] Marie Stopes International, one of the world's largest family planning organizations, complained bitterly about the step, which it said was 'purely political' and 'dangerous' because it could result in more abortions, maternal deaths and health problems for poor African women and girls."