A mark up hearing was held today (February 27) on a compromise bill introduced this morning, the Global HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria Reauthorization Act of 2008, that will expand upon the law passed in 2003. The United States Leadership Against HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria Act (PL 108-25) prohibits grants to any group that "does not have a policy explicitly opposing prostitution and sex trafficking."

CQ ($$) reports that a "Democratic draft that had been circulating for nearly a month threatened to raise a longstanding social-policy feud, with Bush's global AIDS plan — one of his few overseas initiatives to win broad bipartisan support — hanging in the balance. It pitted Democrats pushing to get rid of the abstinence-only requirements and family planning restrictions against Republicans who say the changes would funnel money to abortionists overseas." The draft bill eliminated the anti-prostitution requirement.

Unfortunately, the compromise HR 5501, that passed out of committee maintains the requirement that groups receiving grant money have a specific policy opposing prostitution and sex trafficking. Such a pledge gives the government the right to dictate the speech and activities it does not fund.

The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) has released two important fact sheets for tax exempt organizations. One is on the IRS complaint process, and the other is on the examination and compliance checks process. The referral form to make a complaint against a tax exempt organization can be found here.

Do you like OMB Watch? Would you like to boost our fragile self-esteem? Then please vote for us in the Golden Dot Awards, presented annually for excellence in online campaigning by the Institute for Politics, Democracy & the Internet at George Washington University.

OMB Watch has been nominated for Best Issue Advocacy Blog. The nomination is for all three of our blogs: Advocacy Blog, Budget Blog, and Reg•Watch.

Vote here: polc.ipdi.org/GoldenDots/voting.htm

(OMB Watch has the utmost respect for the other candidates and has vowed to run a clean campaign.)

An online tutorial has been created on how to engage with congressional level politics, leading a step by step tour through web sites. For example, the tutorial starts with the fundamentals; "Can I Vote?" directs the visitor to their state's Secretary of State's web site, and then if they need to register, another site is also provided. Subsequently the next web sites include biographical information on the candidates and members of Congress, candidate platforms, incumbent voting records, and campaign contributions.

This is a very valuable resource that exemplifies how the Internet can increase civic engagement. The companion article to the tutorial, "Tech Tools for the American Voter and the 2008 Congressional Elections", clearly states the purpose of such a tool; "All Americans have a civic responsibility to vote for the national, state, and local leaders who will make the decisions that affect us, our families, our community, and our nation now and well into the future. To vote responsibly requires that we learn about the candidates." The article points out resources and tools that can be used to make informed decisions on whom to elect to office. One resource mentioned is Fedspending.org launched in 2006 by OMB Watch. "OMBWatch.org believes that it is essential to know how the 'government spends money so that citizens can hold elected officials accountable for the national priorities they set."

Check out the tutorial here.

A blog posting titled "Bird-Dogging and Blogging the Primaries" observes that "until now, it would have seemed implausible that nonprofits and presidential politics would go hand-in hand. Activism is ubiquitous in communities; yet, on the whole the organizations that facilitate and conduct it are ignored by policy makers and politicians." The blog is promoting the new V3 campaign which shows candidates' responses to questions regarding the nonprofit sector created by Robert Egger. The campaign encourages nonprofit advocates around the country to ask candidates for local, state and federal office what their plans are to work with and support the nonprofit community. According to the V3 website; "The V3 Campaign will give you the tools you need to legally engage candidates in your city and state to determine their plans for the nonprofit sector. Learn how the candidates plan to support the causes and strengthen the organizations that are important to you."

The Chronicle of Philanthropy will be hosting an online discussion next Tuesday February 12, at noon, Eastern time on the election and what it means for nonprofits. Experts on philanthropy and politics will be answering questions and if a question is submitted in advance, there is a better chance that it will be answered during the discussion. To submit a question, click here. The discussion is open to everyone, not just subscribers, so go ahead and ask a question!

Last week the California Assembly passed a bill that would require big foundations ($250 million in assets and more) to disclose the race, gender and sexual orientation of their board, staff, and even grantees and business contracts. The bill is now headed to the State Senate. The Chronicle of Philanthropy ($$) outlines what is included in the bill.

• The number of grants and percentage of dollars going to organizations where at least 50 percent of the board, of staff members, are members of ethnic minorities, or are lesbians, gays, bisexuals, or transgender people.
• A breakdown of the number of grants and percentage of dollars that go to organizations that serve different ethnic groups or sexual orientations, as well as the percentage of contracts awarded to businesses owned by members of those groups.

Reportedly, the measure was put forth by the Greenlining Institute, a public-policy organization in Berkeley that says foundations are too secretive about their giving and not enough awards go to organizations led by minorities. Many have come out in opposition, arguing that it would result in burdensome reporting requirements, and violate privacy rights.

For example this LA Times opinion piece claimed that if the Bush administration were to propose such a measure; "The criticism would be swift and unambiguous: This is absurdly intrusive and a violation of privacy. Foundations would organize to oppose any such legislation. . . . Imagine being the employee who has to ask each co-worker about his or her sexual identity and history. Many of these foundations have relatively small staffs; there won't be many secrets if this bill becomes law."

An editorial in the Wall Street Journal reports that the Greenlining Institute has already begun lobbying House Ways and Means Chairman Charlie Rangel (D-NY) for Congressional hearings. Orson Aguilar, associate director of the Greenlining Institute, was quoted in the Chronicle of Philanthropy article to say this "is just the first step in the group's plans to get lawmakers involved. 'We're definitely going to be putting pressure on Congress and the new [president] to look at this,' he said."