An article in the Chronicle of Philanthropy ($$) discusses how nonprofits are working to develop ways to help president-elect Barack Obama fulfill pledges to expand national service and work with charities to solve social problems. "If Mr. Obama fulfills his campaign promises, he will greatly expand programs like AmeriCorps, which provides money to charities that operate national-service programs; create new service opportunities for young people and older people; establish a Social Entrepreneurship Agency to coordinate federal programs that help innovative charities; and secure new funds to stimulate entrepreneurial social projects."

More than 20 are representatives of nonprofit groups are working on the Obama transition, two of which contributed to a document of public recommendations on ways to promote nonprofit work.

Both Michele Jolin and Shirley Sagawa wrote chapters for the "progressive blueprint" published by the Center for American Progress Action Fund. Jolin wrote a chapter urging the creation of a White House Office of Social Entrepreneurship. And Sagawa recommended legislation to expand the country's national service programs within the first 100 days. "He [Obama] should also issue an executive order creating a Commission on Cross-Sector Solutions to America's Problems, which would propose ways to improve relationships among nonprofit organizations, philanthropy, business, and the federal government with a view to solving critical national problems, she wrote."

For more on nonprofit recommendations to the president-elect, read this article from the latest Watcher.

Last week the the New York Times reported that there are "a growing number of philanthropists whose foundations are spending increasing amounts and raising their voices to influence public policy — a marked shift from their traditional position." The article opens by highlighting the Peter G. Peterson Foundation's efforts to address fiscal responsibility. The foundation financed a documentary examining the United States' addiction to debt titled "I.O.U.S.A."

Take, for example, the efforts by the Rockefeller Brothers Fund to persuade Exxon Mobil, the oil company and descendant of John D. Rockefeller's Standard Oil Trust, to increase its investments in alternative energy. Rather than simply trying to sway corporate executives behind the scenes, the Rockefeller Brothers Fund courted news media coverage, and Rockefeller family members spoke out against Exxon Mobil's leadership, as did the foundation's president, Stephen B. Heintz.

Joel L. Fleishman, author of The Foundation: A Great American Secret, cited three reasons for foundation' interest in influencing public policy: (1) greater ambition to tackle big and seemingly intractable problems, (2) growing frustration over government gridlock caused by partisanship and, (3) an increasing number of foundations that plan to spend down their assets by a specific date, making them eager to make a mark upon the world.

The Atlantic Philanthropies recently published a report, Investing in Change: Why Supporting Advocacy Makes Sense for Foundations, that urges increased foundation support for advocacy.

The Chronicle of Philanthropy has a special page dedicated to Barack Obama's (D-IL) positions on issues of importance to nonprofits, such as education, the arts, international aid, the estate tax, and much more. For example, Obama has "pledged to create a Social Investment Fund Network, which would distribute government and private money to charities working on innovative projects that focus on issues that have been identified by cities as priorities — crime prevention or education, for example — and help expand successful ones to other regions."

And US. News & World Report details that "Obama's win may also provide a windfall to nonprofits." In his speech Tuesday night Obama said, "[Change] can't happen without you, without a new spirit of service, a new spirit of sacrifice."

The Chronicle of Philanthropy ($$) reports that numerous states had measures on the ballot that could have resulted in harmful cuts for charitable organizations that rely on state aid. "While the tax proposals on several state ballots were not aimed specifically at nonprofit organizations, the reductions in state revenue they would have prompted could have harmed charities that receive state and local grants and contracts to run arts, education, social-services, and other programs." An example of one of the failed proposals was in Oregon, which would have allowed residents to deduct federal taxes from their state income-tax returns, reducing the state's budget by about $1 billion.

However, one proposal that we noted before on the ballot in Oregon would prohibit automatic deductions from the paychecks of government employees. "Nonprofit groups generally opposed the effort, fearing that donations to charities from government employees also could be prohibited. The measure passed by a very narrow margin. Oregon voters defeated three similar measures in recent years."

Numerous online resources have popped up lately that allow everyone to participate and protect the election process. Now, you can share your voting experiences with the world. Here are a few online tools;

• VoterStory.org is a web widget to collect voter complaints across the web and feed them to a network of groups standing by to help individual voters and monitor trends.
• Video the Vote is a network of citizens working to document voter suppression and disenfranchisement.
• Twitter Vote Report is a unique way to report on experiences at the polls. Voters can report using Twitter, an online service that lets people send very short messages to one another, such as by sending a text message. Twitter Vote Report aggregates the information and will create maps that show where there are problems.

Now, Go Vote!

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."

RollCall ($$) reports that Senators can now legally post YouTube videos on their Web sites. "Until now, any Senator who embedded a YouTube video or linked to a Flickr album was in violation of outdated rules that required them to keep within the senate.gov domain. Some posted such links anyway, and few were reprimanded."

"The House is still struggling with the issue. Democrats and Republicans agree that the current restrictions are unrealistic; with everyone violating the rules, true enforcement is impossible. The House servers can't keep up with the demand for online multimedia, and Members are forced to find free outside sites that can."

A New York Times editorial puts the situation bluntly; "there is no excuse - except a desire to slow the public's right to know - for their ongoing efforts to block electronic filing of their reports on campaign donations."

The editorial is referencing the stalled Senate bill S.223 to require senators to file their contribution reports electronically. OMB Watch has supported this measure for a long time. Presidential candidates and candidates running for the House of Representatives file their campaign contributions in electronic form, allowing citizens quick access to such information. However, the in the Senate, filers do not have to file electronically. This delays disclosure by weeks and possibly till after the election.

As the New York Times observes; "the Senate is still cynically mired in the dark age of paper filings. Candidates submit required reports on political money and donors via paper sheaves that wend through slow-mo typing, re-typing and mailing, ensuring that full disclosure only occurs sometime after Election Day."

In August Pass223.com was launched to find out which senators are willing to officially support the bill. Visit Pass223.com and call your senators!

The Center for Public and Nonprofit Leadership at the Georgetown Public Policy Institute will hold a series of issue forums on philanthropy. Each forum will examine the intersection of philanthropy and public policy through a specific issue: race, social justice for children, the global fight against HIV/AIDS, and local public education reform. The first one will take place next Friday Oct. 3 titled, Taking Account of Race: A Philanthropic Imperative. Gara LaMarche, the President and CEO of The Atlantic Philanthropies will be the keynote speaker.

For more information on the issue forums and to attend this event, click here.