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.

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.

According to an Alternet article, an attorney for the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), "told a federal appeals court Thursday that the VA could not conceive of any circumstance where voter registration drives could occur at its facilities." For the most part the atrocious decision to ban registration drives at VA facilities has largely been absent from major newspapers, but the New York Times has now covered the recent federal appeals court hearing.

An appeals court this week (June 12) considered whether restrictions on voter registration drives at the VA's campus in Menlo Park, CA are unconstitutional. The court is revisiting the question of whether Steve Preminger, chair of the Santa Clara County Democratic Central Committee has standing to question the constitutionality of the VA's policy.

According to the Alternet article, Owen Martikan, assistant U.S. attorney representing the VA said "voter registration drives would interfere with patient medical care and also violate the federal Hatch Act, which limits federal employees from participating in political campaign activities." However, veterans are not federal employees.

In May, the department took the broader step of issuing a ban on all outside groups from registration drives on its properties. Scott Rafferty, a lawyer representing Preminger, said "Just because veterans live on these campuses does not mean they should be deprived of the rights of free association and free speech."

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."

The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) held a phone forum on the role tax exempt organizations can play in the electoral process, addressing issues of political activity, lobbying and issue advocacy. 501(c)(3) organizations can educate voters, register voters, and encourage higher voter turnout, as long as the activity is carried out in an unbiased way. According to BNA Money and Politics ($$), the IRS is concentrating on issue advocacy because it is increasingly finding situations that are not covered under the precedential guidance in Revenue Ruling 2007-41.

Overall, the types of alleged prohibited political activity IRS has seen since it began its political activity program to follow up on referrals of misconduct in 2004 include: organizations distributing diverse materials encouraging people to vote for candidates, religious leaders using the pulpit to endorse or oppose particular candidates, candidates speaking in their roles as candidates at officials functions of exempt organizations, organizations placing signs on their properties showing support for particular candidates, organizations disseminating improper voter guides or candidate ratings, organizations criticizing or supporting candidates on the their Web sites or through links to another Webs site, organizations officially verbally endorsing candidates, and organizations making cash contributions to a candidate's political campaign.

Voting rights advocates are cheering for now in Missouri and in Kansas. Thanks in part to grassroots groups, the legislative session in Missouri ended without completing action on the proposed constitutional amendment that would have allowed election officials to require proof of citizenship from people registering to vote. In Kansas, Governor Kathleen Sebelius vetoed the bill that would have required voters to show photo identification.

Meanwhile, the Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing today (May 20th), titled "Protecting the Constitutional Right to Vote for All Americans".

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 Internal Revenue Service (IRS) will be holding a free phone forum on Rules for Tax-Exempt Organizations During An Election Year. The Forum is scheduled for June 9, 2008, and will be repeated the following day. Space is limited and will be reserved on a first-come basis, and organizations may register as a group. According to the IRS, the forum will discuss the distinctions between political activity, lobbying and general advocacy, and which activities are permissible by 501(c)(3) charities, 501(c)(4) social welfare organizations, 501(c)(5), 501(c)(6), and 527 political organizations. Participants can submit questions, in advance, to be answered during the sessions.

The session on June 9 is scheduled for 10:00-11:00 a.m. (EST) and on June 10 for 1:00-2:00 p.m. (EST). For information on how to participate and to reserve a spot, click here.

BNA Money and Politics ($$) reports that the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) is considering a project to look at 501(c)(4) organizations. During the American Bar Association Section of Taxation conference session on election issues for tax-exempt organizations, Judith Kindell, a tax law specialist in IRS's rulings and agreements section, addressed the issue of 501(c)(4)s. "Immediate contact does not work well for 501(c)(4)s, she said, because the issue for them is 'are they paying the appropriate amount of tax?; do they have an activity that is their primary activity that is in furtherance [of their tax-exempt purposes?] You can't just look at one activity, you have to look at the full scope of their activities, so we do have some plans to do that look-back.' she said." Kindell recommended that lawyers report to the IRS if they witness (c)(4)s that exceed their permitted activity. 501(c)(4) organizations may engage in partisan political activities, as long as it is not their primary purpose.

Greg Colvin of Adler & Colvin, who moderated the panel on election issues, said reporting on political candidate campaign activity includes describing the activities, indicating the amount of money spent, and reporting volunteer hours. Now that the information must be revealed, it could be the basis for IRS determining that some organizations, such as 501(c)(4)s, have violated the prohibition on political activity not being their primary purpose, he said. The reporting will be intense if you are a 501(c)(4), 501(c)(5), or 501(c)(6) and engaged in some political activities, he said. Organizations will have to jump through hoops involving a separate segregated fund or political action committee and the Section 162 nondeductible business tax, to name a few.

According to Rock the Vote, more than six million voters under 30 have cast ballots in the 2008 primaries and caucuses so far. A very conservative estimate is that this more than 2.2 million more than voted in the most recent comparable primaries.

To learn more, check out Rock the Vote's recently updated 2008 Primary Turnout Factsheet.

According to a May 12, 2008 story in the New York Times— Voter ID Battle Shifts to Proof of Citizenship — lawmakers in Missouri are expected to support a constitutional amendment that would enable election officials to require proof of citizenship to register as a voter in the state. Sponsors of the amendment — which requires the approval of voters to go into effect— argue that it is necessary to prevent illegal immigrants from voting.

Jon Greenbaum, a former voting rights official at the Department of Justice and now the director of the voting rights project at the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, a liberal advocacy group, is quoted in the article, saying,

"Everyone has been focusing on voter ID laws generally, but the most pernicious measures and the ones that really promise to prevent the most eligible voters from voting is what we see in Arizona and now in Missouri."

The amendment pending in Missouri follows the recent Supreme Court decision in April in Crawford v. Marion County Election Board, in which the Court ruled that Indiana could require photo-ID of voters at the polls.

Arizona is currently the only state that requires proof of citizenship to register to vote. Since the requirement was implemented in 2004, more than 38,000 voter registration applications have been rejected by Arizona election officials.

For more on the repercussions of the recent Supreme Court voter ID decision, see OMB Watch's blog — Supreme Court Voter ID Consequences.