The New York Times reports that in Al-Haramain Islamic Foundation v. Bush, a federal judge for the Northern District of California ruled that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) preempts the state secrets privilege. Al-Haramain sued the government after receiving a document proving they were subject to warrantless surveillance. The judge "said that the wiretapping law established by Congress was the 'exclusive' means for the president to eavesdrop on Americans, and he rejected the government's claim that the president's constitutional authority as commander in chief trumped that law." But the judge refused to throw out the lawsuit, giving the charity's lawyers 30 days to restructure their claim. The Court found that Al-Haramain had not provided a sufficient showing that they were "aggrieved." The Wired.com's Threat Level Blog has a very detailed posting.

According to the Denver Post, Priests and deacons serving in the Archdiocese of Denver will be prohibited from donating money to political candidates and from making endorsements under an upcoming directive from Archbishop Charles Chaput. The directive states that clerics "may not publicly participate or endorse political campaigns or initiatives, or publicly affiliate themselves with groups whose primary purpose is to do so." This is of interest because it seems that they would not be allowed to donate in the capacity as a private citizen, separate from their occupational role as a priest. While charities, educational institutions and religious organizations cannot make donations to campaigns, individuals can do so in a personal manner, and not on behalf of an organization.

A federal judge has denied a preliminary injunction request by SpeechNow.org. The 527 group filed a lawsuit against the Federal Election Commission (FEC) in February 2008, challenging federal campaign finance laws that prohibit contributions of more than $5,000 per year to political committees as an unconstitutional violation of free speech and association rights. SpeechNow.org contends that it is unconstitutional to require organizations to comply with the contribution limits for political committees as long as the speech is independent of any candidate or party, funded only by individuals, and therefore can not be corrupt. The case will likely will be appealed to the D.C. Circuit.

Bob Bauer at moresoftmoneyhardlaw.com commented that "Judge Robertson's decision against SpeechNow will not in the long run have done this organization much harm, and it may have done it a favor. [. . .] his opinion highlighted that case's difficulties, particularly the ones that the Supreme Court—speaking hear of the majority deciding cases like Davis—may pounce on."

In a very suspicious manner, the decision states; "SpeechNow's carefully constructed test-case embodiment of 'independence' does not shield it from reasonable campaign finance regulation. [. . . ] neither does the First Amendment require Congress to ignore what its members surely know — that an organization may be legally independent under FEC rules while nonetheless functioning as a fully integrated arm of a major political party."

As Bauer describes, "Robertson decides to locate SpeechNow within a controversy in which it has had no part, and in doing so, he tries to lighten his persuasive burden in arguing the constitutional merits of its claim. In effect, he moves the argument from the activity to the actor, and he implies that the actor is somewhat disreputable and its position not properly given much weight.

The ruling comes to the opposite conclusion on this issue as the Fourth Circuit in the recent North Carolina Right to Life v. Leake case.

BNA Money and Politics ($$) reports that forms and instructions for the new lobbying disclosure form, LD-203, have been released. Lobbyists and their organizations, as mandated under the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act, will have to detail the amount of campaign contributions and other payments linked to lawmakers. The new disclosure form will have to be filed twice a year, first filing deadline is July 30, 2008.

The forms that lobbyists and lobbying organizations must fill out have menus calling for reporting of four types of contributions or payments:

• campaign contributions regulated by the Federal Election Commission, including contributions by a political action committee controlled by the lobbyist or organization;
• "honorary" expenses linked to lawmakers;
• expenses for meetings involving lawmakers; and
• donations to presidential libraries.

The form calls for reporting on honorary expenses, which Kenneth Gross of the firm Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom warned in the BNA article that "using the words 'honorary expense,' the form may not make it clear that payment to an event where a member of Congress merely speaks or is recognized but is not honored must be reported."

Information is available from the Senate here or from the House here.

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.

By unanimous consent, the Senate finally approved five members of the Federal Election Commission (FEC). After the new members are sworn in, the agency will be back to full working order, and should be very busy. CQ Politics reports; "After months of squabbling over new members for the Federal Election Commission, the Senate confirmed five new officials Tuesday with little fanfare, putting the long-defunct commission back in working order. . . . Priorities for the group include new disclosure rules for lobbyists who bundle campaign contributions, requests for matching funds, and certifying public funds for the general election, said FEC spokesman Bob Biersack."

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 American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the ACLU of Texas filed a legal challenge in Dallas federal court to clear the names of two organizations, the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) and the North American Islamic Trust (NAIT), named by the government as "unindicted co-conspirators" in its criminal case against the Holy Land Foundation (HLF). Government attorneys publicly identified them as co-conspirators before the HLF trial, even though neither organization was the subject of a criminal investigation or charged with any crimes.

The HLF case ended in a mistrial last fall and is scheduled for a retrial in September. The ACLU press release states that "the government conceded, however, that it had absolutely no evidence proving that either ISNA or NAIT had engaged in a criminal conspiracy. The lead prosecutor in the case told lawyers for the two organizations 'that ISNA and NAIT were not subjects or targets in the HLF prosecution or in any other pending investigation.' The prosecutor also acknowledged that the public labeling was simply a 'legal tactic' intended to allow the government to introduce hearsay evidence against HLF later at trial."

The court papers argue that the groups are mainstream charitable organizations, and the government violated their Fifth Amendment rights when it publicly branded them as criminals.

The National Association of Manufacturers' (NAM) challenge to a new member disclosure law was dismissed on April 11, followed by both the U.S. Court of Appeals and the U.S. Supreme Court refusing to grant a stay pending appeal. Now, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit has scheduled an oral argument for Sept. 12 with a decision expected weeks or months after the argument date.

NAM is appealing the lower court's decision that upheld disclosure provisions in the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act (HLOGA) that require coalitions and associations to reveal organizations that contribute at least $5,000 per quarter and actively participates in the lobbying campaigns. NAM charges that the member and affiliate provision is too vague, violating First Amendment rights of free association. The judge in April found that the provision was in fact narrowly defined.

CQ ($$) reports that a bill to revise the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) will likely be announced today, with a possible House vote tomorrow (June 20). Under the new measure, "a federal district court to decide whether to provide retroactive legal immunity to telecommunications companies being sued for their role in the Bush administration's warrantless surveillance program. Under the prospective deal, the secret court created by the original law would get to review, in advance, the process by which the administration chooses foreign surveillance targets who may be communicating with people in the United States. One source said the federal district court deciding on retroactive immunity would review whether there was 'substantial evidence' the companies had received assurances from the government that the administration's program was legal."

And Reuters; considers this as clearly shielding the phone companies from potentially billions of dollars in lawsuits. "The House would likely approve the measure overwhelmingly. Despite opposition from its top two Democrats, the Senate would then likely give it final approval, clearing the way for President George W. Bush to sign it into law."

Meanwhile, read this New York Times editorial titled "Mr. Bush v. the Bill of Rights."

In the waning months of his tenure, President Bush and his allies are once again trying to scare Congress into expanding the president's powers to spy on Americans without a court order. . . . What is unacceptable, though, is that the district court would be instructed to decide based solely on whether the Bush administration certifies that the companies were told the spying was legal. If the aim is to allow a court hearing on the president's spying, the lawsuits should be allowed to proceed — and the courts should be able to resolve them the way they resolve every other case.

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.