An Arizona judge ruled this week that the local Democratic party has the right to review electronic voting databases from the 2006 primary and general elections. The decision in Pima County, Arizona, affirmed that electronic voting records are public documents.

In the Arizona Daily Star's article on the decision, the Democratic Party's attorney Bill Risner asserts that the decision will help protect Americans vote. "You get a cold sweat and think what if our vote was taken from us and then you think what if our vote has been taken from us," Risner said. He continued, "Our political party wants to carry out its role of ensuring our votes' accuracy."

Also see AlterNet's story on the decision.

A joint Campaign Finance Institute-Public Citizen study of over 2,000 individuals raising contributions for the 2008 presidential candidates finds that these donations were dominated by just three sectors: law, finance, and real estate .

Their press release on the findings states, "It is impossible to know how much money each industry has provided because, under the current regime of voluntary disclosure, none of the candidates are releasing precise information about how much each of their fundraisers are generating. Furthermore, John Edwards is the only candidate who is disclosing all of his fundraisers, although he is providing no information about how much each has raised. The campaigns of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, and to a lesser extent, Rudy Giuliani, are disclosing some information about how much their bundlers have raised or promised to raise. The sporadic and incomplete reporting by campaigns of their designated fundraisers points to the need for legislation on this matter.

On the basis of this new study, we conclude with confidence that more than half of the people reported as soliciting contributions for the 2008 presidential candidates' campaign coffers come from only five identified industries — three of which are part of the finance sector. Only an extremely thin slice of Americans are mobilizing their financial and social networks to finance the presidential race.

The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) has announced the release of the redesigned Form 990, the form that public charities and other tax-exempt organizations are required to file annually. The new form will be used for the 2008 tax year starting in 2009 and will be phased in over a three year period for smaller organizations. Many changes have been made since a draft was released after the IRS received more than 650 public comments.

The IRS press release states; "For the 2008 tax year (returns filed in 2009), organizations with gross receipts over $1.0 million or total assets over $2.5 million will be required to file the Form 990. For the 2009 tax year (returns filed in 2010), organizations with gross receipts over $500,000 or total assets over $1.25 million will be required to file the Form 990. The filing thresholds will be set permanently at $200,000 gross receipts and $500,000 total assets beginning with the 2010 tax year. Also, starting with the 2010 tax year, the IRS will increase the filing threshold for organizations required to file Form 990-N (the e-postcard) from $25,000 to $50,000.

In regards to Schedule C on political campaign and lobbying activity, the same concerns OMB Watch discussed in its comments remain.

The 2008 Form 990 and other background materials are available on the IRS Charities and Nonprofits Web site.

The Hill and the Washington Post report that Democrats on the House Special Task Force on Ethics Enforcement support the creation of an independent panel to review ethics complaints and make recommendations to the House ethics committee. The "Office of Congressional Ethics" would consist of six members jointly appointed by the speaker and minority leader who would serve four-year terms and be served by a nonpartisan professional staff. Current lawmakers and lobbyists would not be able to be on the panel. The panel would first conduct preliminary reviews of complaints and then conduct a second phase review of the ones it finds most serious for referral to the House Ethics Committee. The cases referred to the Ethics Committee would have to be considered within 45 calendar or five legislative days followed by a public statement or finding of its verdict.

It appears that the confirmation of one member (Hans von Spakovsky) to the Federal Election Commission (FEC) held up the rest. Four nominees have been serving recess appointments that expire with the end of the congressional session and with those seats vacant, the six-member commission will not be able to operate. The Senate did not confirm them yesterday, and now many are worried about what this means for the enforcement of campaign finance laws in an election year. As Roll Call ($$) described the scenario, leaving the "elections regulator largely toothless." Read this blog from the Campaign Legal Center making a case against von Spakovsky's confirmation.

According to Wired.com, the FBI's software for recording telephone surveillance of suspected spies and terrorists intercepted 27,728,675 "sessions".

"Twenty-seven million is a staggering number given that the FBI only got 2,176 FISA court orders in 2006 from a secret spy court using the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. According to the math that means each court order resulted in 12,742 'sessions,' all in regards to phone, not internet, surveillance."

This does not give comfort considering Attorney General Mukasey's recent public comments. The New York Times reports that during a speech to a panel of the American Bar Association, Mukasey "suggested that lawmakers who opposed legislation before Congress to broaden eavesdropping powers — and to offer legal protection for telephone utilities that cooperate — were undermining the ability to deal with terrorist threats." And in a USA Today opinion piece he fired back at their editorial board arguing for telecommunications immunity.

Considering the short time frame Congress will have in January to fully debate reforms to FISA and considering it will be primary season, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) sought a one month extension of the current Protect America Act. However, CQ ($$) reported that a top Republican Senator and the White House both rejected the proposal. "Faced with such opposition, the proposal appeared to be heading nowhere late Tuesday evening. That means Democrats would have just seven legislative days when they return from the holiday break to enact anything before the temporary law (PL 110-55) expires Feb. 1."

On December 11 federal appeals court ruled in Humanitarian Law Project v. Mukasey, that some portions of the Patriot Act that deal with foreign terrorist organizations are unconstitutional because the language is too vague. Plaintiffs argued that the language of the law is so vague that people could be prosecuted who trained members of foreign groups to peacefully resolve disputes.

The ACLU filed an amicus brief, and issued a press release which in reference to the part of the law being challenged states; "that sweeping provisions of the Patriot Act barring 'expert advice or assistance' or training' to groups considered terrorist organizations by the State Department prevented humanitarian groups from providing aid in war-torn areas, because in those areas it is sometimes impossible to provide aid without working with or through organizations that engage in both lawful and unlawful activity.

A federal judge in Florida granted an injunction on Tuesday to stop enforcement of the state's "no match, no vote" voter registration law. The law requires the name of a registrant be matched with a Social Security number or driver's license number.

The suit was filed by the Florida branch of the NAACP, the Haitian-American Grassroots Coalition, and the Southwest Voter Registration Education Project.

The plaintiffs asserted that more than 14,000 Floridians have been kept off the roles since the law took effect on January 1, 2006. The same matching requirement — which is extremely prone to error — was also stopped in Washington State by a federal judge in 2006.

U.S. District Judge Stephan Mickle ruled that the law "stands in direct conflict with accomplishing the full purposes and objectives of HAVA." HAVA — the Help America Vote Act — was passed by the U.S. Congress in 2002 in the wake of the 2000 election debacle.

To learn more check out…

• Judge's order
• Article by the Brennan Center for Justice "Federal Judge Blocks Florida Registration Law"
• News story in the Miami Herald

Democratic presidential nominee Senator Barack Obama (D-IL) has proposed expanding existing national-service programs like the Peace Corps and AmeriCorps. Obama has also promised increased federal government help for nonprofits. Obama said he would create a Social Investment Fund Network to provide money to encourage innovative nonprofit projects, including for example the funding of specific community-identified priorities, and creating a Social Entrepreneurship Agency. Read his proposal here.

Barack Obama will create a Social Investment Fund Network. This will be a government-supported nonprofit corporation, similar to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, that will use federal seed money to leverage private sector funding to improve local innovation, test the impact of new ideas and expand successful programs to scale. The fund will operate through a network of funds that will be rooted in the private sector at the community level, with local decision-making informed by a shared network of best practices.

During a speech in Iowa, Obama said; "The non-profit sector employs 1 in 12 Americans and 115 nonprofits are launched every day. Yet while the federal government invests $7 billion in research and development for the private sector, there is no similar effort to support non-profit innovation. Meanwhile, there are ideas across America - in our inner cities and small towns; from college graduates to folks making a career change - that could benefit millions of Americans if they're given the chance to grow."

The Senate voted 76-10 yesterday (Dec. 17) to begin debate on a bill (S.2248) to amend the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). However, after it was clear during debate that resolving the issues of the many amendments would be too difficult, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) decided to postpone the vote on the measure until after the winter break in 2008.

Senator Christopher Dodd (D-CT), who promised to lead a filibuster of the bill because it gives telecommunications companies retroactive immunity, made some strong remarks on the Senate floor. "The bill now before us would create a legal regime for surveillance under reworked and more reasonable rules." Dodd went on to say;

We have seen this administration chip away at the rule of law at a dozen points. Its relentlessness may be its greatest strength—the assault becomes numbing, and our healthy outrage grows dull. It was an outrage when this president set up secret courts outside the law. It was an outrage when he ignored the courts and tapped our phones. It was an outrage when he sanctioned torture. But outrage upon outrage upon outrage—and we wind up in a stupor. We've allowed each abuse with nothing more than a promise to resist the next one—and the next one, and the next one.

Meanwhile, President Bush has promised to veto any legislation without telecommunications immunity and if it has greater restrictions on how the surveillance is conducted.

Civil liberties groups are praising this news. However, there is an uncomfortable amount of time between Congress' return and the Protect America Act's (PAA) expiration of Feb. 1. The bill was pulled yesterday to avoid anything being rushed through before the winter recess, but what about this scenario; because of a time crunch a bill is simply rushed through in January or the current PAA is simply extended. We will have to wait to see what happens in January.

As the 2008 election nears, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) will reportedly contact and educate groups about the limits on political activity. As the press calls in a warning about nonprofits' (501(c)(4)'s) involvement in elections, the IRS has responded. According to BNA Money and Politics; ($$)

Lois Lerner, IRS's exempt organizations director, said in a news briefing that the new look at compliance by organizations exempt under tax code Section 501(c)(4) would be in addition to an ongoing program to assure compliance by Section 501(c)(3) charitable organizations. Lerner noted that there are major differences in the rules for the two types of groups. The 501(c)(4) entities, known generally as "social welfare" organizations, are allowed to be involved in political campaigns, as long as it is not their "primary purpose."

The IRS also plans on looking at direct contributions to political candidates, which 501(c)(3) charities are prohibited from doing. To read the 2008 IRS "implementing guidelines" for exempt organizations, click here.

The Federal Election Commission (FEC) is expected to finalize the new rule for funding "electioneering communications" upon approving the explanatory text known as the explanation and justification (E&J). The E&J gives some examples of the types of ads that corporations may or may not sponsor.

There are a few problems with this E&J. As Bob Bauer writes in a blog posting; "What more can be said if, after the explanation, the Commission's course of interpretation is no more predictable than before? Under the rule, an ad may include "indicia of express advocacy" (references to candidates, elections or voting), or it might not: either way, it might be exempt or it might not."

According to BNA Money and Politics, ($$) "The first electioneering-communications report for the current presidential campaign came from the Club for Growth.net, which told the FEC that it received new funding for its television ads targeting Republican presidential candidate Huckabee."

Meanwhile Citizens United has announced that it has filed a lawsuit against the FEC, arguing that issue-oriented television ads are protected by the First Amendment and should not be subject to disclosure requirements. Remember, the disclosure requirements were not addressed in the Wisconsin Right to Life case, and even though one of the FEC's alternatives in the proposed rulemaking removed disclosure, the final rule left the requirements intact. The lawsuit focuses on ads the group plans to air for a film about Senator Hillary Clinton (D-NY).

Senators plan to begin debating permanent revisions to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) next week, but this does not guarantee that anything will be accomplished. The Senate Judiciary Committee did not approve Senator Arlen Specter's (R-PA) bill that would have substituted the government as the defendant in lawsuits against the telecommunications companies. Specter will likely offer the measure as an amendment during floor debate. According to CQ ($$) "Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid planned to file a petition to invoke cloture on a motion to proceed to a bill (S 2248) by Senate Intelligence Chairman John D. Rockefeller IV. Reid said the cloture vote would occur early Dec. 17." Meanwhile the Senate Judiciary Committee reported a different version of S. 2248, without language on telecommunications immunity, which will be offered as an amendment during floor debate. A recent report by the Congressional Research Service compares the House bill and the different Senate proposals.

Fourteen Senators sent a letter urging Reid to accept the Judiciary bill as the base bill. "While the structure of Title I of both bills is the same, and both make improvements over the Protect America Act, the reasonable changes to Title I made in the Judiciary Committee ensure that the FISA Court will be able to conduct much-needed oversight of the implementation of these broad new surveillance authorities, and help to better protect the rights of innocent Americans."

We too hope that the Senate takes on the Judiciary Committee's changes. The ACLU has an action alert here where you can tell your Senators to support the Judiciary approach and oppose immunity. The temporary changes to FISA that passed in August expire in February and given the pressure of this deadline and the rush to leave for the holidays, hopefully nothing will be passed in hast as was done in August.

The Senate Ethics Committee has released new guidelines on Senate travel rules in accordance with the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act. According to BNA Money and Politics ($$);

the Senate allows any charitable organization that is tax-exempt under Section 501(c)(3) of the tax code to offer to pay for fact-finding trips for senators and Senate staff, even if the organization has lobbyists. In the House, only educational institutions can sponsor trips regardless of whether they have lobbyists. For-profit companies and other organizations that hire lobbyists generally are banned from sponsoring long fact-finding trips under both the House's and Senate's new rules. These entities are allowed only to sponsor trips that include single-day, official events, such as a speech or conference, with a possible overnight stay of one or two nights before and after the event.

Both the House and Senate travel rules prohibit privately sponsored travel for recreational purposes, and lobbyists' participation in travel, and both also require pre-approval of privately sponsored travel from their ethics committee.

The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) has already started receiving complaints related to the 2008 election. Americans United for Separation of Church and State (AU) have filed a complaint with the IRS, asking for an investigation into Liberty University Chancellor Jerry Falwell Jr. AU charges that Falwell used school resources to endorse Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee. Falwell hosted the candidate at Liberty University and then sent an e-mail message on Liberty University letterhead endorsing Huckabee. An AU press release states;

In a "Liberty News Alert" dated Dec. 1, 2007, Falwell wrote, "Recently, Governor Mike Huckabee called to brief me on the progress of his campaign for the presidency. I invited the Governor to speak to the Liberty University students in Convocation on November 28. He graciously accepted. I was so impressed with the Governor's sincerity and his positions on the issues that are important to conservative Christians that I personally endorsed Governor Huckabee before he left Lynchburg." . . . The alert was accompanied by an article from a university-run online publication implying that Huckabee is God's candidate.

Leaders of nonprofit organizations are allowed to endorse candidates as private individuals, but are prohibited from using their organization's resources to support or oppose candidates. Additionally, the IRS does not comment on what organizations or people it is investigating.

This week a federal appeals court ruled that tax funding of a Christian rehabilitation program at an Iowa state prison violates the separation of church and state. Americans United for Separation of Church and State (AU) filed a lawsuit in 2003 against the state of Iowa and Prison Fellowship, which operated a pre-release program for inmates called the InnerChange Freedom Initiative. AU charged that the program, in one of the state's prisons, promoted religious indoctrination and violated the constitutional separation of church and state. In June, a federal judge ruled in agreement with AU and ordered the Prison Fellowship to repay the state money it had received under contract. The case was appealed, with the group claiming the funds went towards nonreligious activities. And now the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the lower courts ruling, but reversed the order that Prison Fellowship repay the state money. An AU press release quoted AU Senior Litigation Counsel Alex J. Luchenitser, "This ruling is a major setback for the White House's 'Faith-Based Initiative.' It reaffirms that the government must ensure that public funds are not used for religious instruction, and that the government must not aid programs that discriminate based on religion."

Read the story in the New York Times here.

After Senator Feinstein (D-CA) asked Senator Ensign (R-NV) to withdraw his amendment referencing a letter sent by a diverse group including OMB Watch, Ensign has responded with a resounding no. The Senate Campaign Disparity Act (S. 223) would require Senate candidates to file their campaign finance reports electronically, and its passage remains doubtful. Roll Call ($$) reported; "In a letter Monday to Senate Rules and Administration Chairwoman Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), Ensign rejected her entreaty to drop his insistence on offering a controversial amendment that would require nonprofits that file Senate ethics complaints to disclose their donors." Read this blog entry from the Campaign Legal Center.

When the week began, it seemed the Senate would take up FISA reform, but this has been delayed. As expected Senator Arlen Specter (R-PA) has introduced a bill (S.2402) that would allow the U.S. government to take the place of the telephone companies in lawsuits related to the warrantless surveillance program. The Senate Judiciary Committee was set to mark up Specter's bill this morning (Dec.6). BNA Money and Politics ($$) highlights some of the concerns with this proposal;

"Three daunting hurdles could derail these cases if the administration steps in as the defendant--state secrets, executive privilege, and sovereign immunity," said Caroline Fredrickson, director of the American Civil Liberties Union's Washington legislative office. "Unless something is done to ensure that these defenses cannot be used to shut down these legitimate and crucial lawsuits, substitution is just immunity in sheep's clothing."

Update: Delayed Again
After many lawmakers raised concerns with Specter's bill, the Senate Judiciary Committee postponed their planned vote today. The committee rescheduled consideration of the bill until next Thursday (Dec.13). If Majority Leader Reid decides to bring legislation on FISA to the floor before then, Specter would offer his bill as a floor amendment.

Nonprofit groups created to educate the public and lobby on issues have started inserting themselves into the presidential primaries, adding an unexpected wild card to wide-open elections in both parties. The groups provide a new avenue for routing millions of dollars into an election cycle already awash with spending by traditional political organizations.

This Washington Post article continues by condemning 501(c)(4) organizations that are prevalent in primary campaigns in Iowa and New Hampshire, warning that such activity could increase in the future and that the groups should, "proceed with caution." However, the public is not likely to understand that, with "nonprofit" in the headline, they are talking about 501(c)(4) organizations. Most will infer that nonprofits are becoming too involved in the campaigns and there is something wrong with this. The ramifications of the Washington Post article are uncertain, but confusion can lead to overreaction by regulators and cause use the public to question the work of legitimate nonprofits during an election.

The Post article states; "The nonprofits are competing with the campaigns for voter attention, especially in early-voting states such as Iowa and New Hampshire, and their advertising, phone calls and mailings could help diffuse the candidates' own messages." What about the many nonprofits that are competing for the candidates' attention? One example in the article illustrates why issue groups use campaigns to get attention for an issue. Friends of the Earth Action criticized Sen. Hillary Clinton's inaction on global warming issues. Their ads asked the public to call Clinton and "tell her we've had enough of corporate polluters and billion-dollar giveaways." Now Clinton has proposed two amendments to a bill to address their concerns.

With the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) "on the lookout," 501(c)(4)s will have to be able to show their primary purpose is not to influence the outcome of elections. But there is plenty of constructive work to be done. Countless nonprofit advocacy groups continue to make a beneficial contribution to the election process, such as by helping to conduct voter registration drives and sponsoring candidate debates and forums.

The work of advocacy organizations during an election strengthens a very necessary, diverse dialogue on important issues. An example mentioned here before, is the Primary Project. This blog post from the Alliance for Justice gets it; "It is my strong belief that we as a society benefit from the discourse of a variety of voices in an election year—to which I say to my nonprofit friends, let me hear you now." And this San Francisco Chronicle editorial highlights another great example, the Heartland Presidential Forum organized by the Center for Community Change, Iowa Citizens for Community Improvement, and hundreds of grassroots groups around the country. "The organizations hosting the forum understand this - they are community groups whose bread and butter is the patient one-on-one relationship-building that builds movements, and they see elections as but a moment in a long process of social change. But moments count.

In attempting to pass legislation that would update the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), President Bush is calling on Congress to pass a bill with language providing retroactive immunity to telecommunications companies that helped the government with warrantless surveillance. Bush accused some in Congress of "blocking efforts to provide meaningful liability protection to those companies now facing multi-billion dollar lawsuits only because they are believed to have assisted in efforts to defend our nation following the September the 11th attacks." While major differences remain between Senators, the Senate may take up the legislation this week, and at least two Democrats, Senators Chris Dodd and Russell Feingold, are promising to put up procedural roadblocks.

The most contentious issue during floor debate is bound to be the issue regarding the telecommunications companies. A bill (S. 2248) approved by the Senate Intelligence Committee would provide immunity for surveillance activities, but when the Judiciary Committee considered the same bill, they voted to send a substitute to the floor that did not address the issue.

Feingold will most likely object to giving unanimous consent to allow the Senate to take up the Intelligence bill, forcing a floor vote in order to proceed. Feingold could also offer an amendment that requires the administration to get approval from the secret FISA court before any spying could begin.

BNA Money and Politics ($$) reports that Senator Arlen Specter (R-PA) "has proposed a compromise that would allow the U.S. government to take the place of electronic communication service providers with respect to lawsuits related to the warrantless surveillance program. Specter says that cases challenging the program should be allowed to go forward, even though he questions whether they will succeed." However, if the companies were replaced with the government as the defendants, it is questionable that the government would simply invoke state secrets during the court proceedings.

In the current issue of the International Journal of Not-for-Profit Law (IJNL), "The Shifting Landscape for American Not-for-Profit Organizations," Kay Guinane, Director of Nonprofit Speech Rights for OMB Watch writes an informative synopsis of counterterrorism measures that have affected American charities. Her article, "Counterterrorism Developments Impacting Charities encourages the charitable sector to "develop common-sense alternatives to propose to lawmakers." Considering the issue is focused on American nonprofits, the other articles are of great importance and relevance, such as, "NGOs Respond to USAID's Proposed Anti-Terror Screening", and "Good Governance Practices for 501(c)(3) Organizations: Should the IRS Become Further Involved?".