The Mormon Church took an active role in encouraging California voters to support Proposition 8, the ballot initiative that sought to ban same-sex marriages in California. Proposition 8 passed 52 percent to 48 percent. The Mormon Church encouraged members to vote yes on Proposition 8 and helped to fund initiatives in support of Proposition 8.

There is currently an online petition which is attempting to get 5,000 signatures in an effort to convince the Internal Revenue Service's (IRS) Tax Exempt and Government Entities Division to investigate the church's activities surrounding the initiative. Other activists are also asking the IRS to investigate.

In seeking an IRS investigation, activists seem to be relying on the part of the Internal Revenue Code that forbids 501(c)(3) organizations from spending a "substantial part" of its activities on lobbying.

Organizations in California are also alleging that the Mormon Church violated state campaign finance rules. According to the New York Times, "California officials will investigate accusations that the Mormon Church neglected to report a battery of nonmonetary contributions — including phone banks, a Web site and commercials" — on behalf of Proposition 8.

The Times reports that Fred Karger, founder of Californians Against Hate, filed a complaint asserting "that the church's reported contributions — about $5,000, according to state election filings — vastly underestimated its actual efforts in passing Proposition 8."

A month ago the Federal Elections Commission (FEC) failed to pass either draft advisory opinions regarding two proposed radio ads sponsored by the National Right to Life Committee Inc. (NRLC) considering whether or not they contained "express advocacy." Yesterday (Nov. 24) the FEC issued an advisory opinion stating; "The Commission concludes that the NRLC may use its general treasury funds to finance the broadcast of the first advertisement. The Commission could not approve a response by the required four affirmative votes regarding the NRLC;s second advertisement."

This result is somewhat aligned with the draft A advisory opinion which concluded that the first ad does not contain express advocacy while, the second ad does. The two ads were essentaily very similar except one, which the could not be decided on, stated at the end; "Barack Obama: a candidate whose word you can't believe in."

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.

In the Holy Land Foundation (HLF) retrial, a federal jury in Dallas decided that the charity and five men who worked with it were guilty of three dozen counts related to the illegal transfer millions of money to Hamas. They were found guilty of supporting terrorism, money laundering and tax fraud. The verdict came after eight days of deliberations and a 42-day trial.

The defendants argued that the charity engaged in legitimate humanitarian aid for community welfare programs and Palestinian orphans. HLF sent millions of dollars through a series of Palestinian charities known as zakat committees, which were never designated as terrorist organizations. The defendants are likely to appeal the case. According to the New York Times, prosecutor Barry Jonas "told jurors in closing arguments last week that they should not be deceived by the foundation's cover of humanitarian work describing the charities it financed as terrorist recruitment centers that were part of a 'womb to the tomb' cycle."

The government closed the HLF in December 2001 and seized its assets. The first trial ended in a mistrial on most charges in October 2007. Particularly, nonprofits that carry out humanitarian work overseas have been anticipating a verdict and what this may mean for their work.

See the Dallas Morning News for an extensive news archive on the case.

Washington State Regulators are contemplating whether online political activism constitutes lobbying. Unlike journalists, lobbyists are legally required to register with the state, and submit detailed financial reports and the particular issues they are involved with.

According to the Associated Press, the state Public Disclosure Commission (PDC) "was asked by some lobbyists whether calls to action made over the Internet fell under any lobbying regulations, and the agency began probing the topic." Eventually the topic shifted to blogging.

Journalists that regularly give their opinions, such as newspaper editorialists and radio commentators are "exempt from reporting their income and spending under an exemption created to protect the media."

Doug Ellis, the PDC's assistant director, told the Associated Press that he "doesn't expect commissioners to impose financial reporting for bloggers who perform a journalistic function. Since that type of activity was excluded in campaign finance rules, he said, 'I don't see any reason why they would veer from past practice'."

Some groups are concerned that advocacy groups may move their efforts online to avoid campaign finance restrictions if activities that are normally considered lobbying are exempt in the blogosphere.

An editorial in the Washington Times, Lobbyists are good people, too advocates that transparency is the only way to fight against the stigma surrounding lobbyists. As the title suggests, lobbyists are not all corruptive and many may lobby on behalf of nonprofits, for example. "Shocking news in this season of lobbyist bashing - many lobbyists not only are good people but also represent real people." The author proposes transparency.

"Every lobbyist visiting a member of Congress or the executive branch to influence official action (the definition of lobbying) should first be required to sign in on an online, real-time computer (and thus, immediately accessible to all)."

The effect of this 'total transparency' lobbying reform proposal would be a level playing field for all: When a lobbyist asks a legislator or executive branch official to do something, they both know that the public will know everything and, thus, any actions taken will be accountable to the public. With total transparency, lobbyists and the officials they try to influence will have to ask themselves the question 'would I mind if this lobbying meeting is fully reported in all respects in tomorrow's newspaper?'"

The Washington Post reports that according to a survey by a Madrid based nonprofit group that monitors donors' performance, the United States does a poor job at promoting humanitarian aid as independent and neutral. The Development Assistance Research Associates (DARA) Humanitarian Response Index 2008 measures how effectively the world's largest donors deliver aid. The U.S. ranked 15th in overall effectiveness. "DARA's findings reflect what it called the United States' use of humanitarian assistance to achieve military or political goals in eight crisis zones the group studied, including Afghanistan, Colombia and the Palestinian territories."

The U.S. has criticized DARA's index for not appreciating the importance of the military's role in relief work. However, such a presence results in the politicization of aid, and unclear distinctions between the U.S. government and aid organizations.

"The DARA findings echo concerns by aid workers that U.S. strategy subordinates humanitarian considerations to military objectives. During the past decade, the Pentagon's share of the U.S. overseas development-assistance budget has grown from 3.5 percent to 18 percent, said George Rupp, president of the International Rescue Committee."

Following up on previous reports that Maryland state police engaged in surveillance of local peace and anti-death penalty groups during the administration of former Maryland Governor Robert L. Ehrlich (R), the Washington Post now details some new findings. Those who were labeled as terrorist reviewed their records and apparently, "a trooper working for the program had used an alias to join the group's e-mail list."

A review by The Washington Post of those and other files given in recent days to many of the 53 Maryland activists who were wrongly labeled as terrorists in state and federal databases shows an intelligence operation eager to collect information on the protest plans of a broad swath of nonviolent groups from 2005 to at least early 2007. Those groups included not only death penalty and Iraq war protesters who were spied on by undercover troopers in a 2005-06 surveillance operation exposed in July, but also those who opposed abortion, the manufacture of cluster munitions, globalization and the government's expansion of biodefense research at Fort Detrick.

"The individuals are listed under headings for 'terrorism' with such labels as 'anti-war protestors,' 'threats,' 'environmental extremists' and 'anarchists,' although there is no explanation why any of the groups or individuals would be considered terror threats or extremist groups."

A joint effort by civil liberties, human rights and nonprofit sector organizations coordinated by the Constitution Project has published its Liberty and Security Recommendations for the Next Administration and Congress.

It includes specific recommendations for Charities and Foundations. The Introduction states:

At a time when the humanitarian aid and development programs and conflict resolution and human rights training offered by charities and foundations are needed the most, the combined effect of two U.S. laws has made it far more difficult for nonprofits to provide critical international aid and services. Rather than distributing aid on the basis of where the need and potential for positive impact are greatest, current counterterrorism measures have caused some nonprofits to avoid the very global hotspots that would benefit the most from their work. Indeed, in some cases these measures have damaged charities' relationships with the communities they serve, damaging the international goodwill and promise for stability that these relationships had helped to create. These laws are the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA) of 1996, amended by the USA PATRIOT Act, which bars material support for terrorism, and the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), which allows the government to designate U.S. charities as supporters of terrorism based on secret evidence and lacks due process protections. Funds of designated charities are frozen indefinitely.[i]

Specific recommendations include:

• Improve the national security regulation of charities by ending the use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to regulate charities and allowing the Department of State to develop a more effective and appropriate framework.
• Withdraw the Treasury Department's ineffective "Guidelines" and replace with real guidelines that help charities continue to meet critical needs while ensuring their scarce resources are used for legal and charitable purposes:
• Direct the Secretary of State to use his or her authority under 18 USC 2339B(j) to waive the material support prohibition for technical advice and assistance, training and personnel where no violent activity is involved.
• Amend the "material support" statute to include intent and make it consistent with Red Cross standards for humanitarian aid
• Ensure charitable funds frozen by the Treasury Department are ultimately released and used for charitable purposes

The Supreme Court agreed to hear arguments in the Citizens United case at the end of February. The court will review the Jan. decision of a three-judge panel of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia in Citizens United v. FEC. The panel in Jan. rejected Citizens United's motion for a preliminary injunction, and in July, the court granted the Federal Election Commission's (FEC) motion for summary judgment on the merits. The group is challenging the federal "electioneering communications" disclosure requirements in the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA) as applied to its film entitled Hillary: The Movie and its advertisements promoting the film. The law prohibits corporations and nonprofits from airing broadcast ads which refer to a federal candidate 30 days before a primary election; Citizens United is a 501(c)(4).

Using the Wisconsin Right to Life v. FEC Court decision which exempted genuine issue advocacy from the electioneering communications prohibition, the group argues that the ads should be exempt as constitutionally protected for their discussion of issues. The appeal also challenges the disclosure requirement for broadcast ads.

The film was released when Clinton was a candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination. The panel in Jan. said the film was an electioneering communication, "susceptible of no other interpretation than to inform the electorate that Senator Clinton is unfit for office."

After an unprecedented turnout during early voting in Georgia, state GOP leaders are seeking to shorten the early voting period.

According to the Associated Press, "Republican lawmakers are considering proposals for next year's legislative session that would shorten Georgia's early voting season."

State Rep. Austin Scott said he is "considering whether to draft a measure that would shorten Georgia's 45-day advance voting period." More than 2 million people voted during early voting in the recent presidential election. Scott also said that the six week early voting period can expose the system to voter fraud.

There is no evidence that longer early voter periods result in voter fraud.

Georgia Secretary of State Karen Handel, a Republican, acknowledged that voters like having the option to vote early, but also said a "thorough conversation is needed before deciding whether to revive the policy."

Cathy Cox, her predecessor and a Democrat, said that more resources should be devoted to early voting due to its popularity. Lines for early voting were 8 hours long in some polling places.

An article from onPhilanthropy provides information on how certain requirements included in the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act (HLOGA) effect 501(c)(3) groups. The article covers reporting requirements, gift rules, and much more. "Charitable and other section 501(c)(3) organizations are not exempt from federal lobbying laws, so it is vitally important that your organization understands its new obligations."

And this article from Wiley Rein LLP details some issues that are likely to arise soon; "questions under the congressional gift rules about providing tickets to Members or staff to inaugural events and about sponsoring parties in honor of Members or staff coming to or leaving the Congress."

New rules on lobbying have been announced for those working on President-elect Barack Obama's transition team. For example, lobbyists can serve in the transition as long as their activities do not involve areas of policy they have tried to influence in the past year. Federal lobbyists will be prohibited from any lobbying while they are at work on the transition. The rules also prohibit people from lobbying the Obama administration for a year on any matters in which they worked while on the transition team.

And the New York Times details that lobbyists will not be allowed to help "pay the costs of his transition to power or working for it in any area in which they have represented clients in the last year." The transition team is also implementing a gift ban similar to what now exists in Congress.

To read the new rules that detail how lobbyists can participate in the transition, click here.

CNN reports that Chai Feldblum, a Georgetown University professor, "said nonprofit groups are likely to have a stronger voice under the restrictions that Obama's transition staff issued this week. 'I think that lobbyists for a broader range of the American public -- lobbyists for Catholic Charities USA, lobbyists for the Epilepsy Foundation, lobbyists for domestic violence groups -- people trying to bring those positions forward will have an easier time being heard,' Feldblum said."