Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. has helped to launch NoVoterLeftBehind.net, a project of Democrats for America's Future (DAF). The site is designed to monitor voter registration and to monitor the voting process during the November 2008 election. The goal is to bring attention to any irregularities that occur and to urge "every Democratic candidate to pledge not to concede a single race until every last vote is counted."

"This is about more -- far more -- than who wins the next election, as important as that is. If we can't guarantee the citizens of a democracy that their votes will be counted, every other liberty we hold dear is at risk," said Kennedy in a letter he sent to Democrats across the county.

In the Press Release, Barbara Roberts, former Oregon Governor and Secretary of State, said "from the voter registration process to Election Day challenges and beyond -- DAF will fight every last fight to the very end, insisting that every American is guaranteed a democracy's most sacred right: their vote."

Defend Oregon reports that Measure 64 could lead to a loss in funding or severe penalties for Oregon charities. Measure 64 on the ballot in the November general election would prohibit public employees from using voluntary payroll deductions to donate to nonprofits, charities, unions, and other organizations of their choice.

It prohibits money collected with the use of public resources from being used for political purposes, except elections, official voter pamphlets and most lobbying. "Political purpose" is defined as: candidates, political committee or party, initiative or referendum committee, and supporting/opposing candidates or ballot measures (including signature gathering for petitions ).

A new group the American Issues Project (AIP) has been caught in controversy over an ad linking candidate Senator Barack Obama (D-IL) to former domestic terrorist William Ayers. As a 501(c)(4) organization it is allowed to air a political ad as long as the majority of its spending is nonpolitical, it cannot accept money from corporations, and it must identify the donors that finance its ads in reports to the Federal Election Commission (FEC). The ad however, is being considered by some to be a violation of election law.

The ad "Know Enough" has images of Obama and Ayers, with a narrator asking, "Why would Barack Obama be friends with someone who bombed the Capitol and is proud of it? Do you know enough to elect Barack Obama?"

Those who are calling the ad illegal consider it to clearly be express advocacy; the ad concerns an election, takes a position on the character and fitness for office of the candidate, and raises no legislative issue. The Ayers ad mentions Obama's name and uses the word "elect." According to the Supreme Court decision in FEC v. Wisconsin Right to Life, an ad can be regulated and considered express advocacy "only if the ad is susceptible of no reasonable interpretation other than as an appeal to vote for or against a specific candidate."

In response, Obama's general counsel wrote letters to television stations, asserting that the Ayers ad is illegal and false, and that its airing is subject to a FEC penalty. The letter states that Obama never called Ayers "respectable" and "mainstream." In addition a letter was sent to the Department of Justice (DOJ) requesting an investigation into the group's activities for possible violations of campaign finance law.

According to a Politico story, a spokesman for AIP Christian Pinkston said, "This is a sad ploy to circumvent the First Amendment by a campaign who has no arguments with the merits of our ad. It's the classic maneuver: If you can't win on the merits, file a lawsuit."

AIP submitted an independent expenditure report that indicates the group is spending nearly $3 million on television ads attacking Obama.

Press coverage of the Democratic National Convention spotlights the convention parties in light of the new lobbying and ethics law, and it will likely be the same during the Republican convention. Many are quick to criticize and declare that in regards to the conventions, the new ethics rules were a failed attempt to weaken the connection between lawmakers and lobbyists, and were merely superficial changes.

The House Ethics Committee for example decided that events honoring a group of members such as a particular caucus or state delegation were allowable. The new law also has an exemption for events that benefit a charity. So the proceeds of the Poker Players Alliance tournament will benefit Paralyzed Veterans of America.

According to CQ ($$), groups are on the look out for convention parties that violate the new ethics rules. "Lobbyists beware: Watchdog groups are making the rounds to monitor convention-goers' compliance with new ethics rules and call attention to events where corporate sponsors wine and dine members of Congress and their aides."

The Sunlight Foundation has launched its "Party Time" project that will track parties at the Democratic and Republican National Conventions and fund raising activities by all lawmakers. The Sunlight Foundation also released a list of 400 parties and other functions scheduled for the two party conventions.

And Public Citizen has released a report finding that corporate donors and lobbyists have contributed more than $112 million toward the national conventions. "This flood of unlimited soft money from special interests, and the lavish parties and wining and dining it pays for at the conventions, runs counter to the federal election law and congressional ethics rules."

However, an editorial in the Washington Post is a bit more pragmatic; "the new lobbying law has meant a decided change for the better in the nature of convention partying." It would be unrealistic to think that the ethics law that was put in place last year would completely end such activities. "But the new rules have brought with them a new and welcome caution for those on both sides of the partying transaction. The era of big gift bags is over."

The Alliance for Justice has released a new fact sheet, 501(c)(3)s at National Party Conventions.

The National Action Network, along with the National Urban League, the Southern Christian Leadership Council and the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN), will lead a voter protection and voter registration initiative in seven states leading up to the November general election.

The Rev. Al Sharpton, President of the National Action Network, announced the "Not this Time" initiative yesterday at a Denver restaurant. The initiative is entitled "Not this Time" because its purpose is to prevent the voting mishaps that occurred during the 2000 and 2004 presidential elections.

According to the Associated Press, Sharpton said that "the civil rights organization National Action Network and others will begin in Florida, then travel to six other states to register voters and make sure people who think they're registered actually are." The six other states that the organizations will travel to are Georgia, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Tennessee and Alabama.

"We're going to send people into key states in mid-September to go into churches and community centers and have people give us their names to check their registration so that we don't wait until Election Day and find out they're not registered," Sharpton said.

If it weren't for its direct impact on national security, we could all enjoy a hardy guffaw at the $500 million mess that is supposed to tie the nation's intelligence data together. The anti-terror intelligence database, known as Terrorist Identities Datamart Environment (TIDE), is the subject of recent House Science and Technology Committee's Investigations and Oversight Subcommittee report. The report found that "Railhead," the $500 million project that was supposed to tie together the intelligence data of the nation's 16 separate intelligence agencies. Instead:

The Railhead program may actually degrade the ability to provide intelligence data for use in the consolidated terrorist watch list at the FBI's Terrorist Screening Center. It may cripple NCTC's [National Counterterroism Center] ability to share critical intelligence among U.S. government agencies. It will also potentially jeopardize the ability to provide vital search functions by counterterrorism analysts.

[...]

In fact, the new Railhead systems that NCTC hopes will replace the current TIDE~database by early next year may not provide critical search, access, sharing and other vital functions the current system does currently provide.

The issues that have put the system at risk are myriad, but the report describes two that totally dumfound me.

1) The new system's technology is incompatible with what the rest of federal government uses (indeed, with what most of the world's businesses use). Rather than use a technology known as a "database," the contractor hired to build the new system wants to use something not dissimilar from masses of Microsoft Word documents.

2) The system can't perform basic data searches using combinations of text. An analyst can, for instance, search for data containing the word "anthrax," but she wouldn't be able to search for data containing the words "anthrax" or "plague." In other words, this $500 million clunker is already technologically behind most free internet search engines, like Google.

The subcommittee are also incredulous, and wonder, as they directly ask in the report, if the contractor's close personal relationship with the government's project manager has anything to do with this cockamamie approach to fulfilling one of the key recommendations of the 9/11 Commission.

Wall Street Journal: Flaws Found In Watch List For Terrorists

Yes, Hans von Spakovsky has been hired to work with the U.S. Civil Rights Commission. This is interesting considering his record of supporting voting restrictions. He eventually withdrew his nomination to the Federal Election Commission (FEC) because of such strong opposition. According to the Washington Post; "During Senate confirmation hearings to determine whether von Spakovsky would sit on the FEC, former civil service employees at Justice submitted a letter condemning his actions on voting rights. The letter said von Spakovsky acted as a de facto voting section chief from 2003 to 2005, 'furthering partisan interests.' [. . .] Von Spakovsky steered the department to adopt 'voting rights policies not seen before, pushing to curb minor instances of election fraud by imposing sweeping restrictions that would make it harder, not easier, for Democratic-leaning poor and minority voters to cast ballots."

Wal-Mart is being charged with engaging in illegal electioneering by warning its employees against voting for Democratic presidential candidate Senator Barack Obama (D-IL). Watch this YouTube video and witness a complaint being filed with the Federal Election Commission (FEC) against Wal-Mart. According to the Wall Street Journal ($$), "Wal-Mart Stores Inc. is mobilizing its store managers and department supervisors around the country to warn that if Democrats win power in November, they'll likely change federal law to make it easier for workers to unionize companies - including Wal-Mart."

"Wal-Mart may be walking a fine legal line by holding meetings with its store department heads that link politics with a strong antiunion message. Federal election rules permit companies to advocate for specific political candidates to its executives, stockholders and salaried managers, but not to hourly employees."

The Department of Health and Human Services is going forward with a controversial proposal that would require government grantees that provide health care services to certify they do not discriminate against providers who oppose abortion. From the Associated Press:

The proposed rule, which applies to institutions receiving government money, would require as many as 584,000 employers ranging from major hospitals to doctors' offices and nursing homes to certify in writing that they are complying with several federal laws that protect the conscience rights of health care workers. Violations could lead to a loss of government funding and legal action to recoup federal money already paid.

Abortion rights supporters served notice that they intend to challenge the new rule.

"Women's ability to manage their own health care is at risk of being compromised by politics and ideology," Cecile Richards, president of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, said in a statement.

HHS claims the rule is needed "to ensure that Department funds do not support morally coercive or discriminatory practices or policies in violation of federal law."

The administration is trying to hurry the rule through the usual regulatory process. The rule appears to have bypassed the required White House review period during which the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs gets its say on a rule before approving it for public viewing. (This is not to say the White House wasn't involved in the early stages of the rule's drafting.) [Correction: New information shows OIRA did review the rule, but approved it in only a few hours. Read more here.]

The rule will only be opened to public comment for 30 days, further indicating that time is of the essence for Bush administration officials hoping to finalize the rule in the next few months. A typical public comment period lasts 60 days.

Furthermore, the rule is in blatant violation of a White House policy announced in May that told agencies the Bush administration would "resist the historical tendency of administrations to increase regulatory activity in their final months." The policy, which takes the form of a memo to Department heads from White House Chief of Staff Josh Bolten, instructed agencies to propose "no later than June 1, 2008" any regulation the agency wishes to finalize during Bush's tenure. The HHS rule announced today misses that deadline by more than 80 days.

On Friday Aug. 15 the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (ADC) coordinated a day long event with the US Department of Treasury entitled, "Charitable Principles of Good Governance and Anti-Terrorist Financing." The event was held at the Treasury Department intentionally two weeks before the beginning of Ramadan, where issues could be addressed regarding donating to charitable causes.

In opening remarks, Assistant Treasury Secretary for Terrorist Financing Patrick O'Brien said; "The broader exploitation of charities operating in high-risk regions raises serious questions and challenges for the United States, the international community, and charities operating in high-risk areas. Going forward, some key challenges include: adoption of best practices, utilizing alternative relief measures, and improving private sector relief efforts."

O'Brien heavily promoted the use of Treasury's Anti-Terrorist Financing Guidelines: Voluntary Best Practices for U.S.-Based Charities, which groups including OMB Watch, have strongly opposed. An article in BNA Money and Politics ($$) refers back to a July 2007 House Ways and Means Subcommittee on Oversight hearing in which Council on Foundations President Steve Gunderson said that "Treasury has not identified a single case of inadvertent diversion of funds from a legitimate U.S. charity to a terrorist organization."

Meanwhile, Muslim Advocates announced an initiative with the Better Business Bureau Wise Giving Alliance to help American-Muslim charitable organizations strengthen donor confidence in Muslim charities and protect them from any unfair scrutiny. Seven Muslim charities have so far volunteered for a review process designed by the bureau to validate their finances and transparency. According to a Muslim Advocates press release, they will provide a staff attorney and accountant, free assistance, identify information needed for meaningful review by the Better Business Bureau Wise Giving Alliance, and offer expert advice on how to meet the Alliance Standards for Charity Accountability. "Since 2001, Muslim charities have been under intense scrutiny as the federal government has focused extensively on the community's charitable institutions and their donors. Charities increasingly need guidance on how to meet these new challenges but frequently have limited resources or expertise to do so."

The American Civil Liberties Union of North Carolina Legal Foundation (ACLU-NCLF) filed a lawsuit yesterday against the North Carolina Board of Elections due to the Board of Elections policy banning lobbyist from contributing any money to candidates for the state legislative, as well as many other state candidates, during the year in which the individual is a registered lobbyist.

The ACLU-NCLF asserts that the ban violates the first and fourteenth amendments of the U.S. Constitution, which guarantee freedom of association and free speech. According to the ACLU's press release, "[t]his year-round, zero-dollar ban applies without regard to whether the would-be recipient of the contributions is, ever has been, or will be the object" of [the individual's] lobbying efforts."

The ACLU-NCLF's Legal Director, Katy Parker, acknowledges that the State has a legitimate interest in preventing corruption and that "preventing lobbyists from wielding undue influence is a legitimate means of preserving the integrity of the electoral process. However, such restrictions must allow for the fact that everyone in America has the right to free speech and free association, especially when it comes to people expressing their political beliefs. By imposing a year-round, zero-dollar total ban, North Carolina's extreme prohibition goes far beyond what is reasonable or necessary to prevent actual or apparent corruption in government and far beyond the types of limits on lobbyists' contributions that have been upheld by any court in the United States."

A federal judge ruled that requiring groups to pledge their opposition to prostitution in order to participate in the federal government's international HIV/AIDS program continues to violate the First Amendment. This lawsuit challenges the requirement that public health groups receiving U.S. funds under the U.S. Leadership Against HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria Act pledge their opposition to prostitution in order to continue to receive funding.

A Brennan Center press release states; "Under this 'pledge requirement,' recipients of U.S. funds are forced to censor even their privately funded speech regarding the most effective ways to engage high-risk groups in HIV prevention. In May 2006, Judge Victor Marrero of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York ruled that the requirement violates the First Amendment rights of two plaintiff organizations, Alliance for Open Society International and Pathfinder International, by restricting their privately funded speech and forcing them to adopt the government's viewpoint. Today's ruling extends that injunction to the members of InterAction, the largest alliance of U.S.-based humanitarian organizations, and to the U.S.-based members of Global Health Council, a preeminent public health membership group."

The court disagreed with the government's argument that government issued guidelines allow recipients to speak freely with their private funds. The guidelines require organizations to set up legally and physically separate affiliates, which the court ruled were too burdensome. Meanwhile, the Department of Health and Human Services is currently involved in a comment period on a final regulation which is almost identical to the guidelines the court ruled unconstitutional. In May OMB Watch submitted comments opposing these separation requirements.

An updated version of the IRS' Tax Guide for Churches and Religious Organizations is now available. To see Publication 1828, click here.

The Center for Civic Policy, a 501(c)(3) organization in New Mexico, distributed a series of mailers regarding the voting records of some members of the state legislature months before the June 3 primary. After losing the primary election, three lawmakers have sued Aug. 1, asserting that the group committed fraud in the financing of campaigns against them, alleging that the group's efforts crossed the line into political activity. They also want the group to register as a political action committee to fully disclose its funders. Meanwhile, New Mexico Attorney General Gary King asserted that the activities crossed the line into campaigning and requested the Secretary of State require them to register as a political committee.

"There's an old saying that if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, then its probably a duck," say AG King. "And I think we know a duck when we see one."

And reportedly, the Secretary of State now agrees.

The executive director of the Center for Civic Policy Eli Il Yong Lee, stated; "Any effort to restrict this legal activity would muzzle New Mexico nonprofits from doing the very important job of keeping public officials accountable."

Flaws in voter machines nationwide will not be fixed by the November elections. The Election Assistance Commission (EAC) announced that they will not be able to certify necessary upgrades before the general election. States vary in policies concerning whether or not federal certification of voter machines is required.

The certification process slowed down considerably when the Election Assistance Commission began certifying voter machines. Prior to that, it had been performed by the National Association of State Election Directors through a volunteer program they operate. There has been no new equipment certified since the EAC took over the certification process.

There have been numerous problems nationwide as a result of faulty machines. The New York Times highlighted some of these problems in a recent article. Chris Nelson, the secretary of state in South Dakota, told the Times that "[i]n 2006 the ballot-marking devices used by disabled voters incorrectly marked 50 to 100 ballots. The machine maker says it has fixed the problem but the state cannot install the fix without certification." The slowdown in certification is forcing many jurisdictions to forego much needed updates to their voter machines.

Also, there were many problems with the machines before the EAC took over the certification process. Many groups familiar with the process believe that one reason for the slowdown is that the new standards are much stricter, partially as a result of problems with faulty machines that were not detected earlier.

According to the Times, "A draft report out this month by the Government Accountability Office, the Congressional Watchdog, said the current system left states on their own to discover voting machine problems. The report calls for Congress to revise the Help America Vote Act and provide the commission with the authority and resources it needs to resolve problems with machines that were certified before the commission took over the process."

The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) has released the revised instructions for the redesigned Form 990, which must be filed starting with tax year 2008. The IRS released a draft version of the instructions in April and then asked for comments.

An IRS press release states; "These instructions are the final step in a tremendous effort to bring the Form 990 up to date and to reflect the diversity and complexity of the tax-exempt community,' said IRS Commissioner Doug Shulman. 'The revised form will give the IRS and the public a much better view of how exempt organizations operate. The improved transparency provided by these changes will also benefit the tax-exempt community."

The revised instructions are available here.

The Voter Rights Protection Project, which was recently launched by the Campaign Legal Center, provides legal documents to help protect the right to vote. According to the Campaign Legal Center, the Project provides "generic drafts of potential court filings to individuals, organizations, and political parties who must resort to the courts to protect the fundamental rights of citizens to vote." The templates are publicly available, and information about the Project has been sent to the leaders of both major political parties, as well as to the campaigns of the presumptive presidential nominees for both major political parties.

The template will enable individuals, advocacy groups, political parties, and candidates to seek legal recourse for any problems that occur either prior to or during the election.

"When things go wrong on Election Day, as they sometimes do, citizens deserve legal recourse to ensure their voting rights are protected and their votes are counted," said J. Gerald Hebert, Executive Director and Director of Litigation for the Campaign Legal Center.

Interested parties can access the templates on the Campaign Legal Center's website in September. They can also send them via email upon request.

A Sept. 10 hearing is scheduled for the Real Truth About Obama Inc.'s (RTAO) lawsuit. RTAO is requesting that the Federal Election Commission (FEC) is prohibited from enforcing reporting requirements for independent political groups. The rules being challenged could require a group to disclose its finances, limit contributions to $5,000 per contributor and ban corporate and union money if the group is considered by the FEC to be a "political committee."

The RTAO lawsuit references a Department of Justice letter to Democracy 21 President Fred Wertheimer that said DOJ would "vigorously pursue instances where individuals knowingly and intentionally violate clear commands" of the Federal Election Campaign Act.

According to BNA Money and Politics ($$), the FEC is questioning the assignment of U.S. District Judge James Spencer, a federal judge who has ruled against campaign finance regulations in the past. A motion filed by FEC lawyers details that the plaintiffs had intentionally sought Judge Spencer's assignment to the case and suggested that the case be reassigned through a random process.

Specifically, "a case brought by the Virginia Society for Human Life (VSHL) in 2000, in which the judge ruled against an FEC regulation defining 'express advocacy' more broadly than a few 'magic words' referring to elections. [. . .] RTAO cited the VSHL matter as a 'related case,' apparently helping to ensure that. The FEC indicated that VSHL, a case decided seven years ago involving questions that have been subject to subsequent litigation and rulings by the Supreme Court, could not properly be viewed as 'related' to a new case."

BNA Money and Politics ($$) reports on some findings from the new database of lobbyist campaign contributions as required by the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act. "Lobbyists and the organizations they work for have disclosed nearly 100,000 contributions and other payments linked to members of Congress and other top officials under a new reporting system required by last year's lobbying and ethics reform law."

"Only a little more that 2,700 of the reported transactions involved 'honorary' payments, meeting expenses, and contributions to presidential library funds, which were not previously required to be disclosed. One researcher, Craig Holman of the watchdog group Public Citizen, said he has used the new database to calculate a total of $26 million just in direct campaign contributions by individual lobbyists to lawmakers over the first half of this year."

In doing a search on the House site, I found 97,662 disclosed contributions from both individual lobbyists and political action committees controlled by lobbyists or lobbying organizations, to candidates and political committees regulated under the Federal Election Campaign Act.

Attorney Kenneth Gross of the firm Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom said the reports being filed under the new law are "of mild interest but contain no great revelations." Particularly interesting are the reports regarding money contributed by political action committees controlled by lobbyists and lobbying organizations, Gross suggested. Although the contributions themselves were required to be reported before, the link between this PAC money and particular lobbying interests was not necessarily known.

"The confusion over requirements did lead some organizations to report large payments honoring members of Congress, which may have been misleading." The new Senate site is here and the House site is here.

A federal appeals court issued a decision in Preminger v. Peake upholding the Veterans Administration (VA) policy that bans voter registration drives in its facilities. The court decided that the rule does not violate the First Amendment.

Four years ago Santa Clara County Democratic Central Committee tried to conduct voter registration at a VA facility and was stopped due to a rule that prohibits partisan political activity at VA hospital. The committee sued in 2004 charging that the policy violated the First Amendment.

The appeals court agreed that voter registration drives could compromise a facilities' ability to provide health care services to veterans. The court decision stated that "allowing one political party access to the Menlo Park campus would invite requests from other political parties to do the same and that supervising numerous voter registration campaigns would be difficult and time-consuming, diverting resources vital to the residents' treatment."

Meanwhile in Connecticut, according to the New Haven Register "Secretary of the State Susan Bysiewicz and state Attorney General Richard Blumenthal declared a victory for democracy when Roger Johnson, administrator for the two federal veterans' medical centers in Connecticut, agreed to allow Byziewicz to conduct a voter education session and registration inside the West Haven facility Thursday. Johnson, however, said Bysiewicz only would be allowed to register in-patients at the hospital and the handful of veterans who live there."

The New York Times features an op-ed written by Bysiewicz in which she bluntly states that because of the VA's policy, "too many of our most patriotic American citizens — our injured and ill military veterans — may not be able to vote this November."

The department offers two reasons to justify its decision. First, it claims that voter registration drives are disruptive to the care of its patients. This is nonsense. Veterans can fill out a voter registration card in about 90 seconds. Second, the department claims that its employees cannot help patients register to vote because the Hatch Act forbids federal workers from engaging in partisan political activities. But this interpretation of the Hatch Act is erroneous. Registering people to vote is not partisan activity."

"The federal government should be doing everything it can to support our nation's veterans who have served us so courageously. There can be no justification for any barrier that impedes the ability of veterans to participate in democracy's most fundamental act, the vote."

For more information, see this latest Watcher article, Voter Registration Barriers Challenged in New Mexico, at Veterans Affairs.

Grassroots activists are urging ex-offenders with felony convictions to vote. A detailed article highlighting the activists' efforts appeared in today's Washington Post. The Post article focuses mainly on efforts to urge ex-offenders in Florida to vote. Ex-offenders in Florida with felony convictions are now eligible to vote thanks to a law passed in 2006, which allows non-violent ex-offenders with felony convictions to vote if they have completed probation, paid restitution, and do not have any charges pending.

It appears, however, that many ex-offenders are not aware of the law. Reggie Mitchell, the former Florida Legal Director of People for the American Way, has been a leader in the effort to make eligible ex-offenders aware that they can vote and urge them to do so.

The Washington Post reports that "[s]ince the law was changed, the ACLU and People for the American Way have been reaching out to ex-offenders through Web sites that help people figure out whether the state [of Florida] has acted on their cases. Mitchell oversaw the project that helped build the foundation's Restore My Vote site (http://www.restoremyvote.org) ."

Similar efforts have occurred around the country. Every state except for Vermont and Maine limit the voting rights for individuals convicted of a felony. Kentucky and Virginia deny the right to vote to all individuals convicted of a felony. The laws of the other states vary and fall between the two extremes.

Americans United for Separation of Church and State filed a complaint with the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) alleging that Pastor Maury Davis, of Cornerstone Church in Madison, Tennessee, violated federal tax law during an August 3rd sermon when he endorsed three School Board candidates from the pulpit.

Federal tax law prohibits tax-exempt charitable organizations from engaging in partisan politics and campaign intervention. The IRS has said in the past that it is stepping up enforcement of the ban.

According to Americans United, during the August 3rd sermon, Pastor Davis said, "They're all from our church and we want you to get to know them and see what you can do to help them. I want to tell you that I am not allowed to promote a political candidate from the pulpit because of the IRS guidelines…. I'm allowed on a radio station to say I want you to vote for Tony Davis and Robby McGee and Charlie Taylor, but I'm not allowed to say that in our pulpit."

According to Americans United's Press Release, the Rev. Barry W. Lynn, Americans United Executive Director, wrote in his letter to the IRS, "I find the manner in which Davis issued this pulpit endorsement particularly offensive. He appears to be openly mocking the IRS rules. Furthermore, Davis' statement indicates that he is clearly aware that the IRS does not permit tax-exempt houses of worship to engage in partisan politicking. He did so anyway, fully aware that he was violating the law."

Americans United is requesting that the IRS initiate an investigation into Cornerstone Church's conduct.

Homeless citizens encounter hurdles that can make registering to vote a difficult process. They often have problems establishing residency. Adding to these obstacles are new voter identification requirements that are gaining ground across the country. It is often difficult for homeless citizens to maintain identification because they are transient, their belongings are sometimes destroyed, and they are sometimes subjected to police sweeps. Thus, many homeless citizens do not have birth certificates or identification cards.

However, there are ways to overcome some of these challenges. It is not necessary for a U.S. citizen to have a fixed address to vote. A citizen living in a shelter or on the street can also vote. It is necessary, however, to have a valid mailing address. A voter registration or confirmation card is often sent through the mail after the person has registered. If the card is returned to election officials as undeliverable, then the individual might not be registered.

In many areas, organizations, such as shelters, churches and community groups can provide homeless citizens with valid addresses.

An Article by the Pew Center on the States mentions that "Judicial opinions in recent years have upheld the notion that requiring a traditional dwelling can pose a hardship to some voters. Court decisions from a number of states have stated that street corners, parks and other public places can be used to establish local voting precincts."

Some registrars accept the precise location on the street where the homeless citizen is staying, but the registrars need a mailing address to send voter information, including a registration card, to the individual.

In June a federal appeals court struck down Federal Election Commission (FEC) rules dealing with coordination rules between candidates and outside groups. Reportedly, the FEC has not appealed the court decision ordering a rewrite of the rules. According to BNA Money and Politics ($$), "FEC Chairman Donald McGahn indicated at a commission meeting July 28 that the FEC could consider issuing advisory rulings on pressing issues in the run-up to the November election, including questions about permissible pre-election activity that may have been raised by the Shays III ruling. McGahn said that political parties and others may have questions about issues such as whether their plans for get-out-the-vote activities comply with the law."

A recent Watcher article addressed the possibility that FEC coordination rules on grassroots lobbying efforts may become more serious as the result of the June 13 ruling. An FEC complaint was filed seeking an investigation into an ad that featured House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and former Speaker Newt Gingrich. Pelosi was running for re-election in a June 3 primary and the ad aired in her district within 90 days of the primary election, and it was not paid for by Pelosi's campaign. The FEC coordination rules prohibit referencing a candidate within 90 days of a primary and 120 days of a general election. The complaint seeks an investigation into a possible case of illegal corporate contribution to Pelosi's campaign.

On April 28, 2008, the Brennan Center, filed a lawsuit on behalf of the League of Women Voters (LWV) of Florida, the AFL-CIO of Florida, and the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) Council 79, challenging a revised Florida voter registration law that imposes excessive fines on voter registration groups and risks preventing eligible Florida citizens from registering and voting in the 2008 elections. The law does not have any exceptions for innocent mistakes or potential state misconduct.

The law creates a punishing and complicated tiered regime of deadlines and fines: $50 fines for each form turned in more than 10 days after collection; $250 for each form turned in past a registration deadline; and $500 for each lost form. The fines apply to each and every form that is lost or late. The fines are $250, $500 and $1000, respectively, for any group or individual found to have done any of the above willfully. Plaintiffs argue that even with reduced—but significant—fines, the law is so vague that its cumulative effect could be just as risky to non-profit voter registration groups largely operated by volunteers as the earlier version of the law.

The LWV sought a preliminary injunction to prevent the Secretary of State from enforcing the law. They argue that the law continues to be too vague and does not provide sufficient information of its enforcement. "Amended Law has impermissibly 'chilled' their First Amendment rights and will negatively affect general voter registration and, in particular, will affect those who rely on Plaintiffs to participate in the political process most harshly, such as disabled persons and members of low-income communities." Their request for a preliminary injunction was denied on Aug. 6.

The court argues that the revised version of the law should ease the parties' complaints. According to the court, the changes made to the law "substantially reduce the alleged burdens imposed on Plaintiffs' First Amendment rights." The court further argues that the law is in the best interest of the state; "ensuring voters are properly and timely registered, Florida's interests in protecting its voters are equally impaired by unintentional or negligent mishandling of registration applications."

The NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund (LDF) issued a press release today unveiling a new program called "Prepared to Vote," which is designed to protect voter rights.

"Prepared to Vote is a program designed to raise every voter's awareness of the many obstacles in the electoral process that could affect their right to vote in the 2008 election. Through Prepared to Vote we hope to ensure that every eligible voter casts a vote that counts," said John Payton, LDF President and Director-Counsel.

According to the LDF press release, the Prepared to Vote program was "[i]nspired by the Freedom School Model from the Civil Rights Movement … [and] seeks to empower communities of color by providing essential information prior to Election Day. Program components include community-based workshops, the dissemination of user-friendly materials, meetings with election officials, and a dynamic educational website preparedtovote.org."

The Prepared to Vote program is designed to address issues that have served as barriers to voting in past elections. Some of the issues that the program will address are "voter ID requirements, voter purges, faulty voter rolls, poorly trained elections officials, and felon disfranchisement statutes," among other issues.

The program seeks to ensure that voters are not disenfranchised in the upcoming Presidential Election and that "America's democratic processes are administered uniformly and fairly in communities of color." To that end, LDF will deploy field attorneys to 10 states to prevent voter disfranchisement.

The U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral arguments in Canyon Ferry Road Baptist Church v. Unswort, a challenge to Montana's election campaign reporting laws. The Canyon Ferry Road Baptist Church held an event in May 2004, and during which the Rev. B.G. Stumberg urged parishioners to sign petitions at the church in support of a constitutional ban on gay marriages. Advocates filed a complaint arguing that the church inappropriately held an event to support a political cause subject to the state's political contribution reporting requirements. The Montana Commissioner of Political Practices had previously ruled that the church should have reported its activities to get voters to pass a constitutional ban on gay marriage.

Reportedly; "Lawyers for the church filed a lawsuit in federal court, arguing the parishioners' rights to free speech and religious expression under the First and Fourteenth amendments were being trampled by the 'vague' and 'ambiguous' election laws."

The Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007 requires lobbyists and all lobbying organizations to file forms to the Senate and House by July 30 and Jan. 30 reporting contributions to political action committees, federal campaigns, and expenditures for events that honor officials covered by the law. A Wall Street Journal article describes some new understanding into lobbyists' contributions and other activity because of the new lobbying disclosure report, LD-203. "While many candidates decry special interests' influence in Washington, new reports show campaigns received $140 million from lobbyists in the first half of 2008." The public can search the disclosure reports in the House and Senate.

As of July 28, before the filing deadline, CQ Politics reported that "nearly $1.2 million is listed as 'honorary expenses' and another $300,000 as meeting expenses — all of it associated directly with either legislative or political events tied to lawmakers or government officials."

And CongressDaily ($$) details the confusion surrounding the new reporting requirements. "Lawyers advising clients on the LD-203 forms said guidance issued two weeks before the July 30 deadline caused a scramble to understand the changes. And lingering confusion over changes in requirements for reporting contributions by PACs and expenses at social events for lawmakers appears to have led to inconsistencies in those areas." The guidance might be revised before the next reporting deadline in January. Pam Gavin, the Senate's superintendant of documents, said; "In terms of the forms, it's as paint-by-the-numbers as you can get."

A new web site has been set up, Pass223.com, to gain support for the Senate Campaign Disclosure Parity Act (S. 223) with the hopes that it will eventually be approved by the Senate. S.223 would require senators to file their contribution reports electronically.

Currently, presidential candidates and candidates running for the House of Representatives file their campaign contributions in electronic form. Electronic filing speeds the process by which campaign contribution data reaches the public over the Internet, allowing citizens and journalists to more easily spot a conflict of interest or an inappropriate contribution. Filers in the Senate do not file electronically, delaying disclosure by weeks and possibly months.

Senator John Ensign (R-AZ) continues to block the bill by insisting on adding an amendment that would force charities, religious organizations and other nonprofits to disclose their donors when they file ethics complaints against senators. OMB Watch supports S.223 and recognizes that in order for it to pass, Ensign's amendment must be removed.

By going to Pass223.com you can find out instructions on how to call your senators along with a suggested script, and instructions on how to report back on how they stand on the issue.

The Washington Independent recently did a story on how illogical it is that this bill remains stalled. "Voters hoping to learn who's contributing to their lawmakers this election season instead find a gaping hole: Due to antiquated rules requiring senators to file campaign disclosures on paper, the records of upper chamber members take weeks to process. The procedure means that donations made closest to November's elections will go largely unseen until well after the last vote has been cast. [. . .] Meanwhile, observers can continue to scratch their heads over why the upper chamber can't evolve into the 21st Century."