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 that they don't discriminate against providers who don't want to perform abortions. 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.)

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.