Blog Posts of Lateefah Williams*

AU Asks IRS to Investigate Oklahoma Group for Electioneering Against Transgender Candidate

 

Last Week, Americans United for Separation of Church and State urged the IRS to investigate an Oklahoma religious organization for violating federal law prohibiting tax-exempt groups from electioneering.

Americans United claims that Reclaiming Oklahoma for Christ, a tax-exempt organization, sent out an e-mail urging those on its email distribution list to support Rep. Sally Kern in her reelection campaign for the Oklahoma House of Representatives.

In an excerpt of the email highlighted in Americans United's press release, Reclaiming Oklahoma for Christ uses homophobic language to tell followers to support Rep. Kern over transgender candidate Brittany Novotny.

Rev. Barry W. Lynn, Executive Director of Americans United, said in a press release that "Reclaiming Oklahoma for Christ can’t be tax exempt and engage in partisan politicking at the same time. If the group wants to help Sally Kern or other candidates get elected, it must first forgo tax-exempt status."

(Lateefah Williams* 07/30/10; 0 comments)

Reid Plans to Bring DISCLOSE Act to Senate Floor before August Recess

 

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid plans to bring the DISCLOSE Act (the Democracy Is Strengthened by Casting Light On Spending in Elections Act) to the Senate floor before the August recess. It was introduced in April by Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-MD) and Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) to mitigate the effects of the January U.S. Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission.

The DISCLOSE Act is meant to increase disclosure requirements for election-related spending and restrict such activity by government contractors and foreign-controlled companies.

According to the National Journal, Reid's plans to bring the Act to the Senate floor is "a sign some observers believe indicates Dems are willing to allow the bill to die at the hands of a GOP filibuster."

National Journal also notes that, up to this point, Reid and other Democrats have not been able to convince a Senate Republican to sponsor the legislation. Democrats were targeting Scott Brown (R-MA), but he recently announced that he will oppose the legislation.

Senate observers and aides told National Journal that Reid promised Van Hollen and Schumer that "he would bring the DISCLOSE Act to the floor."

While aides say that Reid is committed to having the votes to pass the Act, "Senate observers said Reid may fulfill his promise by bringing the bill up for a cloture vote regardless of whether he has the votes or not," according to National Journal. "If Reid doesn't hit the 60 votes required to end debate, he may simply drop the bill and move on to another of his priorities."

On June 24, the House passed the DISCLOSE Act by a close, largely party-line vote of 219-206.

(Lateefah Williams* 07/16/10; 0 comments)

ACLU, Lawyers' Committee Intervene in Georgia Voting Rights Act Challenge

 

On July 6, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), the ACLU of Georgia, and the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law filed a motion to intervene in Georgia v. Holder, the state of Georgia's challenge to the Voting Rights Act. Georgia filed suit against the U.S. Department of Justice because it wants the federal government to allow it to verify each voter's citizenship before allowing an individual to vote.

The Justice Department has declined to approve it under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act over concerns that it unfairly targets minority voters.

Section 5 requires all or part of 16 states, including nine states in their entirety, to seek federal approval before changing election rules or procedures due to past laws and practices that discriminated against and disenfranchised racial minorities.

"The suit says if the federal court declines to approve Georgia's voter verification process, it should declare Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act unconstitutional," according to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution.

The civil rights groups are intervening to protect the rights of minority voters. "The many U.S. citizen minority voters in Georgia who were incorrectly flagged as non-citizens under the state's voter-verification procedures can attest to the fact that discrimination in voting continues and the need for Section 5 remains," said Laughlin McDonald, of the ACLU Voting Rights Project, in a press release.

(Lateefah Williams* 07/07/10; 0 comments)

House Passes DISCLOSE Act!

 

UPDATE: The House passed the DISCLOSE Act (HR 5175) on Thursday by a vote of 219 to 206.

House Democrats initially planned to pass it last week, but House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) had to pull the legislation from the floor and scrap the vote due to backlash and differing opinions over an exemption for the National Rifle Association (NRA). After broad opposition to the exemption for the NRA, changes were made for the exemption to cover more groups.

According to The Hill, "the legislation’s chief sponsor, Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), spent the weekend calling House members to try to salvage it. He also spoke with White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel and Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.), the author of a companion bill in the Senate, said a Democratic aide who described the effort as 'an all-hands-on-deck' attempt to pass the bill."

The aide told The Hill that the hope was that the efforts would result in passing the bill in the House later this week.

The White House confirmed in a released statement earlier this week that it supports the bill, even with the exemptions.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce released an ad on Monday that is designed to prevent the legislation from reaching the House floor. According to The Hill, the ad contains "an image of the First Amendment with the words 'abridging the freedom of speech' crossed out in red ink."

Congressional aides initially told Roll Call that the "Rules Committee [would] take up the measure Wednesday with floor action likely Thursday."

(Lateefah Williams* 06/25/10; 0 comments)

Americans United Files IRS Complaint Against L.A. Church for Electioneering Through Social Media

 

Americans United for the Separation of Church and State filed a complaint with the Internal Revenue Service against Oasis Church in Los Angeles. Americans United alleges that the church encouraged visitors to its website and followers on Twitter to support a specific political candidate.

According to the complaint, one of the messages on the website said, "Our very own Alex Jones-Moreno, Director of Social Justice, is running for reelection. We are asking everyone who attends, serves, gives or is a part of Oasis Church to please cast your vote for Alex Jones-Moreno during the upcoming elections."

On Election Day, the church sent eight messages through Twitter reminding people that it was Election Day and urging them to vote for Jones-Moreno, according to the complaint. The first five messages directly asked people to vote for Jones-Moreno and the seventh message announced Jones-Moreno's victory. After the election, the church sent a final message apparently taking credit for Jones-Moreno’s victory. The message read, "Sorry if it was overkill, but it worked."

"Oasis Church’s appeals might have been innovative, but they still violate the law," said the Rev. Barry W. Lynn, executive director of Americans United, in a press release. "Federal law bars churches and other tax-exempt non-profits from electioneering. The IRS should crack down on these troubling tweets."

(Lateefah Williams* 05/20/10; 0 comments)

AU Asks IRS to Investigate Florida Church for Electioneering Against Gay Mayoral Candidate

 

Americans United for Separation of Church and State asked the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) to investigate a Florida church for improper electioneering. Americans United filed the complaint against Dove World Outreach Center in Gainesville, Florida, as a result of the church posting a sign on its property that read, "No Homo Mayor," in an apparent attempt to deter people from voting for Craig Lowe, an openly gay Gainesville mayoral candidate.

Rev. Barry Lynn, Executive Director of Americans United, said in a press release that the "church freely admits that it intended to intervene in the election in violation of federal tax law. I urge the IRS to act promptly."

Also, while it is not mentioned in Americans United's IRS letter, Wayne Sapp, a pastor at Dove World Outreach Center, is shown in a video (warning: offensive content included) using derogatory language to encourage people to vote against the gay mayoral candidate in a rant that is clearly directed at Lowe. In the video, Sapp said that his church called 100 churches and said they want to rally and protest "against any homosexual running for office" in Gainesville.

Alachua County (Florida) officials visited the church on Wednesday to investigate whether it should lose its state and local tax exemption due to its for-profit business. "The leaders of Dove World Outreach Center also own TS and Company -- a for-profit, limited-liability corporation that sells furniture through eBay -- and both the church and the company operate at a 20-acre site on Northwest 37th Street, according to Alachua County and state records. Dove World's land and two buildings are valued at $1,651,200 but aren't taxed because churches are exempt under state law," according to the Gainesville Sun.

(Lateefah Williams* 03/26/10; 0 comments)

Social Innovation Fund Issues Proposed Notice of Funds Available; Requests Feedback

 

The Social Innovation Fund, a program of the Corporation for Community Service and the Obama administration’s major philanthropic effort, has issued a Proposed Notice of Funds Available (NOFA) and a request for feedback. SIF will award up to $50 dollars in federal funding during Fiscal Year 2010.

America Forward, the coalition of nonprofit organizations that made the policy recommendations that led to the Edward M. Kennedy Serve America Act, which authorized the program, says the SIF is "intended to increase the impact of social entrepreneurs and innovative nonprofit organizations by scaling proven programs and investing in promising new ideas."

According to the NOFA, in "FY 2010, SIF awards will be made to a select number of grantmaking intermediaries (or eligible partnerships) focused on improving measurable outcomes in the following priority areas: increased economic opportunity; preparing America’s youth for success in school, active citizenship, productive work, and healthy and safe lives; [and] promoting healthy lifestyles and reducing the risk factors that can lead to illness."

Any feedback or comments are due on January 15.

(Lateefah Williams* 01/11/10; 0 comments)

FEC Proposes Rules to Comply With EMILY’s List Decision

 

On Dec. 17, the Federal Election Commission (FEC) proposed rules that would limit donations to some nonprofit groups that engage in campaign activity after the Justice Department announced that it would not appeal the EMILY’s List decision.

The FEC decided in late October that it would not appeal the decision, but Solicitor General Elena Kagan still had the option to appeal the case to the Supreme Court. Additionally legal analysts were split on if she also had the option of "seeking en banc review, or whether that was a choice left to the FEC," according to the Supreme Court of the United States Blog. Kagan’s decision not to appeal leaves the verdict intact.

In EMILY’s List, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit struck down the FEC regulations, ruling that they violated EMILY's List's speech rights under the U.S. Constitution.

The rules that were struck down "called for EMILY's List and other similar PACs to use at least 50 percent FEC-regulated hard money for activities linked to federal candidates. Another FEC rule struck by the court provides that contributions solicited on the basis of support or opposition to federal candidates must follow FEC hard money limits," according to BNA.($$)

The current rules will remain in effect until the rulemaking process is complete, but the 2010 edition of the FEC’s code of regulations will note that the rules are "no longer in effect" due to the decision in the EMILY’s List case, according to BNA.

(Lateefah Williams* 12/18/09; 0 comments)

Recent Push for Bipartisan Voter Reform Measures

 

Recent efforts to reform and modernize the voter system have received bipartisan support. The Military and Overseas Voter Empowerment Act, which would allow overseas troops and American citizens to access voter information online, passed Congress last week with bipartisan support from legislators who "decried an antiquated voting system that left as many as one out of four overseas ballots uncounted," according to Roll Call.

In August, the House of Representatives passed a bill that would enable individuals who voted by absentee ballot to track the status of their ballots online. Also, a bill that would expand no-excuse absentee voting has passed in the House Administration Committee.

Another bill currently before Congress would "require all states to offer online voter registration by 2012," according to Roll Call. This would be a major challenge for the vast majority of the country and would require most states to significantly upgrade their procedures. Currently, "only six states offer some form of online voter registration, while half allow voters to verify their registration online. For most states, the voting system is a hodgepodge of snail mail, voter registration drives and polling places," according to Roll Call.

The online voter registration bill would bring the voter registration process in line with the convenience of other aspects of daily living. "Many voters expect to be able to register to vote online as part of their normal routine," Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-CA), the sponsor of the bill, told Roll Call. "They are used to the convenience of online tools in their daily life and registering to vote should be just as easy and accessible as banking and bill paying," Lofgren said.

Brian Fallon, the Senate Rules and Administration Committee spokesman, told Roll Call that Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.), chairman of the committee, is "working on a bill to ‘modernize’ the voting system."

Republicans have some concerns about voter fraud, but agree that the system should be modernized.

(Lateefah Williams* 10/30/09; 3 comments)

Let the Mighty Waters Flow, Money That Is!

 

A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ruled in the EMILY’s List case today, striking down Federal Election Commission (FEC) regulations that limited donations to nonprofit groups that are used for campaign activity. The regulations are intended to limit how nonprofit organizations raise and spend money for political campaigns.

EMILY’s List, an organization that seeks to elect pro-choice democratic women to office, challenged the regulations, which went into effect in 2005, as an unconstitutional violation of their first amendment free speech rights. EMILY’s List is a non-connected political action committee (PAC) that maintains both federal and nonfederal accounts, filed a complaint on January 12, 2005, challenging the Commission’s regulations regarding the treatment of funds received in response to certain solicitations and its amended rules regarding federal/nonfederal fund allocation ratios for PACs.

The regulations required nonprofits to use "hard money" for election and campaign activities. "Hard money" is limited to a $5,000 annual cap per contributor. The regulations enacted by the FEC were intended to limit the amount of money considered "soft money, " which "are unlimited donations by individuals, corporations, political action committees and unions, to nonprofit groups," according to the Washington Post.

Rick Hasen, a law professor at Loyola and the moderator of the Election Law Blog, said that this decision "essentially will allow individuals (and, I predict, eventually corporations and unions) to make unlimited contributions to political committees to fund independent expenditure campaigns."

What does this ruling do for campaign finance reform? Is this just another nail in the coffin of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA)? The Supreme Court is poised to rule on whether two previous rulings were justified in the Citizens United vs. FEC case.

"Even if the court restrains itself in Citizens United, the writing is on the wall: if the court's members remain the same, the corporate limits eventually will fall. After that, the court could strike down contribution limits to PACs and the ban on party soft money," said Hasen.

Hasen further stated, "We are moving toward a deregulated federal campaign finance system, where money flows freely and perhaps only disclosure laws remain. It is a world in which those with more money use their considerable funds to elect candidates of their choice and to have disproportionate influence over public policy. The unlevel playing field awaits."

(Lateefah Williams* 09/18/09; 0 comments)