According to a study conducted by the University of Massachusetts Dartmouth Center for Marketing Research, the nation’s largest nonprofit organizations are using social media more than any other sector. Ninety-three percent of the top US charities now have a Facebook profile, 87% have a Twitter presence, and 65% have a blog. These were among the top findings of the latest study led by Dr. Nora Ganim Barnes, Ph.D., Senior Fellow and Research Chair of the Society for New Communications Research and Chancellor Professor of Marketing at the University of Massachusetts Dartmouth and Eric Mattson, CEO of Financial Insite Inc., a Seattle-based research firm.

The new report is the outcome of a study of the nation’s 200 largest charities in the United States based on a list compiled annually by Forbes magazine. The study examined these institutions to quantify their adoption of social media tools and technologies. This is the third year that Barnes and Mattson have tracked social media adoption by the nonprofit sector, and theirs is the only statistically sound valid longitudinal study of its kind.

In 2007, the first study of this group’s use of social media was released. It revealed that these large nonprofits were leading large and small businesses as well as universities in their familiarity with, usage of, monitoring and attitude toward social media. One year later, in 2008, the second study showed that they led in knowledge, adoption and positive attitude about the importance of social media. This new research shows that these charitable organizations are still outpacing the business world and academia in their use of social media. The latest study (conducted with the 2009 Forbes list) reveals that 97% of charitable organizations are using some form of social media, including blogs, podcasts, message boards, social networking, video blogging, wikis and Twitter.

Another important key finding suggests that:

“The nonprofit sector is connected and prepared to use social media to react quickly, as evidenced by responses to recent disasters. They have truly embraced social media tools in a way no other sector has. It will be exciting to see where the most innovative among them lead us to next,” added Mattson.

A full copy of the new research report can be downloaded at: http://www.umassd.edu/cmr/studiesresearch/. Additionally, Barnes and Mattson will publish a paper based on the findings in an upcoming issue of the Society for New Communications Research’s Journal of New Communications Research and will present the findings at the Society for New Communications Research’s Annual Research Symposium, which will be held November 4-5 at Stanford University.

A new analysis by the Environmental Working Group (EWG) suggests that many Americans are at risk of exposure to a dangerous chemical that has been found in baby bottles, the lining of food and beverage containers, and now paper receipts. Significant levels of bisphenol-A (BPA), a controversial chemical that is not currently regulated by the Food and Drug Administration or the Environmental Protection Agency, was found in 40 percent of paper receipts collected from major retailers, grocery stores, convenience stores, gas stations, fast-food restaurants, post offices and ATMs.

Exposure to BPA has been linked to developmental disorder, cancer, heart diseases, and other health problems. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that nearly all Americans have some level of BPA in their bodies. The recent finding that there are high levels of BPA in receipts from stores that most Americans visit regularly could provide an insight as to why exposure is so widespread. BPA is already known to leach into food and beverage products through packaging, but EWG’s study found that BPA can easily rub off paper receipts onto hands and food. The Washington Post spoke with Sonya Lunder, a senior analyst with EWG:

"We've come across potentially major sources of BPA right here in our daily lives," Lunder said. "When you're carrying around a receipt in your wallet for months while you intend to return something, you could be shedding BPA into your home, into your environment. If you throw a receipt into a bag of food, and it's lying there against an apple, or you shove a receipt into your bag next to a baby pacifier, you could be getting all kinds of exposure and not realize it."

So why is BPA flying under the radar of the agencies that have been entrusted to protect public health? In January, FDA announced the results of a scientific evaluation of BPA and found that there is “reason for some concern about the potential effects of BPA on the brain, behavior, and prostate gland of fetuses, infants and children.” But instead of laying out a regulatory path for protecting consumers from exposure to BPA, FDA merely stated that it “recognizes substantial uncertainties with respect to the overall interpretation of these studies and their potential implications for human health effects of BPA exposure.”

Many consumer advocacy groups found this non-conclusion unsatisfactory, and on June 28, Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) sued FDA in an effort to force the agency to set safety standards for BPA in food. On March 29, EPA announced that it would add BPA to its list of “chemicals of concern,” pledging to look more closely at BPA’s potential health impacts. While both these developments provide some hope that BPA will soon be regulated on a federal level, many state and local governments have taken public safety into their own hands through legislative bans on the chemical.

With a vote of 57-41, the Senate voted against proceeding to debate the DISCLOSE Act, S. 3628. The bill will likely not be addressed again before the August recess.

No one was expecting the Democrats to gain the needed votes, and perhaps, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) brought it up to make a point. As White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said yesterday, "Now we get to see who in the Senate thinks there's too much corporate influence and too much special-interest money that dominate our elections and who doesn't."

The bill was definitely not perfect, but regardless, disclosure rules are certainly needed after Citizens United. As Professor Rick Hasen notes; "Enhanced disclosure is especially needed now that the FEC has voted to allow corporations, labor unions and other entities to make unlimited contributions to independent expenditure committees. We have never had the situation before on the federal level where people, and now presumably corporations and labor unions, could make large - indeed unlimited - contributions to fund independent expenditures."

A New York Times editorial warns; "The starter's gun went off last week in the squalid new race for unlimited campaign cash." For more information on the developments at the Federal Election Commission (FEC), read this article from the latest Watcher.

According to the Washington Post, "Supporters vowed to try again after the August recess, arguing that changes are possible to attract GOP support. But Tuesday's vote effectively quashes any chance of enacting new disclosure requirements for the 2010 elections, which are likely to include hundreds of millions of dollars in expenditures by outside groups and corporations."

OMB Watch Executive Director Gary Bass is expected to testify today at a hearing on federal rulemaking and the regulatory process before the House Judiciary’s Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law. The hearing is scheduled for July 27 at 11:00 a.m. Cass Sunstein, Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) is also expected to testify, as well as Sally Katzen of Podesta Group, Richard Williams of George Mason University’s Regulatory Studies Program and Government Accountability Project, and Curtis Copeland, of the Congressional Research Service.

In prepared testimony (PDF), Bass urges President Obama to reform the regulatory process and establish its vision for the role of regulation.

In a recent article in the Huffington Post, Bass spoke out against the latest attacks by business lobbyists and members of Congress on food safety protections, workplace safety standards, financial reform and coal ash regulation. Bass argues that strong public protections are needed now, more than ever, in light of recent disasters like the BP oil spill and the West Virginia mine explosion that killed 29 workers in April.