On Friday, the Federal Election Commission announced that, “due to the Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United v. FEC, it will no longer enforce statutory and regulatory provisions prohibiting corporations and labor unions from making either independent expenditures or electioneering communications.” While Citizens United did not directly address labor unions, we presumed the FEC ultimately would not treat unions differently from corporations, and FEC’s announcement Friday confirms our assumptions.
In its announcement, the FEC also described various steps it is taking to conform with the decision, including various rulemakings.
Read the FEC’s full announcement at:
http://www.fec.gov/press/press2010/20100205CitizensUnited.shtml.
Tuesday, February 09, 2010
Friday, February 05, 2010
Weekly Wrap-Up 2/1 - 2/5/2010
Check out AFJ's weekly Advocacy Digest e-newsletter for the latest news, policy updates and training opportunities.
- Click here to view our latest update.
- Click here to sign up to receive our Advocacy Digest newsletter right to your inbox by joining our Nonprofit Advocacy Network!
The lessons apply everywhere….
Join Alliance for Justice, Association of Small Foundations, and many more at Partners in Philanthropy: Katrina @ 5.
Although you can’t prevent a disaster in your community—whether an earthquake or mudslide or unprecedented unemployment, you can change what happens before, during, and after.
Five years following the Gulf Coast disasters, gather in the region with hundreds of fellow funders to explore what has worked, what hasn’t, and the lessons for donors everywhere working to respond, rebuild, and transform their communities.
When? March 22-24, 2010
Where? New Orleans, Louisiana
Why? Because the lessons apply everywhere
We hope to see you there.
Although you can’t prevent a disaster in your community—whether an earthquake or mudslide or unprecedented unemployment, you can change what happens before, during, and after.
Five years following the Gulf Coast disasters, gather in the region with hundreds of fellow funders to explore what has worked, what hasn’t, and the lessons for donors everywhere working to respond, rebuild, and transform their communities.
When? March 22-24, 2010
Where? New Orleans, Louisiana
Why? Because the lessons apply everywhere
We hope to see you there.
Wednesday, February 03, 2010
Tuesday, February 02, 2010
GOP Senators Perfect the Art of the Stall
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0210/32342.html
The breathless reporting of the State of the Union “confrontation” between President Barack Obama and the conservative members of the Supreme Court in the wake of the Citizens United v. FEC ruling has overshadowed a much more serious issue — congressional Republicans’ systematic blocking of the president’s judicial nominees.
While ultraconservatives regularly decry “judicial activism,” this criticism rings false. In fact, conservatives have long had the goal of packing the federal bench with ideological appointees. For years, Republicans have fought to place their own judicial activists in powerful judicial positions. The presence of Justices John Roberts and Samuel Alito on the Supreme Court represents the zenith of this strategy; and, as Citizens United proved, these justices’ activism can have a powerful, lasting legacy.
Senate Democrats could have predicted this situation had they given Roberts’s and Alito’s long records of conservative activism greater weight than the judges’ polished, noncommittal confirmation hearing performances.
Democrats evinced astonishment at the Citizens United ruling, characterizing the conservative court majority — and Justices Roberts and Alito in particular — as politically driven and activist. But this should be no surprise to anyone who had carefully examined either judge’s record. In both cases, previous rulings signaled ideologically driven, “activist” tendencies.
Yet Senate Democrats claim surprise, referring to confirmation testimony in which a polished and politic Roberts and Alito claimed they would make decisions based on established precedent rather than ideology.
But since the American public removed Republicans from power at both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue, conservatives’ strategy has, by necessity, changed. Their focus now is on doing everything they can to prevent a Democratic president from filling empty judicial spots. Right now, there are 101 federal court vacancies. And congressional Republicans are showing no signs of approving Obama’s judicial nominees. Just last week, federal district Judge Joseph Greenaway, originally nominated in June for an appeals court post and unanimously approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee months ago, was supposed to have a floor vote that didn’t happen because of a murky Republican “hold.”
But conservatives’ obstructionism is not a new obstacle in the judicial appointments process. In 1998, then-Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott said of President Bill Clinton’s judicial nominees, “Should we take our time on these federal judges? Yes. Do I have any apologies? Only one: I probably moved too many already.” As a result of Republicans fulfilling their role as “the party of no,” at the end of the Clinton administration, there were 81 judicial vacancies, including 26 vacancies on courts of appeals. In 2010, we are already on track to tie, if not exceed, this dismal record of vacancies.
Senate Democrats must step up to the plate and call out Republicans on their strategy of slowing, stalling and stopping judicial nominations that do not pass ideological muster. In his comments in support of then-Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor, Rhode Island Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse characterized Republican criticism of her as “proof that conservative political orthodoxy is now [Republicans’] confirmation test, masked as concerns about judicial activism.”
You will not hear Republicans complaining as loudly about nominees to lower courts as they do about Supreme Court nominees. But, the truth is, they recognize the vitally important role lower-court judges play in the judicial system. They may not talk about it, but their actions speak volumes: —They will do all they can to block these nominees from ever reaching the bench.
The breathless reporting of the State of the Union “confrontation” between President Barack Obama and the conservative members of the Supreme Court in the wake of the Citizens United v. FEC ruling has overshadowed a much more serious issue — congressional Republicans’ systematic blocking of the president’s judicial nominees.
While ultraconservatives regularly decry “judicial activism,” this criticism rings false. In fact, conservatives have long had the goal of packing the federal bench with ideological appointees. For years, Republicans have fought to place their own judicial activists in powerful judicial positions. The presence of Justices John Roberts and Samuel Alito on the Supreme Court represents the zenith of this strategy; and, as Citizens United proved, these justices’ activism can have a powerful, lasting legacy.
Senate Democrats could have predicted this situation had they given Roberts’s and Alito’s long records of conservative activism greater weight than the judges’ polished, noncommittal confirmation hearing performances.
Democrats evinced astonishment at the Citizens United ruling, characterizing the conservative court majority — and Justices Roberts and Alito in particular — as politically driven and activist. But this should be no surprise to anyone who had carefully examined either judge’s record. In both cases, previous rulings signaled ideologically driven, “activist” tendencies.
Yet Senate Democrats claim surprise, referring to confirmation testimony in which a polished and politic Roberts and Alito claimed they would make decisions based on established precedent rather than ideology.
But since the American public removed Republicans from power at both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue, conservatives’ strategy has, by necessity, changed. Their focus now is on doing everything they can to prevent a Democratic president from filling empty judicial spots. Right now, there are 101 federal court vacancies. And congressional Republicans are showing no signs of approving Obama’s judicial nominees. Just last week, federal district Judge Joseph Greenaway, originally nominated in June for an appeals court post and unanimously approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee months ago, was supposed to have a floor vote that didn’t happen because of a murky Republican “hold.”
But conservatives’ obstructionism is not a new obstacle in the judicial appointments process. In 1998, then-Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott said of President Bill Clinton’s judicial nominees, “Should we take our time on these federal judges? Yes. Do I have any apologies? Only one: I probably moved too many already.” As a result of Republicans fulfilling their role as “the party of no,” at the end of the Clinton administration, there were 81 judicial vacancies, including 26 vacancies on courts of appeals. In 2010, we are already on track to tie, if not exceed, this dismal record of vacancies.
Senate Democrats must step up to the plate and call out Republicans on their strategy of slowing, stalling and stopping judicial nominations that do not pass ideological muster. In his comments in support of then-Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor, Rhode Island Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse characterized Republican criticism of her as “proof that conservative political orthodoxy is now [Republicans’] confirmation test, masked as concerns about judicial activism.”
You will not hear Republicans complaining as loudly about nominees to lower courts as they do about Supreme Court nominees. But, the truth is, they recognize the vitally important role lower-court judges play in the judicial system. They may not talk about it, but their actions speak volumes: —They will do all they can to block these nominees from ever reaching the bench.
Monday, February 01, 2010
Daily Digest 2/1/2010
- Obama proposes new tax credit for nonprofit and other employers [Chronicle of Philanthropy]
Friday, January 29, 2010
Weekly Wrap-Up 1/19 - 1/29/2010
Check out AFJ's weekly Advocacy Digest e-newsletter for the latest news, policy updates and training opportunities.
- Click here to view our latest update.
- Click here to sign up to receive our Advocacy Digest newsletter right to your inbox by joining our Nonprofit Advocacy Network!
Daily Digest 1/29/2010
- Chart outlines nonprofit impact of Supreme Court campaign-finance ruling [Chronicle of Philanthropy]
Oregon protects human services with high-income, corporate tax hike; first since 1930s
In a hotly contested election that reclaimed the state's role as a bellwether for strong social and economic policy, Oregon voters upheld two progressive tax and budget ballot measures yesterday, proving their willingness to support progressive tax reforms to address the state's $4 billion budget shortfall. Combined, the measures raise $733 million to hold the line against further cuts in human services and public employment by increasing income taxes on high-income taxpayers and modestly raising corporate taxes, effectively closing a loophole that has allowed two-thirds of Oregon corporations to pay no more than the state's $10 minimum corporate tax. Fifty-four percent voted in support of the measures, and 46 percent voted against, with a total voter turnout of 1,240,000 voters (60 percent+ of the eligible Oregonians who are registered).
This election was about political power in the state and the legislature, pitting a coalition of business interests, Republican party leaders and tax revolt groups against a broad alliance representing labor, education, progressives and human services, and its results mean far more than new funds and saved jobs and services. They demonstrate that a majority of Oregon voters will support reasonable progressive proposals that solve real problems, help the economy in both immediate and lasting ways, and increase fairness in their state. Oregon's progressives can now look forward to building on this momentum in more policy areas, from tax reform to job creation to housing, food and energy security. Legislators from moderate or swing districts will be more likely to back such future policy proposals now that progressive leaders proposing change have been affirmed by success and voters have rejected the harshest distortions from the measures' opponents.
Yesterday's victory was a direct result of grassroots voter engagement organizing sustained over a long period of time, matched in partnership with progressive elected leadership and ambitious, strategic philanthropists. State infrastructure was also key, from carefully designed coalitions and network 'hubs,' to the shared skills and resources poured into voter data, targeting and micro-targeting, polling and message development since 2004. The leaders and organizations who formed Oregon Voice, the newest State Voices affiliate, were central to the 'Vote Yes' campaign and parallel educational efforts, and believe yesterday's victory portends fertile opportunities for further policy gains, not just in Oregon but in states around the country. Now, Oregon Voice will focus on supporting member groups to capitalize on these opportunities by engaging their constituencies, shaping public debate, and emboldening organizations and elected leaders to press forward with agendas that meet the standards Oregon voters proudly endorsed yesterday.
State Voices Special Report 1/28/2010
This election was about political power in the state and the legislature, pitting a coalition of business interests, Republican party leaders and tax revolt groups against a broad alliance representing labor, education, progressives and human services, and its results mean far more than new funds and saved jobs and services. They demonstrate that a majority of Oregon voters will support reasonable progressive proposals that solve real problems, help the economy in both immediate and lasting ways, and increase fairness in their state. Oregon's progressives can now look forward to building on this momentum in more policy areas, from tax reform to job creation to housing, food and energy security. Legislators from moderate or swing districts will be more likely to back such future policy proposals now that progressive leaders proposing change have been affirmed by success and voters have rejected the harshest distortions from the measures' opponents.
Yesterday's victory was a direct result of grassroots voter engagement organizing sustained over a long period of time, matched in partnership with progressive elected leadership and ambitious, strategic philanthropists. State infrastructure was also key, from carefully designed coalitions and network 'hubs,' to the shared skills and resources poured into voter data, targeting and micro-targeting, polling and message development since 2004. The leaders and organizations who formed Oregon Voice, the newest State Voices affiliate, were central to the 'Vote Yes' campaign and parallel educational efforts, and believe yesterday's victory portends fertile opportunities for further policy gains, not just in Oregon but in states around the country. Now, Oregon Voice will focus on supporting member groups to capitalize on these opportunities by engaging their constituencies, shaping public debate, and emboldening organizations and elected leaders to press forward with agendas that meet the standards Oregon voters proudly endorsed yesterday.
State Voices Special Report 1/28/2010
Thursday, January 28, 2010
Daily Digest 1/28/2010
- FEC's contribution limits questioned after campaign spending ban overturned [BNA](subscription required)
- Members give cool reception to Obama’s new lobbying proposals [Roll Call]
- White House aide urges foundations to take more risks
[Chronicle of Philanthropy]
What does Citizens United mean for Tax-Exempt Organizations?
On Monday January 25th, AFJ President Nan Aron hosted a phone briefing with Mike Trister and Holly Schadler, Lichtman, Trister & Ross, PLLC to discuss the impact of Citizens United v. FEC on the nonprofit sector. The call focused not on the merits of the decision, but what the decision says and means—and as a result, what nonprofits can do to mobilize to operate in this new paradigm.
More than 250 people, including representatives of nonprofit organizations, reporters, and attorneys participated. If your organization is still trying to determine the impact the Citizens United decision will have on your planned electoral activities, you may benefit from the expertise of our speakers.
Our speakers clarified that:
- Both campaign finance laws (like the Federal Election Campaign Act at issue in Citizens United) and federal tax law regulate the electoral activities of 501(c)(3), 501(c)(4), 501(c)(5) and 501(c)(6) corporations. The court’s opinion in Citizens United deals only with campaign finance laws – not federal tax law.
- The ruling permits corporations to make “independent expenditures” and “electioneering communications” in federal and state elections, the ruling does not affect the tax rules and restrictions on corporate spending on political activities. An independent expenditure is a communication that: (1) expressly advocates the election or defeat of a candidate using certain “magic words” such as “support,” “oppose,” “elect,” “defeat,” or “vote for” and (2) is not coordinated with any candidate or political party. An electioneering communication is a broadcast communication that is distributed during the period close to an election and refers to a federal candidate.
- 501(c)(3)s remain subject to the absolute prohibition on intervening in an election campaign on behalf of or opposition to a candidate for public office. Therefore, little will change for public charities and private foundations as a result of this opinion.
- Federal tax law requires that partisan activity, including those communications at issue in Citizens United, may not be the “primary activity” of a 501(c)(4), 501(c)(5) or 501(c)(6) organization. Additionally, under some circumstances, these organizations must pay tax on its political expenditures. These tax laws are unchanged by Citizens United. These corporations will have a greater latitude in the types of messages they may convey to the general public.
- Citizens United does not permit corporations to make cash or in-kind contributions to candidates or communications that have been coordinated with a candidate for federal office or a political party.
- While this opinion only addresses corporations, the holding applies equally to unions. Labor unions interested in making independent expenditures in connection with elections in 2010 may consider consulting with an attorney or a state or local campaign finance agency about the appropriate way to proceed with doing so.
- This opinion applies to state and local election laws as well as federal elections. If your state or local law currently prohibits corporations from making independent expenditures or electioneering communications, you may want to consult with an attorney or the state or local campaign finance agency prior to making they types of communications at issue in Citizens United.
- This case will likely change the role that federal PACs play in federal elections and may be used largely to make direct and in-kind contributions.
As you’ll see in the attached chart, the implications of this case will vary depending on the type of tax-exempt organization. This chart provides a broad overview of what each type of tax-exempt entity may now do. AFJ is in the process of developing a list of Frequently Asked Questions and more detailed information about specific activities.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
