Advocacy Digest

Daily Digest 1/26/12

2012-01-26T14:42:00.002-05:00

The Foundation Business: On Olivier Zunz [The Nation]
Whither the nonprofit sector in the State of the Union address? [Nonprofit Quarterly]
New legislation will focus on disclosure of contributions to Super PACs, other groups [BNA] (subscription required)
IRS determination of political activity of nonprofits will not face court review [BNA] (subscription required)

Daily Digest 1/24/12

2012-01-24T18:27:00.003-05:00

IRS Determination of political activity by nonprofits will not face court review [BNA Money & Politics]
Campaign reformers urge Obama to back contractor disclosure in State of the Union [BNA Money & Politics]

Daily Digest 1/20/12

2012-01-20T16:06:00.000-05:00

The wrong way to fix Citizens United

Daily Digest 1/19/12

2012-01-19T14:28:00.001-05:00

Activists mount anniversary push to undo Citizens United [Roll Call]
California could be model for 'Super PAC' disclosure
[San Jose Mercury News]
Washington could take advisory vote on Citizens United [Seattle Times]
FEC to rule on reporting of money spent for online political advertising [BNA] (subscription required)

Daily Digest 1/17/12

2012-01-17T14:33:00.001-05:00

Indiana bill to exempt groups from lobbying law [Lobby Comply Blog]
SCOTUS expected to weigh Montana campaign finance appeal [Politico]

Daily Digest 1/13/12

2012-01-13T14:21:00.001-05:00

Occupy movement turns attention to Congress [Roll Call]
Will Arizona hold ALEC accountable? [In These Times]
Watchdogs push Obama to make FEC appointments before election [The Hill]

Time to file your Fourth Quarter LD-2 Lobbying Report!

2012-01-13T12:38:00.000-05:00

For those organizations that lobby at the federal level and are registered under the Lobbying Disclosure Act (LDA), it is time to file Fourth Quarter LD-2 quarterly lobbying reports.

These reports are due Friday, January 20, 2012, and cover the period from October 1, 2011 through December 1, 2011.

For more information on the LDA, please visit the Office of the Clerk of the U.S. House of Representatives Lobbying Disclosure website.

If you have any questions about the LDA and how it affects your organization's federal-level advocacy work, please contact Alliance for Justice at 1-800-NPLOBBY or advocacy@afj.org.

Daily Digest 1/11/12

2012-01-11T19:31:00.001-05:00

Issacharoff: Clarity about Super PACs, independent money, and Citizens United [Election Law Blog]

Daily Digest 1/10/12

2012-01-10T13:42:00.002-05:00

Iowa high court says corporations don't need PACs [Des Moines Register]
FEC opens rulemaking on corporate election activity with possible far-reaching implications for politically active entities [Wiley Rein LLP]

FPPC release new factsheet on Gift Disclosure for California lobbyists and officials

2012-01-10T12:31:00.000-05:00

California's Fair Political Practice Commission recently revised its rules on gifts. The revisions became effective on January 1, 2012. The FPPC released this factsheet of FAQs pertaining to the gift disclosure rules.

The following Questions & Answers are particularly relevant to nonprofits in California:

Question 15
Q. Is a ticket or pass provided to an official for his or her admission to an event at which the official performs a ceremonial role or function on behalf of the public agency reportable on the official’s Form 700?

A. No. However, the agency must complete FPPC Form 802 and forward to the FPPC. The form will identify the official’s name and explain the ceremonial function.

Question 16
Q. Would a non-profit organization be the source of gifts conferred on officials when the non-profit organization pays for officials to travel nationally and internationally on trips related to climate policy? This trip is funded by donations from corporations and businesses with matters before state elected officials and state agencies.

A. Generally, the reportable source of the gifts to officials would be the sponsors who donated money to the non-profit organization. Thus, the benefit of the gift received by the official would be pro-rated among the donors. Each reportable donor would be subject to the $420 gift limit and identified on the official’s Form 700. Contact the FPPC for specific guidance.

Question 19
Q. A state legislator and a planning commissioner were guest speakers at an association’s event. Travel expenses were paid by the association and the event was held in California. Is this reportable?

A. The payment is reportable, but not subject to the gift limits. In general, payments for speeches are not limited, but are reportable. The rules require that the speech be reasonably related to a legislative or governmental purpose, or to an issue of state, national, or international public policy; and the travel payment must be limited to actual transportation and related lodging and subsistence the day immediately preceding, the day of, and the day immediately following the speech.

For more information on California's gift rules, please visit the FPPC's website, or contact Alliance for Justice at advocacy@afj.org or 510-444-6070.

Daily Digest 1/6/12

2012-01-06T13:26:00.000-05:00

SCOTUS expected to weigh Montana campaign finance appeal [Politico]

Daily Digest 1/4/12

2012-01-04T17:01:00.001-05:00

Trading places in the Occupy movement [Nonprofit Quarterly]
Advocacy group applauds New Jersey lawmakers efforts to update antiquated alimony laws [PR Newswire]
NY groups call on gov to address poverty, health [Wall Street Journal]

Daily Digest 1/3/12

2012-01-03T15:11:00.002-05:00

Montana high court upholds ban on election spending by corporations [Great Falls Tribune]
Duluth City Council takes stand against corporate 'personhood'
[Duluth News Tribune]
Rhee, former D.C. schools chief, busy lobbying [Tucson Citizen]
Three campaign finance lawsuits on the heels of 'Citizens' [Law.com]

Daily Digest 12/29/11

2011-12-29T13:46:00.002-05:00

State Senator aims to double lobby fee in California -- to 14 cents a day [San Jose Mercury News]

Daily Digest 12/20/11

2011-12-20T13:37:00.000-05:00

FEC Republicans' statement on Merkley ads highlights unanimous vote on coordination [BNA] (subscription required)

Daily Digest 12/16/11

2011-12-16T14:16:00.000-05:00

FEC deadlocks on disclosure rulemaking, backs NPRM to ax spending restrictions [BNA] (subscription required)

Daily Digest 12/15/11

2011-12-15T16:11:00.002-05:00

Senate Democrats introduce legislation to toughen penalties for suppressing votes [BNA] (subscription required)
FEC set to try again to advance new rules implementing Court's Citizens United ruling [BNA] (subscription required)

Daily Digest 12/14/11

2011-12-14T19:53:00.002-05:00

58 donors responsible for 80% of SuperPAC funding
[Boing Boing]
Can Occupy overturn Citizens United [Huffington Post]
Federal court finds Wisconsin campaign finance law unconstitutional [The Daily Cardinal]

Daily Digest 12/9/11

2011-12-09T13:19:00.001-05:00

A Nobel victory for no-strings-attached grants [Chronicle of Philanthropy]
To predict unemployment rates, look at civic engagement levels [Nonprofit Quarterly]

IRS Form 990: Did You Know?

2011-12-09T10:14:00.001-05:00

As 2011 winds down, it’s the perfect time to review your financial documents and make sure you’re in compliance with IRS disclosure regulations for 501(c)(3)s and 501(c)(4)s.

Under IRS rules, generally you are required to make the following documents (and copies, if requested) available for viewing by the public:

Your application for tax exemption (IRS Form 1023/Form 1024), including all attachments, any supporting documents, and any correspondence from the IRS concerning your application.
Your Form 990 or Form 990-PF (annual tax return) including attachments and schedules, for the past three years.
Your Form 990-T, Exempt Organization Business Income Tax Return for the past three years. This must also include any attachments, schedules, and supporting documentation, including documents that relate to the imposition of tax.

You are only required to provide the exact documentation named in any requests. For example, if someone asks for your “2002 tax return”, you must provide your 2002 Form 990, including schedules and attachments, but no tax-exempt applications or returns for prior years. If the request is for your “annual return” and no year is given, you must send the 990s, schedules, and attachments for the last three years. If your organization is a public charity or 501(c)(4), you may omit the names and addresses in Schedule B of your annual return. Private foundations, however, are not allowed to omit the names and addresses of contributors.

Your IRS Determination Letter is also subject to public viewing.

Not only should your organization have copies of these documents available for the public, you should have a procedure in place to handle all public inquiries.

In-person requests must be fulfilled on the same day. As a result, it would be beneficial to have copies of disclosable documents on hand. For written requests, you must respond within 30 days of receipt.

For more information on public disclosure and IRS rules for charitable organizations, download a copy of our free brochure, Give Me Your 990! Public Disclosure Requirements for Tax-Exempt Organizations. You can also receive free technical assistance by sending us a question, or calling (866)NPLOBBY.

Daily Digest 12/8/11

2011-12-08T12:21:00.001-05:00

Constitutional amendment proposal takes aim at corporate political spending [BNA] (subscription required)
GOP nonprofit backs electoral college [Roll Call]

Daily Digest 12/7/11

2011-12-07T12:58:00.001-05:00

Liberal groups take up Occupy mantle in D.C. [Roll Call]
Los Angeles City Council responds to Citizens United
[Lobby Comply Blog]

Alliance of Justice in the News

2011-12-06T19:18:00.002-05:00

Alliance for Justice's own Abby Levine discusses electoral restrictions on tax-exempt charitable organizations in this New York Times piece.

Charitable organizations like the Intrepid foundation usually steer clear of such political activity for fear of jeopardizing their federal income tax exemption. On its Web site, the Internal Revenue Service says that contributions to political campaign funds “clearly violate the prohibition against political activity.”

One test of whether that rule has been violated is “whether the board chairman was inviting people to an event in his role as chairman of the board,” said Abby Levine, legal director for advocacy programs at the Alliance for Justice in Washington. Ms. Levine, who advises charitable organizations on how to comply with federal tax laws, was not familiar with the Intrepid case, but she said she discouraged tax-exempt organizations from using their lists of employees or trustees for communications involving political campaigns.

Click here to read the full article online.

Daily Digest 12/6/11

2011-12-06T17:48:00.002-05:00

More states passing disclosure laws in response to Citizens United ruling [BNA] (subscription required)

Policy Responses in the wake of Citizens United

2011-12-02T14:23:00.013-05:00

On January 21, 2010, the United States Supreme Court dramatically altered the campaign finance laws when it issued a 5-4 decision in Citizens United v. FEC. While the Court’s decision did not remove the prohibition on corporate campaign contributions to candidates, the decision does allow for business and nonprofit corporations and unions to make independent expenditures out of their general treasuries. The ruling has already had a significant effect on elections, as expenditures from corporate-funded outside groups have risen dramatically. As a result, there have been numerous efforts to mitigate the decision’s effect.

Currently there are several proposed constitutional amendments in both the House of Representatives and the Senate. For example, Rep. Donna Edwards and Rep. John Conyers have sponsored a resolution for a constitutional amendment giving Congress and the states the specific authority to regulate corporate expenditures on political activity. There’s a similar amendment resolution in the Senate sponsored by Senator Tom Udall. In addition to the legislative calls for a constitutional amendment, organizations such as Public Citizen, Free Speech for People, and Business for Democracy have asked the public to sign petitions urging Congress to push for a constitutional amendment declaring that corporations are not people and that states and Congress should have the right to regulate expenditures on political activity.

In addition to the various proposed constitutional amendments, another effort to mitigate the impact of corporate spending is to change the public financing system to encourage more small donations by more people. On April 6, 2011, Senator Dick Durbin reintroduced The Fair Elections Now Act. The provisions of this bill require that candidates raise a large number of small contributions from their communities in order to qualify for Fair Elections funding. House candidates would have to collect 1,500 contributions from citizens of their sate and raise $50,000 in order to qualify for Fair Elections funding. For Senate candidates to qualify for funding, they would need to raise a set amount of small contributions, amounting to a total of 10% of the primary Fair Elections funding.

On the state level, 16 states have enacted legislation in response to Citizens United. Many of the state legislative responses require more disclosure by donors to organizations that make independent expenditures and ban government contractors from making expenditures on statewide races. In Iowa, for example, laws requiring corporate-sponsored ads to include an approval message from the CEO were passed. Colorado’s legislature now prohibits bans on campaign contributions from government contractors and bars foreign money in their state’s elections. These are just a few examples of state legislative action intended to reduce the influence of corporate money in politics.

Alliance for Justice is continuing to monitor these activities at the state and national level, and will keep you informed of developments that affect nonprofits.

- Isaiah Castilla

Alliance for Justice and Northern California Grantmakers to Present 'Funding Progressive Groups'

2011-12-02T14:15:00.000-05:00

"On December 6th NCG and Alliance for Justice will present Funding Progressive Groups: Managing the Risk, a program designed for funders and social justice organizations to help them manage “sting” operations, attacks on their organization, and the potential media firestorms that follow.

To give members a better understanding of the upcoming program’s content, NCG interviewed Alliance for Justice’s Senior Counsel Nayantara Mehta."

Read NCG's interview with Alliance for Justice's Nayantara Mehta here:
http://www.ncglists.org/news/?p=3582

Daily Digest 12/1/11

2011-12-01T22:38:00.002-05:00

Wide Response to Educational Plight of Mexican Immigrants [New York Times]
How an electoral tweak is throwing California lobbyists into disarray [KALW News]
The rise of the Geek Lobby [Slate]

Daily Digest 11/29/11

2011-11-29T13:52:00.001-05:00

Advocacy groups seek to curb corporations [Roll Call]
FEC Commissioners agree that 'robocall' advocated for votes, disagree on penalty [BNA] (subscription required)

FPPC Issues Formal Advice on New Internet Political Activity Regulations

2011-11-22T18:51:00.000-05:00

On October 31, California’s Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC), issued a formal advice letter clarifying the scope of application of the internet disclosure regulations it promulgated just over one year ago.

Background on the Regulations

On November 12, 2010, the FPPC approved amendments to the regulations governing disclosure of political advertisements. The amendments were adopted following a lengthy review process by the Subcommittee on the Political Reform Act & Internet Political Activity. The Subcommittee’s final report is available here.

Prior to the amendments, the regulations explicitly exempted “web based or Internet based communications” from the disclosure requirements imposed on other forms of communication, namely television, radio and print ads. The new regulations, however, require disclosure for paid “electronic media advertisements,” which include advertisements in “electronic messages, electronic message attachments, text messages, or advertisements that appear on internet webpages, blogs, mobile devices, or other electronic communication systems.”

The FPPC’s recent advice letter – referred to as the Rios advice letter – clarifies and reiterates that the disclosure requirements now apply to independent expenditures appearing on internet websites. The letter clarifies that ads that appear on internet websites, blogs, and mobile devices must identify funding sources or identify that the ad was prepared independently of a candidate.

What does this mean for nonprofits?

Now, nonprofits that qualify as “committees” (those that spend $1,000 or more on independent expenditures supporting or opposing a candidate for state elected office or a state ballot measure) must abide by the disclosure requirements on web-based communications laid out in the regulations. It is important to note, however, that the regulations explicitly exempt communications from an organization to its members (defined at 2 California Code of Regulations Section 18531.7(a)(2), even if the communication expressly advocates the election or defeat of a state candidate or ballot measure. Additionally, Section 18215.2 of the regulations, as amended, is entirely devoted to exempting “uncompensated internet activity by individuals that is not a contribution or expenditure.” This exemption will largely apply to uncompensated bloggers, even those whose blogs otherwise qualify as “express advocacy.”

For more information on complying with these disclosure regulations, please feel free to contact us for free technical assistance at 1-800-NPLOBBY or advocacy@afj.org.

Daily Digest 11/22/11

2011-11-22T12:40:00.003-05:00

State court rules against Colorado Secretary of State
[Lobby Comply Blog]
Nonprofit newspapers? Not so fast, says the IRS [Nonprofit Quarterly]

Daily Digest 11/21/11

2011-11-21T17:38:00.001-05:00

A Wall Street plan to underming Occupy Wall Street: The meaning for nonprofits [Nonprofit Quarterly]
'Millenial' voters could 2012 election, says nonprofit group
[The Daily Caller]
Pew study shows dramatic growth in religious advocacy [Washington Post]

Daily Digest 11/18/11

2011-11-18T13:47:00.004-05:00

The IRS questions whether journalism startups qualify for tax-exempt status [Columbia Journalism Review]
FEC rejects complaint against Super PAC with subsidiaries who had federal contracts [BNA] (subscription required)

Daily Digest 11/17/11

2011-11-17T19:25:00.001-05:00

Outside groups begin assault with ads [Politico]
Influence Industry: New ad shows cozy ties between super PACs and candidates [Washington Post]
Sierra Club Takes Position on Minnesota’s Anti-Gay Marriage Amendment – Why? [Nonprofit Quarterly]

Daily Digest 11/15/11

2011-11-16T14:48:00.001-05:00

Democrats want to amend Constitution to control 'super-PAC' campaign spending [The Hill]
Deserve Tax-Exempt Status? [Roll Call]
Lax regulation of election laws allow secretive Super PACs to flourish [Minnesota Independent]
Unveiling secret corporate political money [UPI.com]

Daily Digest 11/11/11

2011-11-11T18:23:00.000-05:00

Lax regulation of election laws allow secretive Super PACs to flourish [Minnesota Independent]
Nonprofit seeks to be new political force [NPR]
Mississippi voters reject anti-abortion initiative [CNN International]
For profit or nonprofit? That is the question [Nonprofit Quarterly]

Daily Digest 11/10/11

2011-11-10T15:22:00.000-05:00

Who rules social media? A look at social media impact by nonprofit issues [San Francisco Chronicle]
Will the Obama Administration's plan to clamp down on trade associations hurt nonprofit advocacy? [Nonprofit Quarterly]
Social justice groups engage occupy movement [New America Media]
Nonprofit groups hungry for funds [Brownsville Herald]

RECO - Resources for Evaluating Community Organizing: What's New in RECO?

2011-11-07T16:43:00.002-05:00

What’s new in RECO?

November 7th, 2011

Community Engagement

Community engagement is important in community organizing efforts. The topic has received considerable attention in the past year, and the RECO update reflects that with three new resources.

Movement Building

The “Occupy Wall Street” movement is garnering much public attention. Organizing and movement building are related and are key to creating social change. RECO has added one movement building resource.

The Latest Additions to RECO

· Measuring Community Engagement By David Adams and Michael Hess

· Social Movements and Philanthropy: How Foundations Can Support Movement Building By Barbara Masters and Torie Osborn

· Auditing Community Participation: An Assessment Handbook By Danny Burns and Marilyn Taylor

· A Conversation about Measurement of Community and Civic Engagement By Organizational Research Services

HELP US MAKE RECO COMPREHENSIVE! CONTACT US TO ADD YOUR RESOURCES FOR THE NEXT UPDATE!

For more information, e-mail julie@afj.org or sue@afj.org or call Julie at 202-822-6070

Alliance for Justice

11 Dupont Circle NW, 2^nd Floor

Washington, DC 20036

Phone: 202.822.6070 v Fax: 202.822.6068

Alliance for Justice – West Coast Office

1611 Telegraph Avenue, Suite 1006

Oakland, CA 94612

Phone: 510.444.6070 v Fax: 510.444.6078

Daily Digest 11/4/11

2011-11-04T13:57:00.001-04:00

Maryland group makes small loans to help immigrants pay for naturalization [Chronicle of Philanthropy]
Green group puts world population on agenda, breaking taboo
[Chronicle of Philanthropy]

Daily Digest 11/3/11

2011-11-03T19:04:00.003-04:00

Can you hear me now? Nonprofit voices at the Supercommittee

Congress still travels well, despite ethics rules

Daily Digest 11/1/11

2011-11-01T13:36:00.000-04:00

Court sets January date for arguments fon beefing up FEC's disclosure rules [BNA] (subscription required)

Daily Digest 10/31/11

2011-10-31T14:01:00.001-04:00

FCC rule aims to force more disclosure by networks on funding for political ads [The Hill]
N.C. center advocates for nonprofits so they can achieve their missions
[The News & Observer]

Daily Digest 10/28/11

2011-10-28T14:04:00.001-04:00

Political advertising data may go online [Politico]
How much disclosure should New York State require of nonprofits in political campaigns? [Nonprofit Quarterly]
Innovation and impact: Enough talk, more do [Nonprofit Quarterly]

Alliance for Justice submits comment letter to California's Fair Political Practice Commission

2011-10-25T15:12:00.000-04:00

In our ongoing work to enhance the participation of nonprofit organizations in public policy, Alliance for Justice has submitted a comment letter to California's Fair Political Practices Commission encouraging it to consider the role and needs of nonprofits as it moves forward with promulgating new regulations.

In its Interested Persons meeting this Wednesday, October 26th, the FPPC will hear input from the community on proposed revisions to a regulation on campaign reporting for "multi-purpose organizations."

"Multi-purpose organizations" are organizations that receive donations or other payments (e.g., membership dues) for purposes other than making political expenditures in California but nevertheless do, at times, make political expenditures to support or oppose California state or local candidates or ballot measures. Many nonprofit organizations that participate in ballot measure advocacy qualify as multi-purpose organizations and are thus subject to reporting and disclosure requirements. (For more information on multi-purpose organizations, see this FPPC factsheet.)

The current disclosure requirements for these groups are complicated and unclear, and often result in the disclosure to the public of inflated, inaccurate, or just plain misleading information regarding who is supporting political activities.

AFJ encourages the FPPC to consider the effect of these disclosure requirements on nonprofit organizations that participate in ballot measure advocacy and commends the commission for inviting comments.

Members of the regulated community are invited to participate in person or via phone (or simply listen in) during the Interested Persons meeting. For dial-in information, please see the meeting agenda, available here.

Daily Digest 10/25/11

2011-10-25T15:09:00.001-04:00

FEC deadlocked on 'express advocacy' in group's ad during N.H. senate race [BNA] (subscription required)
Political Catholic group seeks court ruling as defense against IRS
[The Colorado Independent]
Questions surround creation of Super PAC by Florida Deep Sea Burial Corporation [Open Secrets Blog]
San Francisco Ethics Commission passes campaign finance reform
[Lobby Comply Blog]
Free speech at core of Mississippi campaign finance suit [Lobby Comply Blog]
Kentucky: Judge bars group's ads supporting David Williams from airing [Courier-Journal]
Montana: Group asks judge to toss campaign finance ruling
[Helena Independent Record]
Tennessee: Political notebook: Corporations signing up to donate under new state law [Knoxville News Sentinel]

Hearing for Proposed Rules to the New York City Campaign Finance Board (CFB) Rules

2011-10-24T18:32:00.014-04:00

If your organization does any advocacy work in New York City, you need to know about proposed rules to the New York City Campaign Finance Board (CFB) Rules. There is a hearing this Thursday, October 27—and we encourage nonprofits to sign on to a letter expressing concern.

In November 2010, New York City voters approved an amendment to the City Charter requiring the disclosure of independent expenditures by individuals and groups to persuade voters on candidates and referenda on the ballot. But, the proposed rules go well beyond the mandate and intent of the Charter amendment and run counter to the mission of increasing citizen participation in the political process.

Instead of simply regulating speech intended to sway the public and directly affect an election, the proposed rules also regulate speech intended to educate the public on the decisions and policies of elected officials and communication by organizations with their own members. See below for a detailed description of the rules.

Moving forward with these regulations threatens nonprofits’ ability to communicate with the public about legislative issues and participating effectively in policy debates. That is surely not the result City residents intended when they voted for the Charter amendment.

Nonprofit organizations—501(c)(3)s, 501(c)(4)s, labor unions, and others--have a unique and essential role to play in the policy process. The CFB should not interfere with our right to participate in legislative and issue advocacy. The consequences of these actions run counter to the CFB’s broad goal of increasing participation in the democratic process.

What can you do?

Sign on to a letter expressing your concern about the proposed regulations. Call Mike or Matt at BerlinRosen Public Affairs at 646-452-5637 to sign on.
Send a letter to the CFB at 40 Rector Street, 7^th Floor, New York, NY 10006 expressing your concern
Testify at the hearing on October 27, or submit written testimony. If you are testifying at the CFB hearing, please register by emailing Illona Kramer at ikramer@nyccfb.info by the close of business on Wednesday, October 26.
Attend the press conference on October 27 at 10am
Contact Michelle Jackson, General Counsel, Human Services Council, jacksonm@humanservicescouncil.org, for more information

What the proposed rules will do:

Background

The Campaign Finance Board has issued regulations to implement a charter revision passed last year to disclose independent expenditures of at least $1,000 for candidate elections and ballot proposals.
Disclosure of independent expenditures can ensure that the public knows when groups spend money communicating with the public to influence an election - but these regulations miss spending that should be covered and include spending that has nothing to do with elections at all or that is not even public communication.

What's Not Covered

$1 million contributions to political parties for "ballot security," like the contribution being discussed in the Haggerty trial, could still remain undisclosed until after the election.
Spending by "media companies" like Rupert Murdoch's Fox News, Wall Street Journal or New York Post.
In fact, a wealthy supporter of a candidate could simply create a new Internet or print “periodical publication” (not defined) and spend unlimited amounts of money, blanketing the City with “editorials” endorsing that candidate and never have to disclose a dime of spending – as long as the individual was not a political party, a political candidate or a candidate him or herself.

What IS Covered

If an organization spends $1,000 calling members of the public or putting ads on the web asking people to call a City Councilmember to support or oppose her stand on an issue (for example, "Tell Councilmember X that their position on cutting the budget is wrong and that they should protect seniors by finding more money for senior centers") within three months of an election.
If an organization spends $1,000 on one or more letters to its members, letting them know that the organization has endorsed a candidate.

What Happens Then

The organization has to register with the CFB, even if it's not a political organization – requiring 10 to 24 financial reports during an election year.
The organization is subject to investigations, intrusive audits, $10,000 fines and possible criminal prosecution.
The organization has to declare it "supports" or "opposes" a candidate, even if it is only taking a stand on the issues.
If the organization spends just $5,000 on reportable communications, it has to report all of its income of any kind from other "entities" since the last election and all individuals who gave more than $1,000 in the year before the election, even if its membership list is private.

501(c)(3) Organization-specific Issue

If the organization is a 501c3 organization it is NOT ALLOWED TO endorse candidates but it will be forced to choose between violating local law or federal law.

Daily Digest 10/21/11

2011-10-24T13:02:00.001-04:00

Secret Cash Baiting Officials Leaves No Trace in U.S. Attack Ads [BusinessWeek]
FEC Deadlock on SEIU Audit Highlights Questions on Reporting Campaign Spending [BNA] (subscription required)
House Democrats Ask SEC to Issue Rules To Mandate Disclosure of Political Spending [BNA] (subscription required)

Daily Digest 10/20/11

2011-10-24T13:00:00.001-04:00

ActBlue starts super PAC fundraising [Politico]
Rules of the Game: Super PACs Multiply, Head to Hill [Roll Call]
Kentucky Independent Political Group Ordered to Stop Political Attack Ads [Lobby Comply Blog]

New Timing For Statewide Initiative Measures Designed to Increase Voter Participation

2011-10-20T12:06:00.001-04:00

Nonprofits looking to take advantage of the ballot initiative process in California should be aware of recent legislation that has altered the timing requirements for voter-initiated ballot measures. On October 7th, Governor Jerry Brown signed into law SB 202, a bill that prohibits all statewide ballot measures that qualify for the ballot through the state's initiative petition process after July 1, 2011 from being placed on June primary election ballots. While the legislature retains the power to place measures on the June ballot, voter initiatives will now only appear on the November general election ballot or statewide special election ballots. (Statewide special elections can be called for by the legislature or governor and have occurred three times over the past decade.)

This is important because primary elections tend to draw significantly smaller numbers of voters with disproportionate turnout along party lines. While primary voters tend to be better educated and more engaged in the political process than general election voters, general elections see both larger and more diverse turnouts. SB 202 therefore has the potential to ensure that more Californians, of all political persuasions, have a say on state-wide measures.

Opponents of SB 202 raised concerns that voters will be faced with more initiatives at the polls in November, resulting in increased voter fatigue and potential voter “drop-off” for initiatives located further down the ballot. Studies have shown, however, that voter “drop-off” is minimal in California elections, especially for voter initiatives that tend to attract significant amounts of media attention and advertising. This exhaustive study of California’s ballot measure process goes into more detail on voter participation in elections.

When California’s legislature fails to act on issues of critical importance, nonprofit organizations can fill the void by putting these issues on the ballot and encouraging the public to take action. The recent changes to the initiative process should ensure that a more representative cross section of Californians weigh in on the ballot measures that shape the state’s future. Although the longer ballots may result in a slight amount of voter fatigue, this will likely be off set by the increase in the number of votes being cast at the November polls.

Details on the California initiative process can be found here. For more information on ballot measure activity for nonprofits, please see Alliance for Justice’s recently updated factsheet.

Daily Digest 10/18/11

2011-10-18T17:38:00.000-04:00

How Occupy Wall Street is affecting healthcare and social media [Government Health IT]
Even state immigration laws have to face reality [CNN]
Education bill draws fire from rights groups [Washington Post]
Health programs risk sharpcuts if Super Committee deadlocks [National Journal]

Daily Digest 10/17/11

2011-10-17T17:54:00.000-04:00

A Quest for Hybrid Companies That Profit, but Can Tap Charity [The New York Times]
Restrictions on Lobbying by Exempt Organizations: How Much Advocacy Is Too Much? [The Nonprofit Quarterly]
Philly lobbyist rules to be revised [Philadelphia Inquirer]
All-volunteer ballot efforts face long odds in California [Sacramento Bee]

A Major Milestone for Immigrant Youth and Rights Advocates

2011-10-14T15:58:00.001-04:00

- by Daren Garshelis

With Governor Jerry Brown’s signing of AB 131 on October 8, the California DREAM Act became law, opening the door for qualified undocumented students who meet in-state tuition requirements to apply for and receive financial aid at California public colleges and universities. The passage of AB 131, in the words of Gov. Brown, “benefits us all by giving top students a chance to improve their lives and the lives of all of us.”

For the immigrant advocacy community, the passage of the California DREAM Act is a significant, if long overdue, step in promoting equal rights for immigrants in the state. Having personally worked with a significant number of immigrant rights groups across California over the course of the last year to help them understand the opportunities they have under the law to influence public policy, it was encouraging for me to see their tireless effort bear fruit.

The California Immigrant Policy Center has been at the forefront for years in organizing immigrant communities throughout the state and pushing the California DREAM Act in Sacramento. Every year, CIPC arranges Immigrant Day, busing in hundreds of immigrant rights advocates from throughout the state to descend on the State Capitol to introduce legislators to some of the hard-working people who are being discriminated against and denied opportunities based on their place of birth, and to push for legislation to rectify these injustices.

In the wake of the passage of the California DREAM Act, CIPC had this to say:

“The California DREAM Act will assist talented young people who have excelled in school and are Americans - and Californians - in all but paperwork. The Act will nurture the development of the state's next generation of doctors, scientists, scholars, and thinkers, who will help move California's economy forward. We believe that this decision invests wisely into the very young people who, through the realization of their educational goals, will help to assure a prosperous future for all Californians.”

Dreamers – the students who have grown up in the United States and simply want an opportunity to prove themselves here, and who have been instrumental in the advocacy fight over the California DREAM Act – are thrilled.

California State Assemblymember Gil Cedillo addresses the crowd
outside the State Capitol on Immigrant Day, May 24, 2011.

Fabiola Inzunza, who advocated continuously for the California DREAM Act while attending and graduating from UCLA without the help of the legislation, was nonetheless gratified “to know that progress has been made and that my peers will have some relief as they fight for their dreams of continuing their education.” Her description of the successful advocacy effort that propelled the California DREAM Act is encouraging testimony to advocates fighting for underdog causes everywhere:

"When I first became involved in the California Dream Act campaign, few had faith about its passage. Not many believed we would be successful in winning. The former governor continually vetoed our dreams, but it was the voice of undocumented students across the state that persisted throughout the years. Our collective power grew, not only through this campaign, but through the transformative effect of an emerging movement of young immigrant voices across the country. This victory belongs to the students who didn't give up and kept the spirit of this bill alive for so long. Our courage gave courage to those in office to do the right thing. We are an example for the rest of the nation--we have set a new standard for the treatment of immigrants in this country.”

Inzunza plans to continue her education and her advocacy for immigrant rights.

The passage of the California DREAM Act is a significant achievement for immigrant rights advocates, and will undoubtedly have a positive effect on the lives of many students in California. It is important to acknowledge the steps towards progress that have been made, and the effectiveness of the advocacy campaigns that brought them about. But we must continue the fight.

Alliance for Justice has resources in English and Spanish for nonprofit organizations fighting for immigrant rights, to assist in determining opportunities under the law to influence public policy.

Organizations interested in learning more about the assistance AFJ provides should contact advocacy@afj.org.

Daily Digest 10/13/11

2011-10-13T13:45:00.002-04:00

Trade groups go after Obama ethics rules [Roll Call]
Ben Nelson's ads may break new ground [New York Times]
See also: 'Super PAC' American Crossroads seeks permission to feature candidates in ads [Washington Post]

Digital Advocacy Panel Discussion in DC!

2011-10-12T17:17:00.000-04:00

Nonprofits are built on a foundation of relationships, and tools like Facebook and Twitter allow nonprofits to expand our relationships and our worlds. But new tools come with a tangled web of rules and regulations, and many nonprofits are hesitant about engaging in online advocacy. Can a c3 lose its tax status over a careless Tweet? What happens when a politician “likes” your foundation’s Facebook page?

Join us for an exciting event to launch our new publication – “Influencing Public Policy in the Digital Age” – and learn the rules for using social media, blogs, and email as part of your advocacy toolkit.

· Date and Time: October 26, 9:30-11:00 AM

· Location: HRC Equality Center, 1640 Rhode Island Avenue, NW (Corner of 17^th and Rhode Island), Washington, DC

· Panelists: Abby Levine, Legal Director of Advocacy Programs, Alliance for Justice; Allen Mattison, Associate, Trister, Ross, Schadler & Gold, PLLC; David Willett, Director, Strategic Communications and Marketing, Ocean Conservancy

This panel discussion will help lawyers, grassroots organizers, communications staff, and anyone who works online, to understand and navigate the laws and regulations governing advocacy in the digital age.

Robust participation is not only possible, but enhanced when nonprofits have the information they need to use social media and other online tools. Download our guide at www.afj.org/digitalage, and join us on October 26 to learn how you can confidently take full advantage of your right to be actively and meaningfully engaged in virtually every aspect of our nation’s policy and political processes.

Daily Digest 10/12/11

2011-10-12T16:10:00.000-04:00

The payoff of lobbying: It works big time for the corporate sector, but for nonprofits? [Nonprofit Quarterly]

Daily Digest 10/11/11

2011-10-11T16:41:00.002-04:00

House panel seeks details on IRS investigations of nonprofits
[Bloomberg BusinessWeek]
Florida law tightens voting rules, angers advocates [NPR]
Governor OKs college aid for undocumented immigrants in California [Sacramento Bee]

Daily Digest 10/7/11

2011-10-07T19:56:00.003-04:00

PACs contribute $83K to Super Committee members [ABC News]
It’s final – No more lobbying on Federal Advisory Committees
[Project on Government Oversight]
Women’s health advocates speak out against legislator’s ‘omnibus anti-choice bill’ [Florida Independent]
FEC lets PACs take unlimited money for independent campaign expenditure [BNA]
Appropriate political activity defined by primary activity, IRS official says [BNA]

Daily Digest 10/5/11

2011-10-05T13:40:00.001-04:00

Minnesota Campaign Finance and Public Disclosure Board releases guidance on ballot initiatives [Lobby Comply Blog]
Administration set to finalize guidance barring lobbyists from advisory boards [BNA] (subscription required)

Daily Digest 10/3/11

2011-10-03T19:14:00.005-04:00

Opposition to lobbyist gift ban rule begins to gather among trade groups
[The Hill]
Nonprofit Trustees Urged to Get Involved in Public Policy
[Chronicle of Philanthropy]
LAANE turns the tables [Los Angeles Times]

SUPREME COURT PREVIEW: UPCOMING CASES AND POTENTIAL CONTROVERSIES

2011-09-30T19:33:00.000-04:00

Alliance for Justice keeps you updated on how U.S. Supreme Court decisions affect everyday Americans. Interested in hearing from leading Bay Area legal experts on what to expect in the coming Supreme Court term? Register for the ACS Bay Area lawyer chapter's free evening discussion on October 5 to preview the coming term of the Supreme Court and take a look at upcoming cases and potential controversies.

Register here: http://www.acslaw.org/events/2011-10-05/supreme-court-preview-upcoming-cases-and-potential-controversies

Daily Digest 9/29/11

2011-09-29T13:42:00.000-04:00

Judge won't block key parts of Alabama immigration law [NPR]
Obama administration widens challenges to state immigration laws [Washington Post]

Daily Digest 9/27/11

2011-09-27T13:33:00.002-04:00

A campaign finance ruling turned to labor's advantage [New York Times]
Lobbying group objects to new regulation banning gifts to all federal employees [The Hill]
Health lobbyists flocking the 'super committee' [CT Mirror]
The hidden hands in redistricting: Corporations and other powerful interests [Pro Publica]

Daily Digest 9/23/11

2011-09-23T14:05:00.000-04:00

California: FPPC plans new internet ad rules to clarify disclaimer requirements [BNA] (subscription required)

Daily Digest 9/22/11

2011-09-22T13:22:00.001-04:00

How nonprofits can avoid politicking online [Chronicle of Philanthropy]
Philadelphia Board of Ethics approves lobbying regulations
[Lobby Comply Blog]

Daily Digest 9/16/11

2011-09-16T13:03:00.001-04:00

New rule would expand tight Obama lobbying rules to all federal workers
[The Hill]
Liberal, conservative groups join to find spending cuts [Roll Call]

Daily Digest 9/15/11

2011-09-15T13:12:00.000-04:00

Without scandal, lobby reform stalls [Politico]
Immigration advocates are split over Arizona boycott [New York Times]

Daily Digest 9/14/11

2011-09-14T12:59:00.002-04:00

Charitable groups will fight Obama tax bill [The Daily Caller]
North Carolina voters to decide on same-sex marriage [New York Times]
La Raza calls off boycott in Arizona [Nonprofit Quarterly]

Daily Digest 9/13/11

2011-09-13T16:01:00.001-04:00

C onservative groups bring challenge to Montana election laws in federal court [BNA] (subscription required)

Daily Digest 9/12/11

2011-09-12T18:29:00.001-04:00

North Carolina: Gay marriage debate intensifies [Charlotte Observer]
DOJ official promises more action to enforce Lobbying Disclosure Act [BNA] (subscription required)
PACs increase fundraising 20 percent in 2012 election cycle, FEC figures show [BNA] (subscription required)

Daily Digest 9/9/11

2011-09-09T13:22:00.000-04:00

Hunter: FEC may issue new guidance on unlimited contributions for all PACs [BNA] (subscription required)
A tax law primer as Maryland churches are lobbied to oppose marriage equality [The American Independent]
Lawmaker offers plan to lure migrant farm workers [New York Times]
Greens to EPA chief: Don't quit over White House smog reversal [The Hill]
New York City Campaign Finance Board seeks greater disclosure from donors [New York Times]
Florida: Palm Beach County officials resign from nonprofit boards and fundraisers because of ethics rules [Sun Sentinel]

Daily Digest 9/8/11

2011-09-08T13:58:00.002-04:00

Final regs implement Form 990 changes [Journal of Accountancy]
Lobbying groups take a stand [Politico]
Documents indicate an array of groups funded lobbying efforts for DREAM Act [Daily Californian]

When the right goes looking for its next ACORN

2011-09-07T16:44:00.002-04:00

AFJ’s Nan Aron has a new blog post on Daily Kos discussing attacks on nonprofits. In particular, she reviews the case of the Los Angeles Alliance for a New Economy:

This summer, we got word that an anonymous funder had hired opposition-research firm MB Public Affairs to dig up dirt on a nonprofit called the Los Angeles Alliance for New Economy (LAANE)…

The late Senator Ted Kennedy once described LAANE as “a champion for economic justice and a strong voice for those in need.” Hardly the stuff villains are made of.

We don’t know whose scheme it was to send open-records requests to more than 70 public officials, demanding all information about their contacts with LAANE. We don’t know if the goal was to intimidate those officials into discontinuing their work with LAANE, or to scare LAANE into shelving a particular initiative, or if it was just the first step in a larger attack against LAANE’s record and credibility.

Read the rest here.

Political attacks on nonprofits are nothing new. We saw what happened to ACORN, and the ongoing efforts to shut down Planned Parenthood speak volumes about the tactics and persistence of some groups.

Because of our ongoing work assisting and defending nonprofit organizations, AFJ was in a unique position to assist LAANE when they were targeted this summer. We helped build a coalition of local and national groups to stand with LAANE, and our experts helped them better understand the law, tax codes, and best practices to ensure that they could be completely open and honest about their records and their activities.

Throughout the fall, we’ll be offering a series of crisis-management seminars for nonprofits. The first will be held in Oakland and Los Angeles. Click here for more information on these upcoming sessions.

Daily Digest 9/7/11

2011-09-07T14:41:00.000-04:00

Wisconsin: Tea party lawsuit seeks to force state to rewrite rules defining political speech [Wisconsin State Journal]

Daily Digest 9/6/11

2011-09-06T18:10:00.002-04:00

Rove-backed super PAC snags $2 million donation
[Los Angeles Times]

Nevada Supreme Court opens fall term with dispute over TV ad [Las Vegas Sun]

ProgressOhio refiles suit over JobsOhio issue [Hudson Hub Times]

Is the Center for Public Integrity’s work advocacy or journalism? [Washington Post]

Restrictions on SuperPACs not super clear [NPR]

Daily Digest 9/1/11

2011-09-01T19:21:00.005-04:00

FPPC fines ConsumerWatchdog.org’s political arm
[CA Majority Report]

Union chief says new PAC will empower the nation's 'silent majority' [The Hill]

Advocacy groups celebrate DOJ's blocking of AT&T/T-Mobile deal [The Hill]

Legislature in California Set to Pass a Dream Act [NY Times]

Daily Digest 8/30/11

2011-08-30T14:22:00.001-04:00

Federal judge blocks Ala. illegal immigration law [New York Times]
California: FPPC releases draft of text message contribution regulation
[Lobby Comply Blog]
Attorney for IRS gift tax audit client denies IRS political motivation allegation [BNA]

By Diane Freda
The attorney for one of the individuals previously being audited by the Internal Revenue Service for possible gift tax assessment said he disagrees with comments made by Caplin & Drysdale attorney Marcus Owens that IRS capitulated in the face of Republican pressure when it halted
five ongoing gift tax audits July 7.

“As counsel for one of the donors, I do not know the party affiliations of the others,” Greg Colvin, partner with Adler & Colvin in San Francisco told BNA Aug. 19. He declined to name his client's party affiliation, but said “the criticism of the IRS audits originated not with Congressional Republicans, but with tax-exempt law practitioners at the American Bar Association Tax Section meeting in May of 2011, and concern was expressed from many points of the political compass.”

Colvin added that “the 501 (c)(4) gift tax moratorium ultimately announced by IRS closely matched a recommendation from a 2004 ABA task force--hardly a partisan group.”

Owens, in an Aug. 8 letter to Treasury, alleged that regulators had given in to concerns by Senate Republicans who wrote to IRS urging it to stop the investigations, based on the fact that IRS had rarely if ever invoked a gift tax audit and alleging its own set of political motivations (159 DTR G-1, 8/17/11).

The IRS responded by saying it would not go further with those audits, or any others, until the matter had been studied more.

A Handful of Members of Congress.
According to Owens, the clear implication left by IRS's July 7 action was that IRS enforcement activity “could be curtailed by intervention from a handful of members of Congress, whatever their party affiliation, when political contributions are at risk.”

The letter suggested that IRS's decision to call off the audits may have been politically motivated and gave the five donors an advantage over other taxpayers. Owens asked Treasury, on behalf of four anonymous clients, to issue guidance immediately on whether the federal gift tax applies to gifts to tax-exempt social welfare organizations.

Owens’s letter alleged that because it was primarily Republican lawmakers who asked IRS to stop the audits, the five donors who were being investigated for their gifts to 501(c)(4) organizations “may likely have also been significant donors to Republican causes.”

The immediate benefit to those donors termination of those audits, without any guidance being provided to other, similarly situated taxpayers suggested a political motivation by IRS, “if only in the form of a misguided effort to avoid controversy,” Owens said.

Better for the Public.
Colvin said that while he respects Owens experience, perspective, and “fine technical rendering” of some of the past tax authorities that touch on the 501(c)(4) gift tax controversy, he differs with Owens's view that the IRS announcement made things worse for the tax-paying public.

“It may have been clear to Marc, and to me, that the tax cases and rulings of 30 or 50 years ago supported imposition of the gift tax on donations to 501(c)(4) organizations, but the IRS by its own admission had 'little enforcement history,' ” Colvin said.

Colvin added that confusion and uncertainty about whether the tax was applicable to Section 501(c)(4)s reigned for decades, heightened by the revelation of the five audits earlier this year.
IRS's July 7 announcement, for the time being, relieved that confusion and uncertainty and reassured the tax community that no one will be audited for non-payment of gift tax on donations to social welfare groups, and that enforcement will be “prospective only after notice to the public,” he said.

Leveling the Playing Field.
The termination of audits applies not only to the original five donors, Colvin said, but to all other, similarly-situated taxpayers. The IRS action leveled the playing field for everybody, which was “a vast improvement,” he said.

He agreed with Owens on one point -- that it would have been better for IRS to state definitively whether the federal gift tax does or does not apply to payments made to 501(c)(4) social welfare organizations.

A “no” answer might come more easily to that question, he said -- that 501(c)(4) donations made for the betterment of society through policy advocacy or other means are so different from giving to the natural objects of one's bounty that they don't qualify as taxable gifts.

A “yes” answer would be more problematic, he said, because IRS would need to address issues such as the distinction between a gift and a payment for advocacy services and whether a gift earmarked to influence candidate elections could properly be taxed.

Weekly Wrap-Up 8/22 - 8/26/11

2011-08-29T18:18:00.000-04:00

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 in box by joining our Nonprofit Advocacy Network!

Daily Digest 8/29/11

2011-08-29T12:50:00.000-04:00

Building stronger foundation-nonprofit partnerships [Sacramento Bee]
NDPAC ruling could allow PACs to set up separate accounts for independent spending [BNA] (subscription required)

Daily Digest 8/26/11

2011-08-26T13:18:00.001-04:00

Meant to erase fears of deportation program, federal hearings draw anger
[New York Times]

Daily Digest 8/25/11

2011-08-25T14:58:00.002-04:00

Complaint about Americans for Prosperity ad in Washington House race dismissed by FEC [BNA] (subscription required)
IRS issues liberal ruling regarding exempt organizations and Political Action Committees [Mannatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP Newsletter]

Daily Digest 8/23/11

2011-08-23T12:53:00.000-04:00

AFL-CIO to form super PAC [Politico]

Daily Digest 8/22/11

2011-08-22T13:15:00.002-04:00

Massachusetts unions ramping up lobbying spending in 2011 [Boston Herald]
Pro-term limit groups launches campaign to send members of Congress packing [Sacramento Bee]
Advocates cheer new immigration rules, but expect Obama to follow through [The Hill]

Standing Against Attacks On Nonprofits

2011-08-19T16:01:00.001-04:00

Over the course of the past few years, there has been a noticeable increase in attacks against progressive organizations and their leaders. We know from recent attacks on Planned Parenthood and ACORN, propelled by the production and distribution of highly edited and distorted videos, an FOIA requests by ALEC and the Mackinac Center meant to silence academics in Michigan and Wisconsin, that some right-wing conservative individuals and groups are willing to do almost anything to achieve their aim. One of the most recent groups to be targeted by the right wing is the Los Angeles Alliance for a New Economy (LAANE).

In May, LAANE became the subject of a series of broad Public Records Act (PRA) requests submitted to more than 70 public officials and governmental entities in Southern California by a Sacramento-based political consulting firm called MB Public Affairs. MB Public Affairs—a conservative public affairs firm with ties to Karl Rove and Sarah Palin -- has refused to reveal the identities of the clients who are behind these requests or the reason these requests were made.

Founded in 1993, LAANE is a champion for good jobs, community development and a healthy environment. Since their inception, LAANE has confronted issues head on, resulting in the successful passage of the nation’s most comprehensive anti-pollution and anti-poverty measure—the Port of Los Angeles Clean Truck Program. Not only has LAANE served as a model for other municipalities across the country, it has helped pioneer the first Construction Careers and Green Jobs Policy—an initiative that ensures thousands of middle-class green jobs in the construction industry. LAANE is also the co-founder of the Partnership for Working Families, a burgeoning national alliance that advocates for quality jobs, affordable housing, and a healthy environment.

As an opposition research firm, MB Public Affairs' intention appears to be to undermine the significant gains and accomplishments LAANE has made to ensure good jobs, a healthy environment and thriving communities. Unfortunately, given this year’s assaults on collective bargaining and other progressive causes, this sort of ideologically-backed meddling has become commonplace in some activist circles.

LAANE is not backing down from the attacks by MB Public Affairs, and nor are their supporters. A host of national, regional and California based organizations have joined an open letter in support of LAANE. The signatories include: Alliance for Justice; American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees; American Rights At Work; Center on Policy Initiatives; Common Cause California; and more than a dozen others.

Individual activists from around the country have also rallied in support LAANE by joining an online petition launched and co-sponsored by Alliance for Justice. The petition states, "I stand with LAANE against these anonymous attacks and demand that the shadowy groups orchestrating this campaign step out into the light of day." Petition signatories demand that MB Public Affairs reveal the names and intentions of the clients behind the public information requests, "If they truly believe that what they’re doing is right, they shouldn’t be afraid to stand up like the rest of us."

Change.org|Start an Online Petition »

From Assessment to Action: Advocacy Capacity Assessment

2011-08-19T15:08:00.000-04:00

We all recognize the importance of nonprofit advocacy, both through the work of nonprofits and through the work of foundations. Sue Hoechstetter from Alliance for Justice details the oft-forgotten piece of the advocacy puzzle – advocacy capacity assessment – in her article, “From Assessment to Action: Advocacy Capacity Assessment.” Published in the Summer 2011 issue of Advocacy Evaluation Update, Sue offers us a reminder that capacity assessment is one tool nonprofits need to use in order to maximize effectiveness.

Find the link to the publication here: http://evaluationinnovation.org/sites/default/files/AEU_Summer_2011_1.pdf

Daily Digest 8/19/11

2011-08-19T13:33:00.002-04:00

Ohio: Union groups reject call to cancel referendum [New York Times]
Boulder rolling forward with ballot measure against 'corporate personhood' [Lobby Comply Blog]
Year two for the Social Innovation Fund: Fewer applicants, less money, more United Way [Nonprofit Quarterly]
Nonprofits as society's watchdogs: Six recent examples [Nonprofit Quarterly]
Lobbyists, special interests appear to have super committee edge
[Iowa Independent]
Fewer youths to be deported in new policy [New York Times]

Daily Digest 8/18/11

2011-08-18T14:53:00.003-04:00

Ohio: Governor offers to change anti-union law [New York Times]
Party crashers all the rage, aren't all the same
[Roll Call] (subscription required)

Daily Digest 8/17/11

2011-08-17T13:35:00.002-04:00

California: FPPC issues notices to adopt regulations [Lobby Comply Blog]
Federal policy resulting in wave of deportations draws protests
[New York Times]
Attorney alleges political motivation in IRS halt to section 501(c)(4) audits [BNA] (subscription required)

Advancing Justice Conference 2011

2011-08-16T13:50:00.000-04:00

(Click picture above for full size view)

Alliance for Justice is pleased to be a community supporter of the Advancing Justice Conference 2011, which will take place in San Francisco on October 27-28.

The Advancing Justice Conference is a national civil rights and social justice conference that aims to bring together a diverse group of stakeholders in one place to address a broad range of issues facing the Asian American and Pacific Islander community. It serves as a unique forum where researchers, advocates, direct service providers and other leaders can meet face-to-face, talk about their common challenges and find ways to work collaboratively.

The Advancing Justice Conference is a joint project by the Asian American Institute (Chicago), Asian American Justice Center (Washington, D.C.), Asian Law Caucus (San Francisco) and Asian Pacific American Legal Center (Los Angeles). Learn more here.

Daily Digest 8/16/11

2011-08-16T13:06:00.002-04:00

NY governor signs government ethics law [Wall Street Journal]
Group challenging Montana campaign finance public disclosure law [Missoulian]

Daily Digest 8/15/11

2011-08-15T12:52:00.002-04:00

ALEC balks after experts say it should register as Minnesota lobbyist [Washington Independent]
California scrutinizes nonprofits, sometimes ending a tax exemption
[New York Times]

Daily Digest 8/12/11

2011-08-12T13:43:00.001-04:00

Maine PAC reporting laws upheld [Lobby Comply Blog]
Lobbyist group lauds ABA disclosure plan but questions restricting campaign money [BNA] (subscription required)

Daily Digest 8/11/11

2011-08-11T13:03:00.001-04:00

ABA calls for tougher lobbying rules [Roll Call] (subscription required)
Hispanic organizations give Obama and Congress a 'C' [New York Times]
Liberal groups launch contract of their own [Roll Call] (subscription required)

Just released: New 501(c)(4) Fact Sheets!

2011-08-11T12:59:00.000-04:00

With the 2012 election just around the corner, it is important for nonprofits and funders to understand the role 501(c)(4) organizations can play. Alliance for Justice has produced two new fact sheets that provide a quick overview of what 501(c)(4)s can—and cannot—do during elections and how individuals and foundations may give to 501(c)(4)s.

Election Year Activities for 501(c)(4) Social Welfare Organizations describes the election-related activities in which (c)(4)s may engage after the Supreme Court’s ruling in Citizens United v. FEC, such as endorsing candidates for federal and state office, while highlighting potential reporting and tax obligations.
Supporting the Social Welfare: Giving to 501(c)(4) Organizations is a guide for potential donors (both individuals and foundations) who have questions about their risks and responsibilities when donating to a (c)(4). It answers questions such as, “What can a 501(c)(4) organization do with the funds I donate?” and “Can a foundation give to a 501(c)(4)?”

We hope you find these resources helpful.

Daily Digest 8/10/11

2011-08-10T14:30:00.001-04:00

Defending health care reform in Iowa [Politico]

Daily Digest 8/5/11

2011-08-05T23:49:00.002-04:00

· Management 101: Don’t make campaign contributions from your nonprofit account [Nonprofit Quarterly]

· New immigration law makes Christian charity illegal, say church leaders
[The Georgia Bulletin]

· Bloomberg and Soros commit $60-million to program for minority youths
[Chronicle of Philanthropy]

· Deficit panel rules favor the ‘extraneous’ [Roll Call]

· Medicaid changes rile advocacy groups in Calif., N.C., and Fla.
[Kaiser Health News]

What Does Co-design of Capacity Building for Advocacy Organizations Really Mean? Openness, Flexibility, Risk-taking, and Results

2011-08-04T12:15:00.001-04:00

A guest column by Susan Misra of TCC Group

------------------------------------------------------

When you’re leading a capacity-building initiative, are you willing to listen to other viewpoints, incorporate them into decisions, and even change course mid-stream?

Recently, our team had the chance to grapple with this question through an initiative funded by The James Irvine Foundation, The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation and the David and Lucile Packard Foundation. Strengthening Organizations to Mobilize Californians involved 27 nonprofits working with underrepresented communities (for the full evaluation, click here.) The Initiative focused on improving organizational capacity and, ultimately, increasing civic participation.

We quickly recognized that the Initiative had to reflect this overarching philosophy. Our team convened 17 grantees, who suggested that capacity building should not be imposed by a funder but created through the close collaboration of participants. We agreed and used their feedback to create an outline of the Initiative. A design committee of seven grantees was assembled to refine the Initiative’s 32 learning activities including peer exchanges, trainings and convenings. The committee provided critical feedback, such as the desire to meet in person instead of virtually and the need to focus on themes like communications and fundraising.

Our team believed that we had to stay flexible and open to insights that emerged throughout the Initiative. We kept going back to members of the design committee, interviewed each participating organization’s executive director, and surveyed registrants for each activity. Perhaps most dramatic of all, we undertook a significant re-design after our first peer exchange, when participants spoke of what it really takes to share power and lead alongside others inside their organizations. We made shared leadership a theme, to one degree or another, in all of the Initiative’s activities (for an article on what we learned, click here.)

This process wasn’t easy, and we had some internal debate about whether making such a large change at this stage was the right path. Were we being too responsive to the detriment of long-term impact? Ultimately, we concluded that if we really believed in co-design, we should follow the group’s energy and identify how shared leadership intersected with our goals of increasing adaptive, leadership, and management capacity.

In the end, involving participants in such a deep and authentic way became a working model of the change that the Initiative sought to enable. We measured a number of success indicators, finding that 82% of participating organizations reported improving their capacity and 78% said they improved specifically in shared leadership.

As for our team, I think I speak for all of us in saying that we wrapped up the Initiative with an even deeper appreciation for what participatory design actually means. We saw what could be gained by staying flexible and responsive, even when doing so made our work more complicated.

Susan Misra is Associate Director of Program and Grants Management and Capacity Building at TCC Group, a national consulting firm that provides planning, evaluation, and capacity-building services.

AFJ hosts panel discussion in San Francisco on Judicial Ethics and the Supreme Court

2011-08-02T19:43:00.012-04:00

Today, Alliance for Justice, along with the Bay Area Lawyer Chapter of the American Constitution Society and California Common Cause, held a panel discussion on Judicial Ethics and the Supreme Court. This event, hosted in the San Francisco offices of the law firm Bingham McCutchen, featured Nan Aron, President of Alliance for Justice, Derek Cressman of California Common Cause, and Richard Zitrin, Lecturer in Law at UC Hastings and Former Director of the Center for Applied Legal Ethics, University of San Francisco School of Law.

Nan Aron, President of Alliance for Justice, introduces panelists
Richard Zitrin (L) and Derek Cressman

The discussion focused on recent questions about bias and impartiality of Supreme Court justices, including reported incidents of justices failing to make true and accurate disclosures of gifts and/or spousal income, as well as reports of their attendance at partisan events. These indiscretions, and others, raise issue as to the impartiality of the justices who, unlike judges sitting on the lower federal courts, are not bound by the federal Code of Conduct for United States Judges. According to the Supreme Court, this Code of Conduct is deemed merely advisory by the justices on the highest court in the country.

Derek Cressman of California Common Cause
discusses his organization's efforts to reveal
justices' violations of ethical conduct.

The panelists explained the very real implications of having a Supreme Court whose members are not only without a code of ethics, but have been untruthful in the disclosure reports that they are required to provide. As a means of addressing this issue, the panelists and audience members engaged in a lively Q&A session in which they discussed the possibilities of legislative reform and the possibility of presenting nominees to the Supreme Court with a pledge to abide by the Code of Conduct upon confirmation.

Audience members included lawyers and activists,
and were eligible to receive 1.0 CLE credits for their attendance.

Panelists and audience members agreed that members of the federal judiciary, including Supreme Court justices, should be allowed and encouraged to participate in events such as educational seminars and meetings sponsored by issue based organizations, but that the appearance of the Supreme Court’s independence and impartiality is undermined when its Justices are held to a lower ethical standard.

For more information on the issue of judicial ethics, and to find out about Alliance for Justice’s efforts for reform, please visit AFJ’s website at http://www.afj.org/connect-with-the-issues/supreme-court-ethics-reform/.