Organizing For Action Flips On Corporate Donations

The head of the nonprofit formed to take over President Barack Obama's campaign apparatus announced the organization would no longer accept corporate donations, after initially signaling it would.

In an op-ed originally posted on CNN.com, Organizing for Action (OFA) chairman Jim Messina wrote that the advocacy nonprofit would also publicly disclose donors who contribute more than $250. Messina wrote that these moves were made in an effort to promote transparency.

Messina also sought to clarify the mission of OFA. He explained that nonprofit's overall goal is to support the president's second term agenda, but they will not be endorsing Democratic or any other candidates for office. "The president has always believed that special interests have undue influence over the policymaking process", he wrote, "and the mission of this organization is to rebalance the power structure."

According to an article in The Washington Post, the group will also institute a ban on donations from federal lobbyists and foreign nationals.

Campaign finance reform groups, which were critical of OFA's initial decision to accept corporate donations, met Messina's announcement with some skepticism. Washington, D.C.-based Common Cause president Bob Edgar said in a statement on the organization's website that while he is glad OFA reconsidered its initial decision, he believes there is still work to be done to make the 501(c)(4) organization more transparent.

"If Organizing for Action is serious about putting to bed public concerns that contributions buy access, it should mobilize its impressive small-donor and activist base to push for real reform to clean up Washington," Edgar said. "That means getting behind legislation like the DISCLOSE Act, supporting a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United and rein in runaway political spending, and developing a new, small-donor public funding system that lets candidates break their dependence on big money."

Democracy 21 president Fred Wertheimer was more critical saying in a press release that while the decision is appreciated, it does not "solve the fundamental problems created by President Obama’s involvement with OFA."

"OFA remains an unprecedented entity that allows individual donors and bundlers to provide unlimited amounts of money to an organization functioning as an arm of the Obama presidency," he continued.

Wertheimer is also concerned about the unlimited donations donors can make to OFA, saying that they, at minimum, create the perception that individual donors and bundlers can buy influence over the Obama administration's policies and decisions.

The administration has previously pushed back on the suggestion that donors who contribute more than $500,000 will be invited to a face-to-face meeting with Obama, denying that there is not a "price tag" on meeting the president.

Launched in January, OFA has already begun a six-figure online advertising campaign to convince Republican lawmakers to support universal background checks on gun purchases. The group has also rallied supporters to support the president's plan to replace the sequester.

IRS Bought To Court Over 'Dark Money' Organization

The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) is being sued by a former congressional candidate who alleges that the agency wrongly allowed a so-called "dark money" political organization to operate as a tax-exempt entity.

Dr. David Gill is a Democrat who unsuccessfully ran to represent Illinois' 13th district in the 2012 elections. According to a report on The Huffington Post, Gill and the Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) are arguing that the IRS should not have allowed the American Action Network (AAN) to spend $2.6 million in ads against Gill while at the same time enjoying tax-exempt status.

Gill and CREW allege that the agency misinterpreted tax laws when it released regulations for social welfare nonprofits. IRS guidelines state that these organizations must be "primarily" focused on social welfare, while the federal statute states they must be "exclusively" focused on it.

"It is offensive that the IRS turns a blind eye to reality and allows partisan political groups to seek refuge in a provision of the IRS code that is meant to govern organizations such as volunteer firefighter companies and homeowner organizations," Dr. Gill said in a statement.

Dr. Gill and CREW filed the civil lawsuit Tuesday under the provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act, which allows those who have suffered "sufficient harm" to file suit against the IRS. Gill can certainly claim to have suffered, as he believes that his close defeat -- he only lost by 1,002 votes to Republican Rodney Davis -- was due to "misinformation" spread about his support of Medicare in AAN's ads. One of those spots claimed that Gill would eliminate Medicare and replace it with single-payer healthcare.

AAN was the only 501(c)(4) nonprofit to spend significant money in the 13th district campaign.

You can read the full story on The Huffington Post.

Featured Grant: Gun Violence Prevention

President Barack Obama will announce his proposals to reform the United States' gun laws tomorrow, nearly one month to the day of the Newtown, Conn., school shootings that claimed the lives of 20 children and six staff members. While these new proposals will likely be welcome news for gun control advocacy groups, members of these organizations know they still have to educate the public on their position.

For nonprofits that are looking to build awareness about gun violence in America, we have a new opportunity available on our grants page. The Joyce Foundation's Gun Violence Prevention Grant seeks to fund organizations which are looking to educate the public, policy makers and the media about common-sense policies that improve public health and safety.

Applications will be accepted from any nonprofit that actively engages in public policy advocacy. The board of the Joyce Foundation meets every April, July, and December, so all applications must be submitted four months prior to those meetings; Letters of inquiry are due six to eight weeks before the deadline for proposals.

More information on this opportunity can be found on the Joyce Foundation's website. If you are interested in other categories of grants, make sure to visit The NonProfit Times' Grant Finder.

Opinion: Charitable Deduction Must Be Protected

As the debate over the so-called "fiscal cliff" rages on in Washington, D.C., some in the government are setting their eyes on the charitable deduction. They argue that eliminating it will raise revenue for the government. In a new opinion column posted on our website, our editor-in-chief, Paul Clolery, wrote that this is exactly the wrong approach to take. Here's an excerpt from his piece:

***

Advocacy organization Independent Sector has statistics that its executives trot out, showing the benefit of a $350 tax break is actually $1,000. They have argued that itemizing households accounted for 70 percent of the $229 billion in charitable donations in 2008 and that 2 percent of taxpayers in the top bracket were responsible for 33 percent of all charitable giving that year.

Here’s the kicker: Only one-third of tax filers, the wealthiest Americans, itemized deductions that year. Congressional and White House officials argue that capping the deduction for the wealthiest Americans won’t really hurt that much, after all, charity at the highest levels is a competition for names on buildings and board seats at the opera.

The government officials probably didn't read a Bank of America study that showed 67 percent of wealthy households responded that they would somewhat or dramatically decrease charitable contributions if they received zero income tax deductions for their donations.

Government officials argue that the $16-trillion debt and $1.3-trillion budget shortfall has to be made up somewhere. They should start with cutting a budget few of them have probably even read.

The loud rancor of the debates has already affected how people spend, share and shelter their assets. Many more affluent Americans are already making early decisions around their income, deductions and possible tax implication now. That must also be affecting Sandy donations. That’s the simple math part.

The observation element is that giving to Sandy relief is lagging because those 1 percenters always being singled out as villains are spending their money putting their lives back together. It is estimated that 600,000 homes were damaged or destroyed across New York, New Jersey and Connecticut.

Those rich guys working on Wall Street or with information technology or investing in real estate along the east coast do not have the cash to donate as they usually do. They are who is missing from the fundraising effort. If the deduction is taken away, they will stay away longer.

***

You can read the full piece on The NonProfit Times' website.

Nonprofits Advocate For Charitable Deduction

The Charitable Giving Coalition -- a group of nonprofit advocates from 40 states -- traveled to Washington, D.C., yesterday. Their mission? To make sure the charitable deduction isn't eliminated during on-going discussions on how to avoid the so-called "fiscal cliff."

According to an article in The Worcester Telegram, the group is part of an effort called "Protect Giving," which involves an estimated 280 people from more than 50 nonprofits. They met with members of Congress to plead with them to leave the charitable deduction off of the chopping block.

While both Democrats and Republicans agree the cliff needs to be avoided, they remain at an impasse because President Barack Obama is insisting tax rates go up on the wealthiest 2 percent. Republicans say they are ready to accept increased revenue as part of a deal, but that it can't come from tax hikes, which they say will destroy jobs. They say any revenue should come from closing loopholes and eliminating deductions.

Yet many economists claim that it is impossible to raise the revenue Republicans claim they can get ($800 billion) without eliminating virtually all deductions, including the charitable deduction. Nonprofit officials say that if it were to be eliminated, giving to organizations would be severely damaged.

The sector appears to have an ally in this fight with President Obama, who said in an interview with Bloomberg TV on Tuesday that  if the deduction were eliminated, "Every hospital and university and not-for-profit agency across the country would suddenly find themselves on the verge of collapse. So that's not a realistic option." Nonprofits the past have fought hard against the Obama administration's efforts to reduce the charitable deduction.

Tim Garvin, president of United Way of Central Massachusetts and a member of the Coalition, told The Telegram that the group met with nearly 240 legislative offices, including staffers from the offices of Sens. John Kerry (D-MA), Patrick Leahy (D-VT), and Rep. Peter Welch (D-VT). Sen. Scott Brown (R-MA) also came to listen to the group's advocacy.

You can read the full story in The Worcester Telegram.

5 Ways Nonprofit Advocacy Can Succeed

All eyes right now are on the so-called fiscal cliff and while most of the arguments echoing in the congressional halls are about whether there should tax hikes on the wealthiest 2 percent, there are some issues that will directly impact the nonprofit sector. For example, there are still talks about capping the charitable deduction to generate revenue for the government, to which most in the sector are adamantly opposed.

This is where effective advocacy can come into play.

While nonprofits are forbidden to directly influence lawmakers, they can use their supporters to rally for causes like the charitable deduction. In the book "Five Good Ideas," Sean Moore wrote about how organizations should scrap the focus on the nuts and bolts of advocacy in favor of a reliance on concepts, approaches, and mindsets that can help them become a constructive player in public policy.

Moore laid out five ways to avoid the common pitfalls organizations face while lobbying:

• Understand how the government thinks. Key to successful persuasion is understanding those who you are trying to convince: Their values, objectives, needs, and way of looking at the world.
• Undertake do-it-yourself public policy. One of the most important things you can do is provide public officials with material they can use in a format with which they are familiar.
• Build political capital. Whether its leadership realizes it or not, every organization has political capital. This includes the reputation and accomplishments of your nonprofit and its leaders.
• Be strategically opportunistic. Aim for a balance between being reliable and avoiding being taken for granted. Be prepared to be active, but wait for the opportunity where you can have the greatest influence.
• Find your champions. Having a champion is a litmus test for your work: If you can’t get someone to play this role, that may be an early warning about the practicality of what you are asking.

Ariz. Group Ordered To Release Donation Records (UPDATED)

Gov. Jerry Brown (D-Calif.)

UPDATE: The Los Angeles Times has reported that Americans for Responsible Leadership has released the names of its contributors. The release identified the nonprofit Americans for Job Security as the organization behind the $11-million donation. That money was then passed to Center to Protect Patients Rights to ARL.

***

The California Supreme Court ruled Sunday that a Phoenix, Ariz.-based Political Action Committee (PAC) had to release its donation records to state records.

The state's highest court made the 7-0 ruling on a rare Sunday conference call, ordering Americans for Responsible Leadership (ARL) turn over records relating to an $11-million donation to a business campaign that opposed two propositions by Gov. Jerry Brown. The court ruled that ARL had to submit the records to the Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC) an hour after their ruling, according to The Sacramento Bee.

As of this writing, however, ARL has yet to submit the records, having already unsuccessfully attempted to get the court to extend the deadline to 9 a.m. local time today. Matt Ross, a spokesman for ARL's legal time, said in a written statement to The Sacramento Bee that "While we are working to deliver the records, we still believe that the FPPC does not have the authority to take such action and have filed a request for immediate stay with the United States Supreme Court."

That letter was sent to Justice Anthony Kennedy, who wrote the majority opinion in the controversial Citizens United case, which focused on campaign spending by corporations and nonprofits. In the letter, attorney Thad A. Davis wrote that the FPPC was unfairly targeting ARL because it was targeting Brown's initiatives.

For its part, the FPPC wants to review the donations records to determine whether ARL violated state rules that require nonprofits to disclose the names of its donors if their money was earmarked for a specific initiative. Depending on when they receive the records from the group, it remains to be seen whether the FPPC has enough time to make ARL disclose the names of its donors if a violation is found.

The NonProfit Times blog first reported on this story last week when a judge from the Sacramento Superior Court ruled that the FPPC could investigate ARL's donation records. That decision was eventually appealed to the California Supreme Court.

Charity Distances Itself From Anti-Muslim Film

The head of a California-based charity tried to distance his organization from an anti-Muslim film that has sparked protests around the globe, saying he was duped into participating in the movie.

The Los Angeles Times reported today that Joseph Nassralla, president of Media for Christ, wrote in a statement on the blog of anti-Muslim advocate Pamela Geller that he first became involved with the film known as "Innocence of Muslims" when its filmmaker, a fellow Egyptian immigrant named Nakoula B. Nakoula, approached him for help. He allegedly told Nassralla that he was working on a film about Christian persecution, and wanted to use Media for Christ's broadcast studio for filming.

Nassralla insisted in his statement that was all he had to do with the film, and that the final product of the movie was completely different than the movie that was described to him. He accused Nakoula of altering the film "without anyone's knowledge, changing its entire focus and dubbing in new dialogue." He also said he was unaware that Nakoula listed Media for Christ on the government documents for the movie.

Despite distancing himself from the movie, Nassralla placed the blame on the violent reaction against "Innocence of Muslims" not on the filmmakers, but on "those who are murdering and rioting." The film has angered many Muslims by depicting the prophet Muhammad as clumsy and a sexual deviant. Those images and other rhetoric in the movie are being blamed for violent protests across the Middle East, including last week's breach of the American embassy in the eastern Libyan city of Benghazi, which resulted in the death of U.S. ambassador Chris Stephens and three others.

Media for Christ, which was established in 2005, runs a satellite television network called The Way TV, which airs sermons and hymns as well as anti-Islamic sentiments. The host of one of its shows, Steve Klein, worked as a script consultant for "Innocence of Muslims."

You can read the full story in The Los Angeles Times.

Nonprofits Testify In Favor Of Specialty Plates

Leaders from nonprofit groups testified before Indiana lawmakers Wednesday, urging them not to stop the sale of specialty license plates, which they say account for much of their fundraising.

According to a report from CBS News, a legislative study committee heard about an hour of testimony on the subject from representatives from local nonprofits such as the Indianapolis Zoo. The issue of specialty plates first arose last year when conservative lawmakers attempted to kill the sale of plates for the Indiana Youth Group (IYG), an organization for gay youth. That effort failed but the Bureau of Motor Vehicles (BMV) eventually took away plate privileges from IYG and two other nonprofits, accusing the organizations of trading low-digit plates for contributions.

IYG maintains they did nothing wrong.

Nonprofit leaders who testified Wednesday said that plate programs are a legitimate public-private partnership that help organizations provide services for which the state would usually pay. Individuals pay $40 for the specialty plates, with $25 going to the organization and $15 going to the BMV. There are currently 459,000 of these plates on cars in Indiana.

"From the tax revenue standpoint, the specialty plate program is a win-win-win for the State of Indiana," said Charles Hyde, director of membership for the Indianapolis Zoo.

Sen. Earline Rogers (D-Gary) questioned the wisdom of the Legislature approving which groups would receive plates, saying that politics could enter the equation. Meanwhile, former state legislator and treasurer Joyce Brinkman testified that lawmakers should only issue plates to organizations whose activities help state services. She also recommended a regulatory system be put in place, something to which nonprofit organizers said they would be receptive.

Committee Chairman Ed Soliday (R-Valparaiso) said that Wednesday's hearing would be the only one on specialty plates before the panel reports to the Legislature, which is expected to take up the issue in January.

You can read the full story on CBS News' website.

Online Advocacy And You

As the 2012 presidential election starts to heat up, it's important for nonprofit managers to give themselves a refresher course on the rules governing their organizations when it comes to advocacy.

In the newest issue of The NonProfit Times, guest authors Janice M. Ryan and Ronald M. Jacobs go over what a 501(c)(3) organization can and cannot do during the election season. If done correctly, an organization can do the following things:

• Help register voters;
• Conduct get-out-the-vote (GOTV) activities;
• Publish voter guides;
• Create candidate questionnaires;
• Host candidate appearances;
• Host debates;
• Conduct issue advocacy;
• Allow leadership and staff to be politically active; and,
• Create an affiliated organization.

One of the most popular forms of advocacy these days is the online variety, and there are additional rules governing them. According to Jeffrey S. Tenenbaum and Lisa M. Hix of Venable LLP, organizations must be wary of election-related content they post on their web sites. As stated in Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Rev. Rul. 2007-41, "If an organization posts something on its web site that favors or opposes a candidate for political office, the organization will be treated the same as if it distributed printed material, oral statements or broadcasts the favored or opposed candidate."

This is something you want to avoid, obviously, so Tenenbaum and Hix offered the following ideas to make sure your nonprofit follows the rules while still remaining involved in the political process:

• A link to candidate-related material alone will not constitute political campaign intervention.
• Facts demonstrating that the link is not campaign intervention include: All candidates for an office are represented, and exempt purpose is served by offering the link and the link does not directly connect the organization?s website to a Web page that contains material favoring or opposing a candidate for public office.
• Organizations should carefully monitor content, and links. A website that contains a view of legislation, as well as a link to a voting legislator's email, will be considered a "call to action."
• Check sites for links added inadvertently or without authorization.

Advocacy: Five Ways To Highlight Your Mission

It's easy for nonprofit managers to lose focus of their mission with the day-to-day concerns of running an organization, but that doesn't mean it's alright for advocacy to be thrown aside.

The truth of the matter is that it is crucial that constituents, donors, and anybody else you meet are constantly aware of what your mission is. Thanks to things like social media (and the Internet in general), there are many different sources organizations can use you promote their cause.

So now that you have the means to get the word out, what's the best way to go about doing it? Dalya F. Massachi wrote in her book, "Writing to Make a Difference," that nonprofits shouldn't be afraid to repeatedly highlight their mission to an audience. She provided the following five tips to do just that:

• Highlight the outstanding strengths of your mission, not of the organization, of the mission. Continually remind people of what is innovative about your mission. Show that you play a special and essential role in your field.
• Describe how your work embodies your guiding principles. Back away from practical specifics and take a bit of a philosophical approach. Ask yourself what fundamental values or concerns lead your readers to your organization and its mission.
• Evoke a vision of what your community will be like once your organization has fulfilled its mission. Mission is not only about short-term results. It is also about your long-term vision.
• Connect the dots over time. Show donors how they create an ongoing story for accomplishing your mission.
• Use your mission and vision as overarching themes. Over time, organizations often develop programs, products and services that can be quite diverse. If this describes your organization, help readers keep track of how your mission and vision provide the unifying theme for your various projects.

Nonprofits, Not Super PACs, Spent More In 2010 Election

So-called Super PACs (Political Action Committees) have received a lot of attention in today's politics. The 2010 Supreme Court decision, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, opened the door for these groups to splurge on political campaigns. But according to a new study, nonprofit groups actually spent more than Super PACs, at least during the 2010 elections.

An investigation released yesterday by the Center for Public Integrity and the Center for Responsive Politics showed that nonprofit groups spent $3 for every $2 spent by Super PACs, according to CBS News. These groups actually have a bit of an advantage over the PACs, as they are not required to release the names of their donors as outlined by section 501(c)(4) of the U.S. tax code.

In total, nonprofit "social welfare" organizations spent a total of $95 million during the 2010 midterm elections, compared to $65 million by Super PACs. Much of the spending by nonprofits came from conservative groups, outspending their liberal counterparts $78 million to $16 million. Given the results of that election, those numbers aren't too surprising.

Things are a little different so far in the 2012 election season. The report states that Super PACs are currently outspending nonprofits, though it noted there is a possibility that could change now that there are clearly defined candidates for both the presidency and Congress.

You can read the full story on CBS News' website.

Nonprofit Donates $2 Million To Fight Short-Term Lending Limits

In an effort to fight potential restrictions on short-term lending, a Kansas City-based nonprofit has donated $2 million to a political action committee (PAC) dedicated to oppose such limits.

Missourians for Responsible Government (MRG) made its latest donation to the PAC -- Missourians for Equal Credit Opportunity (MECO) -- yesterday, according to The Kansas City Star. The latest gift was $181,500, raising the organization's total amount given to MECO to about $2.1 million since last August. MRG is the only donor to the PAC.

MRG hopes its donations will be enough to fight a proposed ballot measure in Missouri that cap annual interest rates on short-term loans at 36 percent. These include things such as payday or car title loans. A 2007 study by the Missouri Division of Finance found that the average interest rate for a payday loan in the state is 445 percent per year, which is about 54 percent higher than the national rate of 391 percent.

The fate of the proposed ballot measure is currently in limbo, after a Cole County judge ruled that the ballot summary and cost estimate were insufficient. The Missouri Secretary of State's office is currently appealing the ruling. Should the ruling be overturned, MRG will be hoping its investment will be enough to stop the measure.

You can read the full story in The Kansas City Star.

Build Your Social Media Audience

Social media plays an important role in today's world, especially in business. It's almost unfathomable to find a business that doesn't have a Facebook or Twitter account. It's easy enough to set up your online presence, but it's a little bit harder to get people to listen.

Thankfully, "a little bit harder" doesn't mean "impossible." The nature of social networks means that every follower you get can potentially lead to many more. This is because each person "liking" your page will conceivably tell his/her friends to also follow you. Sounds great, but this is all moot if you can't get many people to care about your page in the first place.

A lot of people using social networking sites tend to over-think it. They try to get too fancy and end up with few followers. In truth, the key to building an audience is to post things that are relevant and useful. What's interesting to your followers? Why not ask them? Before making the first post on your new blog, engage your supporters on what kind of stories they want to read. When you get a good enough sample of answers, start writing about those topics.

Even with brilliant content, it’s difficult to attract supporters to a site that no one else is following. Reach out to your staff and other core supporters of your organization and ask them to follow your tweets, or “like” your Facebook page --and to invite their personal friends.

Having an active community is another good way to get people to show interest. Let's face it -- nobody wants to be a part of a page that has no interaction. Try asking questions to your supporters in addition to sharing links. The whole point of social media is interaction with the audience, and there's no better way to do this than starting a discussion.

The most important thing to remember is to be honest when participating in any of these discussions. There will be things you just can't say, of course, but don't be robotic. People like to know that the individual they are talking to is an actual human being.

Advocacy Group Files IRS Complaint Against ALEC

An advocacy group filed a complaint with the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) against the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), claiming that the group is violating its tax-exempt status.

The Washington Post reported today that D.C.-based Common Cause accused ALEC of lobbying the government while hiding behind its nonprofit status. ALEC describes itself as a nonprofit that brings together lawmakers and private sector organizations to develop new legislation and policy.

Common Cause disagrees with this premise, saying that the organization's main motivation is to lobby for policies that favorably impact businesses. The nonprofit requested that the IRS conduct an audit of ALEC's work, penalties, and back taxes.

ALEC, which was formed in the 1970s, has long been a target of open government groups that are suspicious of its partnership with legislators. The group has made headlines recently for its support of the "Stand Your Ground Laws," which have played a major role in the shooting of Trayvon Martin. Companies that have previously partnered with ALEC, such as Coca Cola, are no longer members, and the group says it is disbanding its task force that was responsible for importing the law to other states.

You can read the full story in The Washington Post.

Komen Surveying Supporters

After a couple of relatively quiet weeks, it seems that Susan G. Komen For the Cure is stirring up controversy once again.  This time it comes in the form of a survey.

In the latest edition of NPT Weekly, we report on a story that the Irving, Texas-based organization had hired a consulting firm to do some damage control in the aftermath of the Planned Parenthood controversy.  This firm created a survey that was to be sent to supporters asking them a variety of questions about their opinion of the nonprofit.  Among the questions were whether the organization owes donors an apology, followed by a list of potential apologies that would be acceptable.  The survey also asks supporters to rate a list of potential new spokespeople, including musician Melissa Etheridge.

While it's not exactly unusual for a nonprofit to test messaging through a survey, the reaction has been fairly strong because they don't usually become so public.  Rebecca Devine, co-founder and principal of Philadelphia, Pa.-based Maven Communications, told The NonProfit Times that Komen needs to be asking these same questions with core stakeholders.  She also said the organization should be holding one-on-one discussions with donors to ask how they can make the situation better.

You can read the full story on our website.  For more stories like this, make sure to sign-up for NPT Weekly or our other free eNewsletters.

Examples Of Permitted Political Activities

Nonprofit organizations are forbidden to participate in any activity that favors or opposes any political candidate, but that doesn’t mean they can’t be involved with politics at all.

While an organization can not intervene on behalf of a political campaign, it may undertake certain types of nonpartisan political activities. Yet even in these situations, organizations still need to tread lightly or risk the wrath of the IRS.

In her book “Good Counsel,” Lesley Rosenthal lists some permissible political events for nonprofit organizations:

• Voter Education and Voter Registration Drives: These are a-OK for nonprofits as long as there are no biased references to individual candidates or political parties. Timing is also an important factor for the permissibility of these events. For example, distributing newsletters on a candidate’s voting record on issues important to the nonprofit would probably constitute intervention during an election year.
• Speeches by Candidates: An organization may invite a political candidate to speak at an event, but only if opposing candidates for the same office are given equal time. The event must not advocate for a certain position.
• Facility Rental: A nonprofit that has space for public gatherings may rent space to a candidate looking to make a space, so long as the organization charges the campaign its customary fees and makes the space available to opposing candidates. In addition, the space must be regularly offered by the organization and not specifically for the candidate.

The Danger Of Online Lobbying

The campaign season is starting to heat up as we move closer to the 2012 Presidential elections, and soon the real fun will begin: Lobbying for one candidate over another.  But nonprofits need to be careful about how they participate in this kind of advocacy.

In the most recent edition of The NonProfit Times, we went over how the IRS is increasingly scrutinizing nonprofit organization's participation in political advocacy.  If an organization is perceived to have overstepped its boundaries, they could be in danger of getting heavily fined.

This campaign season, it will be common for nonprofits to want to post voter guides on their websites to let their supporters make educated decisions on which candidate to support.  In order to help avoid some of the pitfalls of online lobbying, Jeffrey S. Tenenbaum and Lisa M. Hix of Venable LLP offered the following advice:

• Simply linking to candidate-related material alone is not enough to be considered political campaign intervention.
• If you're unsure about what constitutes intervention, consider the following: Are all candidates equally represented?  Does the website your linking to favor one candidate over another?  Is the link being offered with an exempt purpose (i.e. candidate education)?
• When preparing to post a link, organizations should be very careful.  Any website that contains specific views on legislation, as well as links to a voting legislator's e-mail, will be treated as a "call to action," even if that wasn't the intention.
• Check sites for links added inadvertently or without authorization.

What Do The Occupy Wall Street Protesters Want?

In light of the eviction of the Occupy Wall Street protesters from Zuccotti Park in NYC, I thought I would bump up this post.

****

Unless you've been living under a rock for the past month or so, you are probably aware of the "Occupy Wall Street" protests that have been going on around the world.  You probably have at least a vague idea of what sparked the protests: Anger over a perceived unfair financial system.  A system that a few years ago led to the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression, a crisis from which the country is still recovering.  Given the bailout of big banks, and huge bonuses paid out to their executives, it's easy to understand why people are angry.  Who wouldn't be?

Yes, it's pretty clear what these large masses are lashing out against.  What's not as clear is what the end game is for the protesters.  We recently posted a column by editor in chief Paul Clolery, set to appear in our Nov. 1 issue, that articulates this question.  It tackles some interesting contradictions of the protest, like how Occupy Wall Street supporters rail against unfair bank practices while embracing Russell Simmons, who sells pre-paid bank cards with monthly fees to poor communities.  That's a practice that is at least as bad as the questionable practices of banks.

The column's biggest issue with the protest is its lack of organization.  All of the social change movements in the past had a clear goal in mind.  The civil rights movement wanted equal rights for all.  The protests against the Vietnam War wanted an end to a conflict that had no end in sight.  How do the Occupy Wall Street protesters hope to get the change they seek?  These protesters need help from the charitable sector and seasoned protesters to help make a real impact on important issues like wealth disparity.  Right now, as the column opines, "it’s just an opportunity to post to YouTube."

Indiana Nonprofit Defends Political Contribution

A nonprofit in Portage, Indiana is defending a $500 contribution to the local Mayor's re-election campaign.  An article on PortageCommunity.com reported that Bert Cook, executive director of the Portage Economic Development Corp (PEDCO)., said they did not consider the participation in a Sept. 19 golf outing as a campaign contribution to incumbent Democratic Mayor Olga Velazquez, but as a chance to network with the city's business and community leaders.

Cook further explained to PortageCommunity that even if the money was supposed to be a political contribution, his accountants told him that it is legal for the organization to spend up to 20 percent of its yearly total expenditures on lobbying.  PEDCO receives almost half of its annual funding from tax dollars, but the contribution came from organization's marketing budget, which contains only private contributions, according to Cook.  Velazquez has a seat on PEDCO's board of directors, though Cook says she is not on the executive committee, which has a say in the decisions the organization makes.  Cook says he will re-evaluate the decision to attend the fundraiser, and probably will avoid similar events in the future.

Lobbying has long been a source of discomfort for nonprofits.  Many organizations aren't confident they are allowed to lobby, and lobbying rules are complex and often require disclosure.  You can learn more about nonprofit lobbying by visiting our website.  You should also be sure to read the rest of the PortageCommunity aritcle.