Relying on the Wisconsin Right to Life (WRTL) decision, a newly formed 527 committee argues that they can broadcast their ads, and that under WRTL the pieces are issue advocacy. The 527, the American Leadership Project (ALP), claims that it will not engage in express advocacy and will focus its efforts on issues that are important to the middle class such as the economy.

Meanwhile, Bob Bauer (also Senator Barack Obama's lawyer) at moresoftmoneyhardlaw.com argues that their actions violate federal campaign finance law and the group should be considered a political committee.

It is questionable if this ad titled "Tell Hillary to Keep Working" from ALP could in fact subject to an "interpretation other than as an appeal to vote for or against a candidate." It appears to be very supportive of Senator Clinton's candidacy.

ALP spokesman Roger Salaazar stated; "We are not going to be airing any advertisements that contain express advocacy on behalf of a federal candidate. These are issue ads that focus on issues that are important to the middle class."

According to the election law blog, the ad "is exactly the kind of election-related speech that the Roberts Court seemed to bless with a huge exemption in WRTL." Given that it is unclear whether or not it is issue advocacy, that statement is also questionable.

Whether a group engaged in express advocacy can spend an unlimited amount of money is the subject of the SpeechNow.org case. Read OMB Watch coverage of the SpeechNow.org case here.

The U.S. Supreme Court did not consider the Citizens United case during its February 15 conference, and now a decision on whether the Court will review the challenge to Federal Election Commission (FEC) rules will wait until February 22. Citizens United is a 501(c)(4) organization claiming that television ads for its film, Hillary: The Movie, should not be subject to donor disclosure requirements under FEC rules. Citizens United's lawyer James Bopp had previously requested that the Court rule on the case during its current term. The government has asked the group's lawsuit be dismissed, claiming that previous Supreme Court decisions have supported disclosure of the financial sources of electioneering messages.

BNA Money and Politics ($$) reports that the "court had been scheduled to consider the motions in the Citizens United case during a private conference of the justices on Feb. 15, but no result was announced when orders in dozens of other cases were made public late Feb. 15 and again on Feb. 19."

As expected after the Federal Election Commission (FEC) issued a draft advisory opinion in January that SpeechNow.org cannot accept unlimited contributions from donors, the group plans to now file a federal lawsuit. SpeechNow.org is challenging the campaign finance law that requires that they become a "political committee" in order to advocate for or against candidates. As a registered as a political committee, its contributions would be limited to $5,000 from individuals. Represented by the Institute for Justice and the Center for Competitive Politics, they are requesting a preliminary injunction and ask that an expedited hearing on that request be scheduled within 20 days.

A press release states; "SpeechNow.org is not a PAC or a political party, it takes no corporate or union money-only individual contributions-and it will never donate to or coordinate with candidates or political parties. It is simply Americans talking to Americans about an issue of vital public importance: the right to speak freely about politics and whom to elect to secure it."

According to a Roll Call ($$) article, "If Speechnow.org ultimately wins in court, the group agreed that other activists, conservative and liberal alike, could copy its carefully crafted bylaws, raise unlimited cash from individuals and begin running ads in favor of or opposing candidates, expenditures that would be disclosed to the FEC."

Kay Guinane, director of nonprofit speech rights for OMB Watch and Laurette Edelmann, assistant director of the New Hampshire Center for Nonprofits, discussed the 2008 election and its impact on philanthropy. Read the transcript of the online discussion here.

Another case is on "the fast track." The Supreme Court's online docket shows that the Citizens United motion to expedite the case is on the Court's conference agenda for February 15.

An article in BNA Money and Politics ($$) addresses "whether the Internal Revenue Service [IRS] needs to focus so heavily on facts and circumstances as the primary test to determine if the groups have violated prohibited political activity rules" and the complexities that arise given the new Federal Election Commission (FEC) electioneering communications rule that allows nonprofits to broadcast issue ads that mention a candidate during periods before an election as long the funding of the ads are disclosed.

Engle of Arent Fox said that in the Wisconsin Right to Life decision the Supreme Court warned the FEC against taking a "free range facts and circumstances approach" to analyzing issue ads. The court told the agency to nail down a test that would more mechanically spit out the answer on whether something was or was not an electioneering communication. This prompted practitioners to ask if IRS might do the same thing. Everything we do is facts and circumstances. So I have no answers, I just have facts and circumstances," Judith Kindell, IRS senior technical adviser to the director of exempt organizations said repeatedly at the ABA session.

An online tutorial has been created on how to engage with congressional level politics, leading a step by step tour through web sites. For example, the tutorial starts with the fundamentals; "Can I Vote?" directs the visitor to their state's Secretary of State's web site, and then if they need to register, another site is also provided. Subsequently the next web sites include biographical information on the candidates and members of Congress, candidate platforms, incumbent voting records, and campaign contributions.

This is a very valuable resource that exemplifies how the Internet can increase civic engagement. The companion article to the tutorial, "Tech Tools for the American Voter and the 2008 Congressional Elections", clearly states the purpose of such a tool; "All Americans have a civic responsibility to vote for the national, state, and local leaders who will make the decisions that affect us, our families, our community, and our nation now and well into the future. To vote responsibly requires that we learn about the candidates." The article points out resources and tools that can be used to make informed decisions on whom to elect to office. One resource mentioned is Fedspending.org launched in 2006 by OMB Watch. "OMBWatch.org believes that it is essential to know how the 'government spends money so that citizens can hold elected officials accountable for the national priorities they set."

Check out the tutorial here.

A blog posting titled "Bird-Dogging and Blogging the Primaries" observes that "until now, it would have seemed implausible that nonprofits and presidential politics would go hand-in hand. Activism is ubiquitous in communities; yet, on the whole the organizations that facilitate and conduct it are ignored by policy makers and politicians." The blog is promoting the new V3 campaign which shows candidates' responses to questions regarding the nonprofit sector created by Robert Egger. The campaign encourages nonprofit advocates around the country to ask candidates for local, state and federal office what their plans are to work with and support the nonprofit community. According to the V3 website; "The V3 Campaign will give you the tools you need to legally engage candidates in your city and state to determine their plans for the nonprofit sector. Learn how the candidates plan to support the causes and strengthen the organizations that are important to you."

The Chronicle of Philanthropy will be hosting an online discussion next Tuesday February 12, at noon, Eastern time on the election and what it means for nonprofits. Experts on philanthropy and politics will be answering questions and if a question is submitted in advance, there is a better chance that it will be answered during the discussion. To submit a question, click here. The discussion is open to everyone, not just subscribers, so go ahead and ask a question!