Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Credo Mobile

HOME

ABOUT US

OUR ISSUES

Federal Budget

Information & Access

Regulatory Policy


PRESS ROOM

ACTION CENTER

PUBLICATIONS

THE WATCHER

OUR BLOGS


SIGN UP

Receive news, updates, and alerts!

DONATE

Help support our work


OTHER SITES

FedSpending.org

RTK NET

NPAction

Working Group on Community Right-to-Know

Citizens for Sensible Safeguards

Open the Government

OMB Watch Logo

Promoting and protecting nonprofit advocacy for a stronger democracy

Home :  Nonprofit Issues :  Advocacy Blog : 
Advocacy Blog:     

Advocacy Blog


Tuesday, November 13, 2007

Nonprofits, Elections, and an Issue Advocacy Campaign

The LA Times reports on an option for political campaign donors that is expected to become more popular as time closes in on the presidential election, donating to a nonprofit. "It is the 501(c)(4), named for the tax code that defines it, that seems to have struck a chord with people looking for new ways to organize their independent fundraising."

And the New York Times mistakenly cautions that the Supreme Court's decision in the Wisconsin Right to Life (WRTL) case can partly be to blame for the influx in "soft money" donations to nonprofits prior to an election season. The article considers some efforts to fund ads as attempts "to plot ways of channeling money into advertisements and get-out-the-vote activities."

"Last week, as the first step in that effort, a group including John Podesta, the chief executive of the Center for American Progress, a liberal research center, and a former chief of staff for President Bill Clinton, and Anna Burger, a senior official of the Service Employees International Union, filed papers to form a nonprofit group." Actually the group formed a 527, The Fund for America, the topic in a recent Roll Call ($$) article. The Fund for America was formed to raise money and fund existing organizations. "The strategists said it's too early to know which specific campaigns the new group will underwrite but that it is expected to focus exclusively on issue-based television and radio campaigns, door-to-door canvassing and direct mail." Unlike 501(c)(3)s or 501(c)(4)s, the purpose of 527s is to get involved in elections, but they are not supposed to expressly advocate for or against a federal candidate, unless they comply with FEC rules.

Yet we must remember, that even though some nonprofits are set up immediately prior to an election, they still may establish a genuine issue campaign. Foundations are now becoming more involved with independent campaigns that seek candiates' stance on issues, as the Chronicle of Philanthropy ($$) reports. The article highlights foundations that are investing in new advocacy campaigns to accomplish its policy goals and to get candidates to talk about their issues. An example of organizing the public and presidential candidates to promote an issue is the Ed in '08 campaign.

Douglas W. Nelson, the Casey foundation's president, says the grant maker took great care to ensure the antipoverty campaign did not unintentionally promote any particular candidates. "It's not necessarily a legal concern, as much as it is, Does this have enough integrity so we would not be accused of being a stalking horse for anybody or anything?" he says.



Posted by Amanda Adams, 05:33:43 PM



Wednesday, November 07, 2007

Bills Introduced to Protect Voters

Yesterday (Nov. 6) voters in seven states participated in state and local elections. The Election Protection hotline 1-866-OUR-VOTE was up and running, tracking reports of voting problems. In Michigan, a new photo ID requirement reportedly caused so much confusion that the Detroit Branch NAACP complained of possible civil rights violations.

Meanwhile, Representative Keith Ellison (D-MN) has introduced H.R. 4026, a bill that would prohibit the requirement of a photo ID to vote in federal elections. And in the Senate, thirteen Democratic Senators have introduced a bill that would outlaw "voter caging," the practice of challenging a person's right to vote because a letter sent to them was returned as undeliverable. The Caging Prohibition Act, S. 2305 would also require that anyone who challenges the right of another person to vote must set forth specific reasoning for their alleged ineligibility.



Posted by Amanda Adams, 02:56:41 PM




Latest Entries by Theme

All Themes

Faith-Based Initiative

Elections and Issue Advocacy

Church Electioneering

Nonprofit Accountability

Charitable Giving

Speech and Lobbying Rights

Grants Streamlining

Charities and Security

General

Nonprofit Voter Mobilization

Most Recent Entries for Advocacy Blog

IRS Complaint Filed Against Harlem Church for Attacking Obama During Sermon

New Election Law Program Now Available

Terrorism Charges Filed Against RNC Protest Group

Churches Web Politicking Garners IRS Scrutiny

RFK, Jr. Helps Launch New Voter Protection Project

Attention Oregonians: Ballot Measure Could Silence the Voice of Charities

501(c)(4) Accused of Violating Campaign Finance Law With Ads Attacking Obama

Convention Parties Unaltered by Ethics Rules?

Sharpton Announces New Voter Protection and Voter Registration Initiative

The Search Engine That Couldn't

Archived Entries for Nonprofit Voter Mobilization

September

August

July

June

May

April

March

February

January

December, 2007

November, 2007

October, 2007

September, 2007

August, 2007

July, 2007

June, 2007