Blog Posts of Lateefah Williams

Social Innovation Fund Issues Proposed Notice of Funds Available; Requests Feedback

 

The Social Innovation Fund, a program of the Corporation for Community Service and the Obama administration’s major philanthropic effort, has issued a Proposed Notice of Funds Available (NOFA) and a request for feedback. SIF will award up to $50 dollars in federal funding during Fiscal Year 2010.

America Forward, the coalition of nonprofit organizations that made the policy recommendations that led to the Edward M. Kennedy Serve America Act, which authorized the program, says the SIF is "intended to increase the impact of social entrepreneurs and innovative nonprofit organizations by scaling proven programs and investing in promising new ideas."

According to the NOFA, in "FY 2010, SIF awards will be made to a select number of grantmaking intermediaries (or eligible partnerships) focused on improving measurable outcomes in the following priority areas: increased economic opportunity; preparing America’s youth for success in school, active citizenship, productive work, and healthy and safe lives; [and] promoting healthy lifestyles and reducing the risk factors that can lead to illness."

Any feedback or comments are due on January 15.

(Lateefah Williams 01/11/10; 0 comments)

FEC Proposes Rules to Comply With EMILY’s List Decision

 

On Dec. 17, the Federal Election Commission (FEC) proposed rules that would limit donations to some nonprofit groups that engage in campaign activity after the Justice Department announced that it would not appeal the EMILY’s List decision.

The FEC decided in late October that it would not appeal the decision, but Solicitor General Elena Kagan still had the option to appeal the case to the Supreme Court. Additionally legal analysts were split on if she also had the option of "seeking en banc review, or whether that was a choice left to the FEC," according to the Supreme Court of the United States Blog. Kagan’s decision not to appeal leaves the verdict intact.

In EMILY’s List, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit struck down the FEC regulations, ruling that they violated EMILY's List's speech rights under the U.S. Constitution.

The rules that were struck down "called for EMILY's List and other similar PACs to use at least 50 percent FEC-regulated hard money for activities linked to federal candidates. Another FEC rule struck by the court provides that contributions solicited on the basis of support or opposition to federal candidates must follow FEC hard money limits," according to BNA.($$)

The current rules will remain in effect until the rulemaking process is complete, but the 2010 edition of the FEC’s code of regulations will note that the rules are "no longer in effect" due to the decision in the EMILY’s List case, according to BNA.

(Lateefah Williams 12/18/09; 0 comments)

Recent Push for Bipartisan Voter Reform Measures

 

Recent efforts to reform and modernize the voter system have received bipartisan support. The Military and Overseas Voter Empowerment Act, which would allow overseas troops and American citizens to access voter information online, passed Congress last week with bipartisan support from legislators who "decried an antiquated voting system that left as many as one out of four overseas ballots uncounted," according to Roll Call.

In August, the House of Representatives passed a bill that would enable individuals who voted by absentee ballot to track the status of their ballots online. Also, a bill that would expand no-excuse absentee voting has passed in the House Administration Committee.

Another bill currently before Congress would "require all states to offer online voter registration by 2012," according to Roll Call. This would be a major challenge for the vast majority of the country and would require most states to significantly upgrade their procedures. Currently, "only six states offer some form of online voter registration, while half allow voters to verify their registration online. For most states, the voting system is a hodgepodge of snail mail, voter registration drives and polling places," according to Roll Call.

The online voter registration bill would bring the voter registration process in line with the convenience of other aspects of daily living. "Many voters expect to be able to register to vote online as part of their normal routine," Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-CA), the sponsor of the bill, told Roll Call. "They are used to the convenience of online tools in their daily life and registering to vote should be just as easy and accessible as banking and bill paying," Lofgren said.

Brian Fallon, the Senate Rules and Administration Committee spokesman, told Roll Call that Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.), chairman of the committee, is "working on a bill to ‘modernize’ the voting system."

Republicans have some concerns about voter fraud, but agree that the system should be modernized.

(Lateefah Williams 10/30/09; 1 comment)

Let the Mighty Waters Flow, Money That Is!

 

A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ruled in the EMILY’s List case today, striking down Federal Election Commission (FEC) regulations that limited donations to nonprofit groups that are used for campaign activity. The regulations are intended to limit how nonprofit organizations raise and spend money for political campaigns.

EMILY’s List, an organization that seeks to elect pro-choice democratic women to office, challenged the regulations, which went into effect in 2005, as an unconstitutional violation of their first amendment free speech rights. EMILY’s List is a non-connected political action committee (PAC) that maintains both federal and nonfederal accounts, filed a complaint on January 12, 2005, challenging the Commission’s regulations regarding the treatment of funds received in response to certain solicitations and its amended rules regarding federal/nonfederal fund allocation ratios for PACs.

The regulations required nonprofits to use "hard money" for election and campaign activities. "Hard money" is limited to a $5,000 annual cap per contributor. The regulations enacted by the FEC were intended to limit the amount of money considered "soft money, " which "are unlimited donations by individuals, corporations, political action committees and unions, to nonprofit groups," according to the Washington Post.

Rick Hasen, a law professor at Loyola and the moderator of the Election Law Blog, said that this decision "essentially will allow individuals (and, I predict, eventually corporations and unions) to make unlimited contributions to political committees to fund independent expenditure campaigns."

What does this ruling do for campaign finance reform? Is this just another nail in the coffin of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA)? The Supreme Court is poised to rule on whether two previous rulings were justified in the Citizens United vs. FEC case.

"Even if the court restrains itself in Citizens United, the writing is on the wall: if the court's members remain the same, the corporate limits eventually will fall. After that, the court could strike down contribution limits to PACs and the ban on party soft money," said Hasen.

Hasen further stated, "We are moving toward a deregulated federal campaign finance system, where money flows freely and perhaps only disclosure laws remain. It is a world in which those with more money use their considerable funds to elect candidates of their choice and to have disproportionate influence over public policy. The unlevel playing field awaits."

(Lateefah Williams 09/18/09; 0 comments)

Proposed IRS Rules Address Ranking of Official Pursuing Church Tax Inquiries

 

The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) has proposed rules that would give the Director of Exempt Organizations the authority to pursue church tax inquiries. This became a big issue when a lawsuit, United States v. Living Word Christian Center, was filed challenging the IRS’ assertion of what officials were high ranking enough to initiate church tax inquiries. The federal district court in that case ruled that the Director of Exempt Organizations Examinations was not a high enough ranking official to initiate the inquiries.

IRS Rules state that for the IRS to inquire about a religious organization’s tax exempt status, "an appropriate high level Treasury official" must believe that the inquiry should occur. The legislative history section of IRC Section 7611 indicates that "an appropriate high level Treasury official" was "interpreted to mean an IRS regional commissioner or higher level official," according to BNA ($$). The IRS reorganization eliminated the regional commissioner positions.

The IRS has now proposed these rules to address the confusion of what constitutes a "high level Treasury official" that was created after the reorganization. The Director of Exempt Organizations is closer to the former regional commissioner position than the Director of Exempt Organizations Examinations (the one the court rejected), "but is still one step removed," according to BNA.

Several attorneys that specialize in exempt organization issues expect that the IRS will receive numerous comments regarding this change. Marc Owens, a former IRS director of exempt organizations and an attorney with Caplin & Drysdale, told BNA that "[t]here will be a lot of comments because that position, the director of exempt organizations, is not equivalent to a regional commissioner." Owens also said that the regional commissioners brought a fresh perspective because they were outside of the everyday dealings of the exempt organizations division.

Greg Colvin, a partner with Colvin & Adler, told BNA that "[h]opefully, this regulation will remove a procedural obstacle and bring us closer to an ultimate resolution of what political ‘intervention’ really means."

(Lateefah Williams 08/05/09; 0 comments)

AU Asks IRS to Investigate Virginia Church

 

Americans United for Separation of Church and State (AU) asked the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) to investigate Fifth Street Baptist Church in Richmond, Virginia for engaging in prohibited electioneering. The tax code prohibits certain organizations, including charities and churches, from intervening in any political campaign on behalf of, or in opposition to, any candidate for public office.

Relying on a Washington Post article, AU alleges that the church endorsed Virginia Gubernatorial Candidate Brian Moran during a church service on June 7.

According to the Washington Post, Rev. F. Todd Gray told the congregation during a service, "Brian is right on guns. He’s right on affirmative action. He’s right on taxes. He’s right on jobs. I’m not telling you who to vote for. I’m just telling you who I’m voting for. I’m voting for Brian Moran."

In AU’s Ietter to the IRS, Rev. Barry Lynn, AU’s Executive Director, highlighted a hypothetical situation in IRS Rev. Rul. 2007-41, in which using an exempt organization’s resources to engage in prohibited electioneering, while claiming the comments are that person’s personal opinion, was still deemed to be a violation.

The alleged endorsement occurred two days before the Virginia Gubernatorial primary, which AU also mentioned in its letter. Proximity to an election is a factor the IRS considers when determining if a violation occurred.

(Lateefah Williams 06/09/09; 0 comments)

Liberty U Drops Recognition of Democratic Club; Falwell Files Complaint Against AU

 

Liberty University (LU), a private, tax-exempt university founded by the late Evangelical Rev. Jerry Falwell, dropped official recognition of the university’s Democrat club due to the National Democratic Party’s platform on abortion and marriage equality, according to its Chancellor Rev. Jerry Falwell, Jr. Without official recognition the club cannot receive funding from the University or use the University’s name on anything affiliated with the club.

Mark Vine, LU’s Vice President for Student Affairs, sent the LU College Democrats an email on May 15 revoking recognition for the LU College Democrats chapter. The email says that the "Democratic Party Platform is contrary to the mission of LU and to Christian doctrine (supports abortion, federal funding of abortion, advocates repeal of the federal Defense of Marriage Act, promotes the "LGBT" agenda, Hate Crimes, which include sexual orientation and gender identity, socialism, etc)."

Americans United for Separation of Church and State (AU) sent a letter to the IRS asking the agency to review Liberty University’s tax-exempt status. AU’s letter highlights that the University allows the Republican club to receive official recognition and funding. In an AU press release, Rev. Barry W. Lynn, executive director of AU said, "Liberty University is a tax-exempt institution and isn’t allowed to support one party over another. If the school insists on pushing policies that favor Republicans over Democrats, it should have to surrender its tax exemption." There is a gubernatorial primary in Virginia on June 9, which raises the question about whether LU’s action could be intended to affect the outcome of an election, although the issue has not been raised.

Liberty Counsel filed an IRS complaint, on behalf of Fallwell, today against AU. In a Press Release on May 28, Liberty announced its plans to file a complaint against AU today, alleging in the Press Release that AU is politically biased and files "these letters to silence churches and other conservative organizations by intimidating them."

AU has called Falwell’s complaint baseless. "Falwell knows full well that Americans United is rigorously non-partisan," said the Rev. Barry W. Lynn in a Press Release. "He’s feeling the heat for a bad decision and trying to shift the focus to Americans United."

(Lateefah Williams 06/01/09; 0 comments)

IRS To Conduct More Research Before Issuing Guidance on Blogs

 

The IRS has not issued any guidance on what constitutes political intervention on blogs sponsored by tax-exempt organizations (EO). Apparently, EO’s will have to wait a while longer to receive such guidance.

At an American Bar Association EO political subcommittee meeting on May 8 in Washington, DC, Judy Kindell, senior technical adviser to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) director of exempt organizations, commented on the IRS’ lack of guidance regarding blogs. Tax Notes($$) reported on Kindell's comments.

Kindell told the subcommittee that the agency needs to conduct more research before issuing guidance on prohibited political activities in blog postings, according to Tax Notes.

Kindell also said that the IRS’ Tax-Exempt and Government Entities Division cannot allow EO’s to bypass the rules, but the Division also "can’t be so unrealistic as to say that EO’s must take responsibility for any comments that are posted to their web sites," according to Tax Notes. She said that blog issues will be handled on an individual case basis, which is consistent with the agency’s "facts and circumstances" approach in determining when an EO has engaged in prohibited political intervention.

(Lateefah Williams 05/22/09; 1 comment)

Renewed Focus on Voting Reform

 

Recent efforts have renewed focus on voting reform efforts. Voter registration reform, a major issue highlighted in the 2008 election, is receiving attention from key legislators. According to the National Journal, Sen. Charles Schumer ( D-NY), chair of the Senate Rules and Administration Committee, will introduce a bill later this year that addresses concerns with the voter registration system.

Schumer wrote a letter in early April to Attorney General Eric Holder urging the Justice Department to sue states that are not complying with the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA), also called the Motor Voter Act, which requires public assistance agencies, and other agencies, to offer voter registration materials. According to Schumer’s website, at least 18 states are not complying with the requirement for public assistance agencies to provide voter registration materials.

Schumer’s letter highlighted that when Voter Registration: Assessing Current Problems, a new study, was presented at the Senate Rules Committee in March, the study noted that "one of the key concerns is that eligible individuals are not offered the option to register and vote at state motor vehicle agencies, public assistance agencies, and agencies that provide services to people with disabilities."

The 2008 Survey of the Performance of American Elections, conducted by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, "found that in addition to as many as 3 million voters turned away due to registration problems, roughly 2.2 million registered voters were excluded for lack of proper identification; 1.9 million could not find their polling place; and 2.6 million left because of long lines," according to the National Journal.

(Lateefah Williams 04/24/09; 0 comments)

Will Obama's Presidency Impact Key Voting Rights Case?

 

Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District No. 1 v. Holder, a U.S. Supreme Court case where Texas is challenging Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, is scheduled for oral arguments on April 29. Section 5, which was reauthorized in 2006, applies to all or part of 16 states and it applies to nine states in their entirety. It requires those states to get federal approval before changing election rules or procedures, as a result of past laws and practices that discriminated against and disenfranchised racial minorities. This provision is referred to as the "preclearance" provision.

There is a debate about whether President Barack Obama's election means that the preclearance provision is no longer needed.

Ellen Katz, a University of Michigan law professor, wrote an article for the National Law Journal, as well as a blog posting, arguing that the Supreme Court should not decide whether the Obama presidency impacts the decision of whether preclearance is still needed. "To consider Obama's election now would fundamentally alter the legal inquiry and amount to an ill-advised power grab by the court," she said. She believes that if the Court uses the Obama presidency to impact its decision, then it would be deciding whether reauthorization of Section 5 was a good idea instead of deciding "whether Congress had good reason to think Section 5 is still needed."

Katz does not believe that the Court can ignore Obama's presidency. She argues that the parties should brief and argue the question. She also says that "Congress should be allowed to evaluate the significance of Obama's election in the first instance.

Edward Blum, director of the Project on Fair Representation at the American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research, refuted some of the assertions that Katz made in her article in a separate blog posting. He refuted the assertion that no state wholly covered by Section 5 voted for Obama and he refuted the assertion that Obama received less white votes than John Kerry did in 2004.

(Lateefah Williams 04/17/09; 1 comment)