CLPI Related News

Last Updated (Tuesday, 26 January 2010 11:19) Written by Administrator Wednesday, 07 October 2009 09:15

Ethics Groups Want Changes to Obama Lobbying Ban
By Carrie Levine
The BLT: The Blog of LegalTimes
January 25, 2010

A group of nonprofits that lobby have sent President Barack Obama a letter requesting changes in the year-old executive order restricting lobbyists from jobs in the administration.

The letter, dated Jan. 21, describes the current ban as well-intended, but flawed. They want to revise who is covered by the law.

For original article, click here. 

Nonprofits Want New Rules
By Bara Vaida
National Journal
January 25, 2010

A group of 13 nonprofits wrote to President Obama January 21 asking him to revise his 2009 executive order on ethics so that lobbyists working for nonprofits aren't shut out of conversations with government officials.

Currently, all registered lobbyists (corporate and nonprofit) face restrictions, including a ban on working for the Obama administration in policy areas in which they have lobbied in the past two years. They are also banned from serving on government-sponsored advisory boards.

The non-profit groups, including Consumers Union, Humans Rights Watch, the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights and the Center for Lobbying and the Public interest, asked the administration to redraft the rules to exclude nonprofit, public interest advocates.

For original article, click here.

Watchdogs ask White House to go easier on K Street
By Ben Geman and Jim Snyder
The Hill
January 25, 2010

More than a dozen public interest groups have asked Obama not to use lobbying registrations when picking his future political appointees.

In a letter last Thursday to the president, watchdog groups including Common Cause, OMB Watch and Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington said it was wrong to use the Lobbying Disclosure Act (LDA) as a basis for who could and could not serve in the administration.

The letter was dated on the one-year anniversary of Obama’s tough executive order designed to close the revolving door between K Street and the executive branch.

For original article, click here.

Nonprofit Groups Again Urge White House to Amend Lobbying Restrictions
By Suzanne Perry
The Chronicle of Philanthropy
Friday, Janauary 22, 2010

A coalition of nonprofit groups has urged President Obama to revise the executive order he signed just over a year ago that limits the ability of lobbyists to get administration jobs, saying it had led to “unintended consequences” that undermine his goal of open government.

The rules should be changed to “welcome charitable lobbyists that represent large swaths of ordinary Americans to the table with business and government,” says a letter that is signed by 13 groups, including the Alliance for Families and Children, the Center for Lobbying in the Public Interest, Common Cause, Human Rights Watch, and the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights.

Those groups have been unhappy with the executive order from the start, arguing the White House should distinguish between lobbyists that work for the public interest and those who aim to increase private profits.

For original article, click here.

Supreme Court Campaign-Finance Ruling Could Aid Nonprofit Advocacy, But Adds New Concerns
By Suzanne Perry
The Chronicle of Philanthropy
Friday, January 22, 2010

The U.S. Supreme Court ruling on Thursday to lift restrictions on corporate campaign spending has drawn sharp attacks from government watchdogs and other nonprofit groups that fear it will allow businesses to drown out the voices of individuals, charities, and smaller advocacy organizations.

“U.S. Supreme Court Unleashes Money Pit,” reads the headline on a press release by OMB Watch, a nonprofit group that promotes government accountability.

“This is a defining moment for the nonprofit and philanthropy sector,” says Larry Ottinger, president of the Center for Lobbying in the Public Interest. He says charities are hobbled by outdated and confusing rules that limit their lobbying activities.

For original article, click here.

Supreme Court Overturns Campaign Spending Rules
The Nonprofit Times
Thursday, January 21, 2010

Split along conservative-liberal lines, the United States Supreme Court potentially changed the landscape for future elections with its decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (FEC) this morning.

The nation’s highest court, by a 5-4 vote, struck down a rule that prohibits corporations from using money to pay for campaign advertisements. Justices also repealed part of the 2002 McCain-Feingold campaign finance bill prohibiting issue ads paid for by unions and corporations during primary and general elections.

“The Supreme Court has changed the rules. They’ve said the First Amendment pretty much allows unlimited funding and independent expenditures on partisan political activity,” said Larry Ottinger, president of the Center for Lobbying in the Public Interest (CLPI) in Washington, D.C. Ottinger described the decision as a critical and defining moment for nonprofits. The ruling affects nonprofits’ and foundations’ “relevance, influence and clout in shaping solutions to the nation’s problems,” he said. “The larger issue is this needs to be a wakeup call to get us to change the culture and the rules that have held back too many from engaging in advocacy and civic and policy matters for far too long,” Ottinger said.

For original article, click here.

Campaign Finance Activists on Pins and Needles Awaiting Supreme Court Ruling
By Dan Eggen
The Washington Post
Thursday, January 14, 2010

News conferences were scheduled and telephone briefings were penciled in, but Washington advocacy groups were disappointed yet again Wednesday: The Supreme Court did not issue its long-awaited decision on campaign finance laws.

This is a vigil of the kind to be found only in Washington. Legal groups, political parties and court-watchers have been waiting for months to learn whether the high court will uphold a ban on corporate spending on elections, or if instead it will open the gates to unlimited donations from well-financed companies and unions.

For original article, click here.

Social Innovation Fund Sends Important Signal to Grant Makers
By Cheryl Dorsey and Paul Schmitz
Chronicle of Philanthropy
Thursday, January 14, 2010

In December, 2007 the presidential candidate Barack Obama promised to usher in a new era of service and social innovation as President. One year into his term, President Obama has made significant early strides to fulfill this promise. The bipartisan Edward M. Kennedy Serve America Act and the creation of the White House Office of Social Innovation and Civic Participation have been two big milestones.

As two veteran nonprofit leaders who worked to help the president's transition staff devise some of those ideas, we are pleased to see that the administration has been hard at work thinking about how to improve our nation's ability to solve problems, especially in the neediest neighborhoods.

What has been most important is that the White House is not simply seeking to send money to worthy nonprofit groups but also trying to build a better financial marketplace for innovative nonprofit organizations so they can better expand and sustain effective solutions to local and national needs.

For original article, click here.

Editorial: Obama’s Lobbyist Ban is a Bit Too Slick
Sacramento Bee
Wednesday, January 13, 2010

In this political town, many of us know lobbyists. They are our neighbors. Some may be friends. They don't bite, at least not often. Even if some ply their trade on behalf of noxious causes, they do so because they have expertise that helps represent various clients.

Even so, President Barack Obama continues to bar lobbyists from participating in his administration, or so he claims. It's a nice concept.

But the ban, while not fictional, has many back doors, as became apparent once again with the recent appointment of Sacramento's own Karen Ross as chief of staff to Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack.

For original article, click here.

Senate Urged to Confirm New National-Service Head Quickly
By Suzanne Perry
Chronicle of Philanthropy
Monday, January 11, 2010

National-service advocates are asking colleagues to sign a letter urging the U.S. Senate to act quickly to confirm the nomination of Patrick Corvington, a senior associate at the Annie E. Casey Foundation, as chief executive of the Corporation for National and Community Service.
A Senate committee approved the nomination in December, but the full Senate left for its holiday recess without acting on it.

The letter — drafted by the coalitions America Forward, ServiceNation, and Voices for National Service — notes that Congress approved a big increase in the federal agency’s budget in December, partly to expand its programs as authorized by the Edward M. Kennedy Serve America Act.
“Buoyed by this landmark year, the service community is ready to address
America’s most pressing challenges,” it adds. “However, CNCS remains without permanent leadership to oversee this expansion and ensure accountability, transparency, and results.”
The national-service agency has been without a permanent chief executive since David Eisner left more than a year ago. The Senate reconvenes on January 19.
For original article, click here. http://philanthropy.com/news/government/index.php?id=10586

Good Government Groups Give Obama High Grades on Lobbying, Transparency
By Dan Eggen
Washington Post
Monday, January 11, 2010

The White House gets high marks in a report issued Monday by four prominent good-government groups, who said anti-lobbying and ethics rules issued by President Obama have "begun the difficult process of changing the way business is done in Washington."

The glowing "report card" from Common Cause, Democracy 21, the League of Women Voters and U.S. PIRG highlights a series of policies enacted by the Obama administration over the last year aimed at increasing government transparency and limiting the influence of lobbyists and other interest groups. The steps have included a ban on lobbyist gifts; restrictions on the hiring of lobbyists; publication of White House visitor logs and other records; and a move to bar lobbyists from serving on advisory boards.

For original article, click here.

The Ghost of Christmas Future: State Budget Deficits in 2010
By Rick Cohen
The Nonprofit Quarterly
Monday, January 11, 2010

State budgets were a mess in FY2009, a debacle in FY2010, and look like impending catastrophes in FY2011.  We've been visited by the Ghost of Christmas Present this past holiday season with rampaging budget deficits and corresponding cuts in critical social safety net programs and services.  Knocking at the door is the ghost of Christmas future with warnings of continuing program rescissions and terminations unless governments and voters, like a dumbfounded Scrooge, come to their senses and radically change their revenue-raising and budget-allocating ways.

Looking back at this holiday season, the news about state budget deficits affecting critical nonprofit concerns could have been accompanied by the sounds of the chains dragged by Jacob Marley's ghost.

For original article, click here.

IRS Urged to Help Small Charities
By Suzanne Perry
Chronicle of Philanthropy
Friday, January 8, 2010

The Internal Revenue Service should collect information from small nonprofit groups about the kind of help they need to comply with tax-reporting requirements, then develop a plan to meet their needs, the agency’s advocate for taxpayers has recommended.

“Tax-exempt organizations must meet tax compliance and reporting obligations that can be surprisingly complex,” Nina E. Olson, the national taxpayer advocate, said in her annual report to Congress. “Smaller organizations, which constitute the majority of the tax-exempt sector, are more likely to face this complexity without the assistance of professional tax preparers.”

Only nine IRS employees are now primarily responsible for providing information and education to 1.8 million diverse tax-exempt organizations, the report says, and the agency has no way to obtain comprehensive information about which services the groups need or how they prefer to receive them.

For original article, click here.

Courts Roll Back Limits on Election Spending
By David D. Kirkpatrick
New York Times
Friday, January 8, 2010

WASHINGTON — Even before a landmark Supreme Court ruling on campaign finance law expected within days, a series of other court decisions is reshaping the political battlefield by freeing corporations, unions and other interest groups from many of the restrictions on their advertising about issues and candidates.

Legal experts and political operatives say the cases roll back campaign spending rules to the years before Watergate. The end of decades-old restrictions could unleash a torrent of negative advertisements, help cash-poor Republicans in a pivotal year and push President Obama to bring in more money for his party.

For original article, click here.

Nonprofits to Get More Training
Sun Herald
Thursday, January 7, 2010

BILOXI — A new program aims to strengthen Biloxi and the Gulf Coast’s nonprofit sector by training and certifying staff and board members in their field, thanks to a grant from the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation.

Residents interested in, but not yet serving on, nonprofit boards also will also be able to take advantage of the classes administered by the Mississippi Center for Nonprofits.

“Every day, Biloxi and Gulf Coast nonprofits do the hard work that helps transform the region. This program will help ensure that these organizations reach their full potential in serving the people of Mississippi,” said Adele Lyons, Biloxi and Gulfport program director for the Knight Foundation, which is providing $388,615 for the effort.

For original article, click here.

Really Big Money Politics
Editorial
The New York Times
Sunday, January 3, 2010

The nation’s hard times are proving to be boom times for the lobbying industry in Washington. Lobbyists are expected to easily break their record of $3.3 billion in annual business, raising an inevitable question: How much more in special-interest donations will be bagged by lawmakers as they are furiously lobbied on everything from health care reform to economic regulation?

No one confesses to explicit quid pro quo crudity. But the power of lobbyists as they channel money and urge favor for rich clients is a gripping, and so far immutable, fact of political life. It needs to change.

For original article, click here.

How the White House Stole Transparency
By Dave Wenhold
The Hill
Tuesday, December 15, 2009

’Tis the season for holiday cartoons, and, recently, while my son was watching the annual classic “How the Grinch Stole Christmas,” it got me thinkingabout how sometimes things get stolen from you and you don’t even realize it until it’s too late.

For example, in my opinion, the administration’s demonization and backward policies regarding law-abiding lobbyists has actually decreased and stolen transparency in Washington, not increased it.

For original article, click here.

The Supreme Court Leaves Washington in the Lurch
By Kenneth P. Vogel
Politico
Monday, December 14, 2009

The U.S. Supreme Court has put off until next year a ruling that could remake the political landscape for the 2010 midterm elections, and that’s making things tricky for those eagerly awaiting the decision, including political professionals, regulators, advocacy groups and even the White House.

The case in question, which was brought by the conservative non-profit group Citizens United against the Federal Election Commission, challenges decades of law limiting corporate and union spending on elections. It could fundamentally reshape how money gets raised and spent, and spur a renewed effort to limit the flow of money into politics, which advocates for tougher restrictions predict will have President Barack Obama’s backing.

For original article, click here.

Nonprofits Not Allowed to Lobby but Neither Should They be Silent
By Judy Sobin and Melissa Pavlicek
Star Bulletin
Friday, December 11, 2009

These are tough times and nonprofit organizations are among the economically wounded.

The Hawaii Community Foundation recently reported that Hawaii residents remain generous contributors to charities, but nonprofit organizations have faced an increase in demands for services and the concurrent loss of funding. Their staff and their clients are, without a doubt, experiencing an extra dose of the pain. Social services organizations, charter schools, associations that fund culture and the arts — none has escaped unscathed.

We don't subscribe to a "storm the Legislature" approach, but neither is this the time to be a shrinking violet. In order to accomplish economic recovery, what may seem now like a Herculean task, at a time when many nonprofits are having trouble keeping the lights on, we urge executive directors, boards of directors, members and staff of nonprofits to engage in education and advocacy.

Hunker down and focus on your core missions, as we all must, but don't silence your voices.

For original article, click here.

Groups Use Citizens United as the Vehicle to Pass Public Financing
By Amanda Adams
OMB Watch
Thursday, December 10, 2009

Many fear that if the Supreme Court decides in the Citizens United case to overturn limitations on corporate expenditures in political campaigns, it will transform elections with a deluge of corporate and union money. In preparation, many are using this prospect as a way to advocate for election reform legislation, specifically public financing in House and Senate races.

For original article, click here.

Foundations Need to Take Greater Chances in Hiring Leaders
By Pablo Eisenberg
Chronicle of Philanthropy
Thursday, December 10, 2009

Foundations desperately need visionary and risk-taking leaders, but when they choose new people to run their organizations, they often forget about the talent they have in their own offices: the program officers who spend time working with potential grant recipients and who understand the challenges facing the causes that foundations support.

For original article, click here.

Should the Definition of Lobbying Be Expanded?
By Bara Vaida
National Journal
Monday, December 7, 2009

Should the definition of lobbying include other areas of the influence industry including grassroots lobbying and public relations work? Should the threshold for registering to lobby drop below 20 percent - for example, if a person spends 10 percent of his or her time lobbying, should they be required to register?

Given the outcry I have heard from many in the advocacy and lobbying community that President Obama's lobbying rules are more symbolic than substantive, what do you think would result in real reform? Expanding the definition of lobbying?

Currently a person falls under the legal definition of a lobbyist based on several criteria including whether or not that person spends more than 20 percent of his or her time lobbying and makes more than one contact with a "covered" official during a quarter. Grassroots and public relations work are currently exempted from that definition.

For original article, click here.

Below please find the links to the fifteen responses to Vaida’s question:

The Scarlet "L"
By Michael Cornfield
Vice President, Research and Media Strategy, 720 Strategies
Friday, December 11, 2009

Transparency is Important But...
By Gregory Vistica
Founder and President, Washington Media Group, Inc.
Thursday, December 10, 2009

A PR Perspective
By David Di Martino
Partner, Blue Line Strategic Communications
Thursday, December 10, 2009

Response by Patrick Lester
Senior Vice President for Public Policy, Alliance for Children and Families
Thursday, December 10, 2009

Real Reform? Watch Out What You Ask For
By C. Stewart Verdery, Jr.
Partner and Founder, Monument Policy Group
Thursday, December 10, 2009

Passing the Public Smell Test
By Marty Russo
CEO, Cassiry & Associates
Wednesday, December 9, 2009

Obama Lobbying Restrictions Working
By Bob Maloney
Principal, Maloney Government Relations, LLC
Wednesday, December 9, 2009

The Missing Dimension
By David M. Hart
Associate Professor, School of Public Policy, George Mason University
Tuesday, December 8, 2009

Put the Rhetoric Aside
By John H. Graham IV
President and CEO, ASAE & The Center for Association Leadership
Tuesday, December 8, 2009

Careful: Disclosure has a downside
By Bradley A. Smith
Chairman, Center for Competitive Politics
Monday, December 7, 2009

Not as easy as it sounds...
By Meredith McGehee
Policy Director, Campaign Legal Center
Monday, December 7, 2009

Three Ideas for Real Reform
By Andrew Rosenberg
Senior Vice President, Ogilvy Government Relations
Monday, December 7, 2009

Real Reform? Transparency is Not Enough
By Lisa Gilbert
Democracy Advocate, U.S. Public Interest Research Group
Monday, December 7, 2009

Clear Thinking About Transparency
By Doug Pinkham
President, Public Affairs Council
Monday, December 7, 2009

Focus on Disclosure
By Rich Gold
Partner, Holland & Knight
Monday, December 7, 2009

Faux Lobbyist Reform, Part Deux
The Washington Times
Monday, December 07, 2009

Just when we thought President Obama's phony effort to root out lobbyist influence in government couldn't get any more obvious, the White House has fallen to a new low level of fakery.

A little noticed policy change issued by the White House ethics counsel this fall is expected to result in multitudes of registered lobbyists being removed from the nearly 1,000 panels that advise federal agencies on policy issues ranging from trade to health care. This action, however, does not mean the Obama administration will shun input from the sort of special interests the president regularly derides.

For original article, click here.

Focus On Disclosure
By Rich Gold
Partner, Holland & Knight
Monday, December 7, 2009

Just when we thought President Obama's phony effort to root out lobbyist influence in government couldn't get any more obvious, the White House has fallen to a new low level of fakery.

A little noticed policy change issued by the White House ethics counsel this fall is expected to result in multitudes of registered lobbyists being removed from the nearly 1,000 panels that advise federal agencies on policy issues ranging from trade to health care. This action, however, does not mean the Obama administration will shun input from the sort of special interests the president regularly derides.

For original article, click here.

Congressional Report Says White House has ‘changed’ Lobbying Relationships
By Dan Eggen 
Washington Post
Friday, December 4, 2009

A new report (pdf) from the Congressional Research Service concludes that White House efforts to clamp down on lobbyists has "already changed the relationship" between K Street and the executive branch.

Congress could pursue further reforms by revising federal lobbying rules, according to the report, issued by CRS analyst Jacob R. Straus.

White House ethics counsel Norm Eisen, who oversees the administration's anti-lobbying rules, hailed the conclusion.

For original article, click here.

A Lobbyist By Any Other Name: SEIU and the Obama White House
By Brian Johnson
Big Government
Thursday, December 3, 2009

Successfully demonizing Washington insiders on the campaign trail, President Obama needed to find a way to meet with lobbyists without appearing hypocritical. The administration’s advice to lobbyists? De-register.

For original article, click here.

No Place for (Registered) Lobbyists
New York Times
Thursday, December 3, 2009

The Obama administration has roiled Washington’s special-interest galaxy by deciding to unseat hundreds of registered lobbyists from government advisory boards. A precise roster has yet to be done. But lobbyists clearly should have no place on the more than 915 advisory panels (with 60,000 members) laced across 52 federal agencies that seek “outside” expert advice.

The White House decree to gradually remove them is hardly the death knell of lobbying. But it raises hopes that the administration may be serious about its pledge to ratchet back the in-your-pocket influence of Washington’s — count them — 13,000 registered lobbyists.

For original article, click here.

Lobbying the Executive Branch: Current Practices and Options for Change
By Jacob R. Strauss, Analyst on the Congress
Congressional Research Services
Tuesday, December 1, 2009

Summary
Under the Lobbying Disclosure Act (LDA) of 1995, as amended, individuals are required to
register with the Clerk of the House of Representatives and the Secretary of the Senate if they
lobby either legislative or executive branch officials. In January 2009, Secretary of the Treasury
Timothy Geithner placed further restrictions on the ability of lobbyists to contact executive
branch officials responsible for dispersing Emergency Economic Stabilization Act (EESA, P.L.
110-243) funds. Subsequently, President Barack Obama and Peter Orszag, Director of the Office
of Management and Budget (OMB), issued a series of memoranda between March and July 2009
that govern communication between federally registered lobbyists and executive branch
employees administering American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (P.L. 111-5) funds.
Most recently, in October 2009, the White House directed executive agencies to prohibit, when
possible, the appointment of federally registered lobbyists to federal advisory bodies and
committees.

The Recovery and Reinvestment Act lobbying restrictions focus on both written and oral
communications between lobbyists and executive branch officials. Pursuant to the President’s
memoranda, restrictions have been placed on certain kinds of oral and written interactions
between federally registered lobbyists and executive branch officials responsible for Recovery
Act fund disbursement. The President’s memoranda require each agency to post summaries of
oral and written contacts with lobbyists on dedicated agency websites. EESA regulations are
virtually identical.

This report outlines the development of registration requirements for lobbyists engaging
executive branch officials since 1995. It also summarizes steps taken by the Obama
Administration to limit and monitor lobbying of the executive branch; discusses the development
and implementation of restrictions placed on lobbying for Recovery Act and EESA funds;
examines the Obama Administration’s decision to stop appointing lobbyists to federal advisory
bodies and committees; considers third-party criticism of current executive branch lobbying
policies; and provides options for possible modifications in current lobbying laws and practices.

For full CRS report, click here.

Many Agree Lobbying Policies May Not Actually Reduce Corruption
By Amanda Adams
OMB Watch
Tuesday, December 1, 2009

The most recent effort to curb lobbyists' influence, excluding registered lobbyists from federal advisory panels, continues to get press coverage since first announced in September. The Washington Post predicts that it, "may turn out to be the most far-reaching lobbying rule change so far from President Obama, who also has sought to restrict the ability of lobbyists to get jobs in his administration and to negotiate over stimulus contracts."

The Industry Trade Advisory Committees (ITACs), which includes an estimated 130 lobbyists, asserts that the policy is harmful to U.S. business interests. Some are concerned that the policy, "will severely handicap federal regulators, who rely heavily on advisory boards for technical advice and to serve as liaisons between government and industry."

For original article, click here.

Lobbyists Furiously Lobby White House to Preserve Lobbyist Power
By Jake Tapper 
ABC News
Saturday, November 28, 2009

Lobbyists have been furiously lobbying the Obama White House to oppose restrictions on their ability to lobby.

The kafuffle began on September 23 when special counsel to the president for ethics and government reform Norm Eisen wrote that "the White House has informed executive agencies and departments that it is our aspiration that federally-registered lobbyists not be appointed to agency advisory boards and commissions."

How many Industry Trade Advisory Committees -- ITACs -- are there?

The Washington Post says the system of these committees is "so vast that federal officials don't have exact numbers for its size; the most recent estimates tally nearly 1,000 panels with total membership exceeding 60,000 people."

For original article, click here.

Editorial: Obama’s Labor Lobbyist
Washington Times
Thursday, November 19, 2009

Despite rhetoric to the contrary, President Obama does accept lobbyists at the White House. Not only has the president appointed a host of former lobbyists to key executive-branch positions, Service Employees International Union head Andy Stern was the most frequent White House visitor in the first nine months of the year. The union chief met with top officials and attended events some 22 times, according to White House logs.

…

Under the Lobbying Disclosure Act, people who spend 20 percent or more of their jobs every quarter on lobbying have to register with the federal government and file regular reports on their activities. The union spokesman told us that Mr. Stern "is not a lobbyist" because he doesn't meet the quarterly percentage requirements. She also claimed that his 2008 Labor Department declaration mostly involved activities not covered by lobbying registration requirements, such as his time promoting Mr. Obama's presidential run.

This technical response to queries about Mr. Stern's activities demonstrates how federal lobbying laws fail to ensure full transparency. The quarterly nature of lobbying reporting was designed to guarantee that those who influence government policy are adequately tracked over the course of a year. While the Labor Department's disclosure requirements differ from general lobbyist disclosure regulations, the reason lobbying and other political activities are lumped together for union officials is because both are used to influence government.

For original article, click here.

Lobbyists: Obama’s Rules Bring Pain But No Gain
By Eliza Newlin Carney
National Journal Online
Monday, November 16, 2009 

Advocacy Groups Say The Dirtiest Money Is Still Out There And A Policy Brain Drain Is Already Under Way

As the Obama administration's complicated tug of war with lobbyists continues, Washington's professional persuaders are fighting back the best way they know how: with a lobbying campaign.

The leaders of more than a dozen advocacy groups, frustrated with the administration's multi-pronged restrictions on lobbyists, are meeting regularly at the Open Society Policy Center's Washington office to plot strategy. Possible actions include a push for congressional hearings, or even a demonstration on the Capitol steps.

The center, the advocacy arm of the George Soros-funded Open Society institute, has underwritten the hiring of consultant Bill Wasserman, president of M+R Strategic Services, to help it respond to the administration's lobbying rules. Leaders of the groups spearheading the effort, which also include the Center for Lobbying in the Public Interest and OMB Watch, will reach out to trade associations and unions to fortify their ranks.

For original article, click here.

American Charities May Not Have a Happy Holiday
By Donna Gordon Blankinship
The Associated Press
Monday, November 16, 2009

SEATTLE -- American charities have weathered a significant drop in giving this year, and while they're hoping for a holiday miracle, a recent survey shows they will probably see a decrease in year-end generosity.

In light of the economic downturn, only 38 percent of Americans say they are more likely to give a charitable gift as a holiday present this year, compared to 49 percent last year, according to a survey conducted by Harris Interactive to be released Monday.

Some of the biggest U.S. charities say they are budgeting for a disappointing Christmas.

The survey commissioned by Federal Way, Wash.-based World Vision indicates they are prudent to not raise their expectations for now. The survey did find, however, that 74 percent of Americans plan to increase their charitable giving once the economy improves.

For original article, click here.

Legal Aid for the Poor
The Washington Post
Monday, November 16, 2009

CAPITOL HILL will soon face a choice on how to fund the Legal Services Corp. (LSC), the federally created nonprofit organization that provides legal representation in civil matters to poor people. Rather than coldly calculate the money it will allocate to the group, lawmakers should stop to consider the constituents who rely on these services: the newly unemployed, those facing loss of their homes, those in need of guidance to secure food stamps.

Tough economic times have led more poor -- and newly poor -- people to need legal help. The LSC has been grossly underfunded for years, and the amount of money it gets from private and non-federal government sources has been shrinking because of the recession. Fully funding the LSC and giving it as much flexibility as possible will help to ensure that the needy get help.

For original article, click here.

Editorial: All the President’s Lobbyists
Washington Times
Tuesday, November 10, 2009

Like his campaign promise to change the political tone in Washington, President Obama's stance against lobbying and corporate influence has proved to be a mirage. Instead of actually blocking lobbyists from serving in his administration, his "reform" has simply encouraged lobbyists to stop admitting they are lobbyists.

After he signed an executive order restricting former registered lobbyists from being appointed to executive branch positions, more than 1,400 federal lobbyists withdrew their government registrations during the second quarter of the year, according to an analysis by Office of Management and Budget Watch and the Center for Responsive Politics. The number of newly registered lobbyists also decreased.

At the same time last year, just 300 registered lobbyists withdrew their registration - in line with the norm. Though nobody can prove what motivated all those lobbyists to make the change, the Obama administration policy certainly provided a new incentive.

Having fewer registered lobbyists doesn't mean there actually are fewer people being paid to influence federal policy, just that they are less transparent about who is lobbying for what and who is paying the bills.

For original article, click here.

White House, Lobbyists Still at Odds
By David M. Kirkpatrick
New York Times
Monday, November 9, 2009

The lobbyists who went to the White House on Monday to complain about the administration’s policy of banning them from an international trade advisory board were all seasoned players in Washington. So it should hardly surprise to them that the White House has used their meeting for its own purposes, as an opportunity to call attention to the virtues of its no-lobbyist ban.

Not long after the meeting ending, White House ethics chief Norm Eisen wrote a post on the official White House Blog, describing the meeting and listing its participants — while reiterating the justifications for ban. Though the White House had addressed their arguments before, (and blogged about them), Eisen wrote, “We feel it important to meet with those with whom we disagree to discuss their concerns face to face.”

The lobbyists’ argument, in its strongest form, is that banning registered lobbyists from meetings or boards has the odd effect of excluding only those whose agendas are transparent and publicly disclosed. Registered lobbyists are hardly the only ones with private interests to serve on public boards or meet with public officials. But they are the only ones required to report their clients and agendas on public disclosure forms.

For original article, click here.

The following nine articles comprise the Philanthropy Report published by The Wall Street Journal on Monday, November 9, 2009. For the original report, click here.

Editor’s Note – Philanthropy Report
By Lawrence Rout
The Wall Street Journal
Monday, November 9, 2009

If there ever was a time to get smarter about philanthropy, this is it. Donations are down, endowments have been decimated, and state and local governments are slashing their budgets. And the number of those who need help are rising rapidly.

In that spirit, this report offers an assortment of ways all parties—donors, foundations and charities—are trying to do more in hard times. You'll read about individual donors, for instance, who are shutting private foundations and rolling the money into donor-advised funds. And about charities finding new opportunities in the downturn. And about philanthropies taking advantage of new public-private partnerships.

Most important, I encourage you to read Pablo Eisenberg's cover story about what ails charitable giving. It's an insightful and provocative look at how foundations can heal themselves—and fix charitable giving in the process. It is, in other words, a road map for getting smarter.

For original article, click here.

What’s Wrong With Charitable Giving – and How to Fix It
By Paul Eisenberg
The Wall Street Journal
Monday, November 9, 2009

For starters, says Pablo Eisenberg, donors need to begin doling out more money, and to the places that really need it.

It's hard to overstate the crisis facing charitable giving today. So let me just say it as plainly as I can: Much of current philanthropic giving, by foundations and individuals, neither meets the needs of our charitable organizations nor addresses some of our most urgent public needs.

Foundation practices today are too bureaucratic, inflexible and cautious, and too focused on short-term objectives. Too often, the process and procedures of grant making are more tailored to the needs of foundations and their trustees than to the requirements of nonprofits.

At the same time, our depressed economy is exacerbating this crisis—and making it all the more crucial that we address it. A severe reduction in available public and private funds has put many important nonprofit groups, especially at the local level, in grave danger. Cutbacks in their budgets and programs are depriving their clients of essential health and social services.

For original article, click here.

Is It Public, or Is It Private?
By Shelly Banjo
The Wall Street Journal
Monday, November 9, 2009

Increasingly when it comes to giving, it's a little bit of both.

Traditionally, when it comes to philanthropy, there has been private philanthropy, and there has been government philanthropy, and rarely did the two meet.

But that division is now changing, as a growing number of philanthropists are looking at new opportunities in so-called public-private partnerships.

For original article, click here.

Finding the Silk Purse
By Sarah E. Needleman
The Wall Street Journal
Monday, November 9, 2009

Many nonprofit organizations have been in survival mode since the economy went sour and donations began shrinking. But some are doing more than just getting by—they're finding ways to take advantage of the situation.

The real-estate crash, the disruption of business as usual, the clear need for greater generosity, the hunger for work in the construction industry and donors' reluctance to flaunt their wealth have all been seized on by various organizations as opportunities to do more for the people they serve.
Here's a look at how some organizations have made the most of an economic downturn that has driven other groups out of business.

For original article, click here.

Expanding Your Horizons
By Anjali Cordeiro
The Wall Street Journal
Monday, November 9, 2009

Americans have shown a growing interest in philanthropic causes overseas in recent years. But giving abroad can be complicated for those who want their money to go to a specific cause in a particular region—say, education in Southeast Asia or health care in sub-Saharan Africa.

Ensuring that such donations reach their intended target and are used effectively, are tax-deductible and don't violate antiterrorism laws or any other U.S. government restrictions can be a daunting task. Well-known organizations like the American Red Cross provide a convenient way for many people to make contributions. But they aren't set up to target donations the way some contributors would like.

Those are some of the reasons many donors opt to work with U.S.-based intermediary charities created for international giving. These organizations act as a channel for donations, ensuring that the money goes to reputable recipients and has the desired effect, and that contributions meet all legal requirements. Because they are U.S.-based, donations made through them are tax-deductible.

For original article, click here.

Time to Convert?
By Jilian Mincer
The Wall Street Journal
Monday, November 9, 2009

Raymond P. Kurlak established a private foundation in 2000 to fund education and literacy programs, joining a growing wave of philanthropy in the U.S. In the wake of the recent turmoil in financial markets, he became part of another trend: He closed the Raymond Foundation about a year ago and rolled the assets into a donor-advised fund.

Mr. Kurlak opened an account with the Schwab Charitable Fund, an independent, nonprofit organization founded by Charles Schwab Corp. Other funds founded by big financial-services firms include the Fidelity Charitable Gift Fund and the Vanguard Charitable Endowment Program, and there are many other choices as well. As the names suggest, these funds distribute money to charitable causes as recommended by the donors. One of their advantages is that they relieve philanthropists of some of the costs of running a foundation.

For original article, click here.

Consider it an Investment
By Shelly Banjo
The Wall Street Journal
Monday, November 9, 2009

With fewer resources to go around, philanthropists are using a host of methods to stretch their charitable dollars.

Instead of simply giving money away to a cause, groups and individuals are plowing their funds into financial vehicles—known as program-related investments—that let their money grow while it does good. So, rather than make a one-time gift of $1,000, they might invest in a project that generates revenue, such as a loan to an entrepreneur in the developing world or real estate that rents to nonprofits. The returns can then go to other causes.

For original article, click here.

Tough Times, New Tactics
By Shelly Banjo
The Wall Street Journal
Monday, November 9, 2009

That's the question many corporations have faced over the past few years, as profits plummeted and expenses were slashed.

So to augment—or in some cases to replace—cash donations to charitable causes, corporate philanthropists have increased their focus on skills-based volunteering, pro-bono services, policy advocacy and, perhaps most notably, making business decisions that accomplish a public good. Indeed, some of these decisions are intended to improve the company's bottom line in the future. But in these times of leaner budgets and thinner profit margins, it was perhaps inevitable that there would be some blurring of the lines between philanthropy and business objectives.

For original article, click here.

Brother, Can You Spare Some Time?
By Melissa Korn
The Wall Street Journal
Monday, November 9, 2009

Young adults, struggling with student loans and small salaries, often can't afford to write checks to their favorite causes. And many who can aren't satisfied just making a financial contribution.

So instead of—or in addition to—donating money, a number of people in their 20s and early 30s are giving back to their communities by donating time, often their most valuable asset. According to the most recent data from the Corporation for National and Community Service, the federal organization that oversees AmeriCorps and other major volunteer programs, the rate of volunteerism among those 20 to 24 increased by nearly half between 1989 and 2005, to 18.7%. Among those age 25 to 34, the participation rate climbed to 23.4% from 20.2%.

        For original article, click here.

The Government and Nonprofits, It’s Complicated
By Paul Clolery
Nonprofit Times
Thursday, November 5, 2009

DETROIT – Independent Sector’s annual conference being held here is called “Challenging Times, New Opportunities.” But it might as well have been titled, “All Hands On Deck.”

That was the phrase two White House officials used in separate addresses to the nonprofit executives gathered in the Motor City. The intention was to note the Obama Administration’s emphasis on national service and utilizing the nonprofit sector. But, there were some in the audience who seemed a little queasy about the nonprofit sector becoming an instrument of the federal government.

For original article, click here.

Common Cause Reports on Possible Ramifications of Citizens United Case
By Amanda Adams
OMB Watch
Tuesday, November 3, 2009
 
The Supreme Court may soon decide the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (FEC) case, which could drastically change elections with an increased amount of corporate political spending. In preparation for the outcome, Common Cause has released a report titled, "Corporate Democracy: Potential fallout from a Supreme Court decision on Citizens United."

"In theory, if corporations spent about one-third of what they currently spend on lobbying during a two-year election cycle on direct political advocacy, they could outspend all Congressional candidates combined."

The report reviews the potential consequences from the case, examines political spending of corporations versus unions, and uses California as an example of a state that allows unlimited corporate political spending. Common Cause predicts that the court will "overturn precedent and rule in favor of removing restrictions on corporate spending in elections."

For original article, click here.

A Lobbyist’s Failed Defense
By Jeffery Sachs (Economist and Director of the Earth Institute, Columbia University)
Huffington Post
Tuesday, November 3, 2009

If the preposterous piece by Mr. Joel Jankowsky in Tuesday's Wall Street Journal had been published in any other newspaper, we'd guess it was a spoof. Mr. Jankowsky, a lobbyist and partner at Akin Gump, bemoans the limits being placed on lobbying activities, even though those limits remain weak and porous. "Talented women and men who registered themselves as lobbyists under the Lobbying Disclosure Act are being excluded from contributing their expertise at a critical time in our nation's history," writes Mr. Jankowsky.

Mr. Jankowsky rightly argues that big campaign contributors have far too much influence and access in the Administration, but does so through a contorted logic that completely whitewashes the role of lobbyists in the money-choked politics of Washington. Lobbyists may indeed be talented people of expertise, but they are part of a dysfunctional system that has turned policy over to the highest corporate bidder and that puts our economy and society in jeopardy. Lobbying needs far stronger constraints than the tiny but salutary steps being put into place.

For original article, click here.

Obama and ‘Special Interests’
By Joel Jankowsky
Wall Street Journal
Monday, November 2, 2009

For the past nine months, the Obama team has waged a campaign of political convenience against lobbyists.

Its policies against so-called special interests include: a refusal to accept lobbyists' campaign contributions, a ban on employing lobbyists within the administration, discouraging lobbyists' contact with government workers, new rules that will result in the public disclosure of every lobbyist who visits the White House, and a directive to exclude lobbyists from serving on department and federal agency boards and commissions.

For original article, click here.

Lobbyists Quit in Record Numbers
By Brody Mullins
Wall Street Journal
Monday, November 2, 2009

It’s been a rough few years for lobbyists. They have been attacked by President Barack Obama. They have been targeted in corruption probes. And they have been hurt by the economy.
And many have decided they’re not going to take it anymore.

A record number of lobbyists have quit the business this year, according to a study released today.
About 1,400 lobbyists, or 8% of the industry, left in the three-month period ending June 30, according to a joint study of lobbying records by the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics and OMB Watch. Typically, a few hundred lobbyists leave the business every quarter.

For original article, click here.

Lobbying Spending Hits Record $849 Million
Associated Press
Friday, October 30, 2009

WASHINGTON -- Companies, unions and other interests spent $849 million on federal lobbying in July, August and September, more than in any quarter since lobbyists began filing quarterly reports at the beginning of last year, according to a nonpartisan group that monitors political expenditures.
Lobbying spending has totaled $2.5 billion so far this year, slightly exceeding the total for all of 2005, said the Center for Responsive Politics.

The massive sums - covering the activities of 13,428 lobbyists - are being spent despite efforts by President Barack Obama to curb the clout of Washington's influence industry, and reflect the administration's and Congress' ambitious efforts on health care and other areas.

For original article, click here.

Hearing to Investigate Forged Letters
By Amanda Adams
OMB Watch
Friday, October 30, 2009

The House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming held a hearing on the fraudulent letters sent to Congress on clean energy and climate legislation. Chairman Edward Markey (D-MA) wanted to know why congressional offices were not notified until after the vote occurred, even though the existence of the fake letters was discovered beforehand. The letters were sent out by Bonner & Associates, a subcontractor hired by Hawthorn. American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity (ACCE) paid Hawthorn, who then hired Bonner to carry out a grassroots lobbying campaign.

For original article, click here.

Former IRS Nonprofit Watchdog Seeks to Retool Government Oversight of Charities
By Grant Williams
Chronicle of Philanthropy
Thursday, October 29, 2009

For years, the Internal Revenue Service has been dogged by criticism that it doesn't do enough to oversee charities and serve the needs of nonprofit organizations. The division that keeps track of charities is underfinanced and understaffed, the poor stepchild of an agency whose overall purpose is focused on collecting taxes, not watching over organizations that are exempt from taxation, critics say.

The person who formerly managed the IRS's nonprofit branch couldn't agree more.
Now in private practice — and representing charities in high-profile cases coming up against the entity he once led — Marc Owens is proposing a restructuring of the way the federal government oversees and makes policy for nonprofit groups.

For original article, click here.

Gateses to Lobby U.S. for Global Health Funds
By Susan Kinzie, Staff Writer
The Washington Post
Tuesday, October 27, 2009

Bill and Melinda Gates will make an unusual personal appeal to Washington officials Tuesday night, asking them to continue funding global health initiatives despite the recession and to commit to nearly halve the number of child deaths worldwide by 2025.
"Government funding that's coming from the United States is making a huge difference on the ground in the developing world," Melinda Gates said in an interview last week. Particularly over the past four to five years, she said, "it's really palpable -- it's making a huge difference saving lives."

The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation is the largest private foundation in the world. But Gates said that even with its great wealth, the fund is focused on being a catalyst for much larger government-funded projects in health and education. "We have put about $11.9 billion in global health since the inception of this," she said, most of it within the past decade. "Our money is tiny."

For original article, click here.

Policy Investments Seen Reaping Benefits
Philanthropy Journal
Monday, October 26, 2009

Investments by individuals and foundations in long-term, systemic change are reaping measurable benefits for communities, a new report says.

Over a five-year period, 15 nonprofits in Minnesota received a total of $16.5 million for advocacy and organizing efforts, an investment that earned $138 for every dollar spent, says the study by the National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy.
In total, the funding the nonprofits received resulted in $2.28 billion in benefits to Minnesota residents, the study says.

For original article, click here.

Lobbying Disclosure Forms Don’t Tell Full Story
By Anne C. Mulkern of Greenwire
The Washington Post
Monday, October 26, 2009

Coal's big lobbying group this August sent workers to 264 cities to attend state fairs, visit Kiwanis meetings and set up tables at college campuses, all part of a campaign aimed at powering advocacy for the fuel.

That activity in eight states led to media coverage, a plus for the group, the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity, or ACCCE. "Likely members of Congress would have seen those stories and read those stories and seen there was support for coal," said Lisa Camooso Miller, an ACCCE spokeswoman. The effort came just before the Senate was due to return from its August break and consider climate legislation that is likely to have a profound effect on coal.

But none of the money ACCCE spent on that August effort is reflected in the lobbying report it filed with Congress, detailing spending in July, August and September. The report also fails to capture what ACCCE spent on television advertisements featuring "real people" talking about the importance of coal as a source of low-cost electricity in their lives.

For original article, click here.

Markey Expands ACCCE Investigation from Forged Letters to Lobbying Disclosures
By Anne C. Mulkern and Alex Kaplun of ClimateWire
The New York Times
Monday, October 26, 2009

A House committee is investigating whether the coal industry's largest influence group failed to accurately report its lobbying spending to Congress.

The Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming has expanded its investigation into forged letters sent to lawmakers and their ties to the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity, according to documents viewed by E&E.

In an Oct. 21 letter, Chairman Ed Markey (D-Mass.) asked ACCCE whether its lobbying disclosure for 2008 and the first half of 2009 should have included work conducted by the Hawthorn Group, a public relations firm hired in part to coordinate efforts to fight the House climate bill.

For original article, click here.

Administration Defends Policies Towards Lobbyists
By Amanda Adams
OMB Watch
Friday, October 23, 2009

On Oct. 19 the chairs for the Industry Trade Advisory Committees (ITAC) sent President Obama a letter expressing opposition to the announcement that registered lobbyists should be prohibited from serving on federal advisory boards. The group asked Obama to reconsider the guidance. Norm Eisen, counsel to the president on ethics and government reform, posted another blog with both the group's letter and the administration's letter in response. "While we recognize the contributions some of those who will be affected have made to these committees, it is an indisputable fact that in recent years, lobbyists for major special interests have wielded extraordinary power in Washington DC, resulting in a national agenda too often skewed in favor of the interests that can afford their services."

The response letter further stated; "The President's overarching goal is to reduce special interest influences that threaten the public interest and undermine public confidence. And his concerns extend to the appointment or retention of those who lobby the government and simultaneously serve on federal boards and commissions."
These consistent remarks are confusing because the administration's initiatives are not seemingly reducing the influence of special interests, and in fact deterring transparency.

For original article, click here.

Eisen Lays Out Case for Limiting Lobbyists' Role
By Kevin Bogardus
The Hill
Friday, October 23, 2009

The White House’s top ethics cop on Thursday defended the Obama administration’s lobbying restrictions that have much of K Street up in arms.

Norm Eisen, counsel to the president on ethics and government reform, told attendees of the American Bar Association’s (ABA) fall conference that President Barack Obama was trying to fundamentally change how Washington works, which gives an outsized influence to lobbyists.

For original article, click here.

Why We Bar Lobbyists from Agency Advisory Boards and Commissions
By Norm Eisen
The White House Blog
Wednesday, October 21, 2009

In the interest of transparency, we are posting a letter we received from lobbyists and others about the Administration’s move to bar federally-registered lobbyists from federal boards and commissions.  We are also publishing our response, which explains the reasoning behind this decision.
 
It all started with a blog post where we announced the new steps the Administration was taking to reduce lobbyist influence on these important boards and commissions:

The White House has informed executive agencies and departments that it is our aspiration that federally-registered lobbyists not be appointed to agency advisory boards and commissions. These appointees to boards and commissions, which are made by agencies and not the President, advise the federal government on a variety of policy areas. Keeping these advisory boards free of individuals who currently are registered federal lobbyists represents a dramatic change in the way business is done in Washington.

For original post, click here.

Former reps. Cool off, Donate Cash
By Jonathan Allen
Politico
Wednesday, October 21, 2009

Fresh off their congressional retirements, former Reps. Bud Cramer and Jim McCrery are prohibited from lobbying for a year — a ban reinforced by a sweeping crackdown under the Democratic Congress.

But you wouldn’t know it from their day jobs and their political donations, which give them a heavy hand in the Washington influence game, advising clients with interests before Congress while donating tens of thousands of dollars from their old campaign war chests to candidates.

For original article, click here.

Sunlight Foundation Dissects TARP Lobbying Rules
By Amanda Adams
OMB Watch
Friday, October 16, 2009

Last month rules were released regarding communications with federally registered lobbyists concerning the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP). Since then, there has not been much news about disclosure reports or any follow through. The Sunlight Foundation has done a very detailed analysis of the rules noting; "they are hard to understand, difficult to apply, and full of contradictions and omissions that undermine stated policy objectives. The rules should be clarified, rewritten, simplified, and broadened."

TARP lobbying disclosure rules prohibit oral communications covering specific applications for funds in certain circumstances, and Sunlight's post breaks down the various circumstances and exceptions to the rules. There are even informative graphs detailing the reporting requirements. Sunlight also makes some recommendations, such as creating an online searchable lobbying database of all disclosures required, which is updated in real time.

Interestingly, after commenting on the difficulty in finding any lobbying communication reports on Treasury's website, two disclosure reports now appear. A second blog from Sunlight notes; "What is also interesting is that there are only two lobbying contacts reported. This leads to a couple of possible implications: (1) Treasury has more forms to publish, perhaps some of which are late; or (2) Treasury has no more forms to publish right now. For the latter to be true, either no one has talked to Treasury about spending TARP funds over the last month, or the lobbying disclosure rules don’t have a lot of bite and missed capturing lobbying communications."

For original article, click here.

Hearing on Forged Letter Scandal Postponed
By Amanda Adams
OMB Watch
Friday, October 16, 2009

The Select Committee for Energy Independence and Global Warming scheduled a hearing to investigate the forged advocacy letters sent to members of Congress before the House considered legislation on clean energy. The hearing notice states it will address the specific events of the case and "the practice of Astroturf."

The hearing has been postponed until next week after Ranking Minority Member Jim Sensenbrenner (R-WI) objected because the committee was not given all of the witness' testimony 48-hours in advance, as required by House rules. Chairman Ed Markey (D-MA) called off the hearing because of the "procedural mistake."

Recently, news has highlighted that the industry association involved in the scandal, the American Coalition for Clean Coal Energy (ACCE), "spent nearly $10 million over the past 18 months on lobbying efforts." The public affairs firm the Hawthorn Group, used some of that money to hire Bonner & Associates, the lobbying firm being investigated for the fake letters. Jack Bonner, the founder of the firm is scheduled to be among the witnesses to testify at the hearing.

For original article, click here.

The Influence Game: Forged Letters Went Unreported
By Frederic J. Frommer
The Associated Press
Thursday, October 15, 2009

WASHINGTON -- A coal group and two contractors knew about forged lobbying letters sent to three House Democrats before a vote on climate legislation, but the lawmakers were in the dark, documents obtained by a congressional committee show.

The documents, reviewed by The Associated Press, offer a look into the millions of dollars spent on grass-roots lobbying efforts. Federal lobbying law does not require public disclosure of such efforts to gin up pressure from lawmakers' constituents.

For original article, click here.

Senate Committee Passes Health-Care Bill with Charity Provisions
By Suzanne Perry and Grant Williams
Chronicles of Philanthropy
Tuesday, October 13, 2009

The Senate Finance Committee Tuesday passed health-care legislation that would allow small charities to receive a tax credit to help them provide health insurance to their employees.

The bill — approved by a 14-9 vote, with support from one Republican, Olympia Snowe of Maine — would also require nonprofit hospitals to conduct “a community health needs assessment” at least once every three years and take other steps.

For original article, click here.

IRS Clarifies Grant Restrictions
Philanthropy Journal
Friday, October 9, 2009

Some public charities, including community foundations and women's funds, can make general support grants to nonprofits that lobby without running afoul of federal restrictions, as long as the grants are not earmarked for lobbying.

While the Private Letter Ruling from the IRS applies only to the Alliance for Justice, which requested the ruling, the letter indicates how the IRS likely would respond to other public foundations and grantmaking nonprofits, the Alliance for Justice says.

The letter also is relevant only for charities that have elected to follow the 501(h) expenditure test, a method of measuring a charity's lobbying expenditures that is approved by the IRS.

For original article, click here.

Lobbyists Removed from Industry Trade Advisory Committees
By Amanda Adams
OMB Watch
Wednesday, October 7, 2009

Last week we noted the paradoxical new policy limiting the role of lobbyists on federal advisory committees. Reportedly, the Commerce Department and Office of the U.S. Trade Representative took this request very seriously and contacted companies and organizations with representatives serving on Industry Trade Advisory Committees (ITAC). With an Oct. 30 deadline, participants must certify they are not lobbyists, or a replacement must be found before their term is complete. About 132 people on ITACs are registered lobbyists. If current panel members want to be reappointed, they have to submit a statement affirming that they are not federally registered lobbyists. Other federal agencies may be also considering how to implement this new policy.

According to a National Journal blog Under the Influence, ($$) the Commerce department has received requests to appeal the exclusion of registered lobbyists from the ITACs and are working with companies to find alternatives to serve on the boards.

For original article, click here.

On Patrick Covington’s Appointment
By the Editors
The Nonprofit Quarterly
Sunday, October 4, 2009

The fact that it took almost nine months for the Obama Administration to find someone to run the Corporation for National and Community Service (after Nike's Maria Eitel withdrew due to undisclosed medical reasons) speaks volumes about the challenge for its new leader, Patrick Corvington.

The White House announced Corvington as its choice for CNCS CEO October 2nd after some previous candidates, we’re told, had been offered the position but ultimately declined.

For original article, click here.

Who’s Watching the Lobbyists?
By Bara Vaida
The National Journal Magazine
Saturday, October 3, 2009

Ask any ethics lawyer in Washington what he or she thinks about the enforcement of Congress's lobbying rules and the answer is unanimous.

Chuckling, they say: "What enforcement?"

The numbers tell the story. In the 12 years between passage of the 1995 Lobbying Disclosure Act and 2007, when Congress amended the law, the Senate Office of Public Records and the House Office of the Clerk sent 3,883 potential violations to the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, who is charged with enforcing the law. Only three enforcement actions resulted.

In the two years since enactment of the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act, which expanded disclosure of lobbying activities and banned most gifts by lobbyists to lawmakers and staffers, 1,713 potential violations were referred to the U.S. attorney. Zero enforcement actions have been publicly reported. The House and Senate Ethics committees oversee the gift ban portion of the lobbying rules. No citations involving lobbyists have been publicly reported by either panel this year.

For original article, click here.

Annie E. Casey Foundation Official Tapped to Head National Service Agency
By Suzanne Perry
Chronicle of Philanthropy
Friday, October 2, 2009

President Obama announced today he plans to nominate Patrick Corvington, a senior associate at the Annie E. Casey Foundation and an expert on nonprofit leadership, as chief executive of the Corporation for National and Community Service.

Mr. Corvington succeeds David Eisner, who stepped down from the post last November and handed the reins to Nicola Goren, now acting chief executive. Mr. Obama’s previous pick to head the federal agency — Maria Eitel, president of the Nike Foundation — withdrew in May, citing unnamed health problems.

The nomination comes at a critical time for the corporation, which manages AmeriCorps and other national-service and volunteer programs. The Edward M. Kennedy Serve America Act that became law last spring calls for a big expansion of AmeriCorps, while the agency is also operating new volunteer efforts started by President Obama and the first lady, like the United We Serve campaign this summer.

For original article, click here.

Lobbyists Serving on Advisory Committees – Where’s the Problem?
By Matthew Madia
OMB Watch
Wednesday, September 30, 2009

The new White House policy aimed at ridding federal advisory committees of lobbyists raises more questions than answers, as OMB Watch discusses in an article released yesterday.

The White House says, “It is our aspiration that federally-registered lobbyists not be appointed to agency advisory boards and commissions,” but it’s not totally clear what problem the administration is trying to solve.

The policy, set forth in a blog post by White House special counsel Norm Eisen, is a continuation of the White House’s fetish for keeping lobbyists out of the Obama administration. White House officials have consistently failed to come to grips with two key truths: 1) some lobbyists serve the public interest, and their experience and expertise may make them ideal candidates for government service; and 2) Special interests employ non-lobbyists who could also be considered inappropriate for some government positions, making policies that only target lobbyists too easy to evade.

For original article, click here.

Study of 15 MN Nonprofits Shows Value of Advocacy and Community Planning
By Joe Kimball
MinnPost.com
Wednesday, September 30, 2009

Fifteen Minnesota nonprofit organizations were the focus of a comprehensive study released today, and the results detail the many great benefits they provide state residents.

But the current tough economy provides new challenges, with so many home foreclosures, job losses and racial disparities, concludes the report "Strengthening Democracy, Increasing Opportunities; Impacts of Advocacy, Organizing, and Civic Engagement in Minnesota."

For original article, click here.

Grantmaker Policies Threaten Nonprofits
Philanthropy Journal
Tuesday, September 29, 2009

At a time when U.S. nonprofits are being stretched by dwindling resources and rising demand, the policies of institutional funders may be making the sector's precarious financial position even worse, a new study says.

By placing restrictions on funding, foundations are hampering nonprofits' overall effectiveness, says the report from Grantmakers for Effective Organizations.

For original article, click here.

White House Moves to Limit Lobbyists on Federal Advisory Committees
OMB Watch
Tuesday, September 29, 2009

The White House announced Sept. 23 that it informed executive branch agencies and departments that federally registered lobbyists are not to be appointed to federal agency advisory boards and commissions. This is the latest attempt at removing the influence of federally registered lobbyists within the executive branch.

The blog post announcing the policy was written by Norm Eisen, Special Counsel to the President for Ethics and Government Reform, and did not clearly ban federally registered lobbyists from advisory committees. Instead, Eisen used rather ambiguous language, saying it is "our aspiration that federally-registered lobbyists not be appointed to agency advisory boards and commissions." Many nonprofit advocates say this narrow focus on federally registered lobbyists remains misguided, and some are concerned that qualified experts will be excluded from participating in advisory panels.

For original article, click here.

New administration rules could trigger lobbying deregistration rush
By Dave Wenhold
The Hill
Tuesday, September 29, 2009

And here we go again.

In the latest head-scratching, ill-advised policy coming from the White House, the administration has decided to ban lobbyists from serving on public agency advisory boards and committees.

With hundreds of advisory boards and committees, the loss of registered, law-abiding, compliant, subject-matter experts — who just happen to call themselves lobbyists — will have many unintended consequences that could threaten the efficacy of these boards to make solid recommendations to the government.

For original article, click here.

IRS Releases Tips for Attachments to the Form 990 Tax Return
By Grant Williams
Philanthropy Today
Monday, September 28, 2009

The Internal Revenue Service has released the sixth in a series of filing tips to help nonprofit organizations prepare their Form 990 federal informational tax return, the primary document that groups file each year.

The latest batch of advice explains why only certain types of attachments to the Form 990 are permitted.

For original article, click here.

Lobbyists on Agency Boards and Commissions
Posted by Norm Eisen
The White House blog
Wednesday, September 23, 2009

We wanted to take this opportunity to announce the next step in the President’s efforts to reduce the influence of special interests in Washington. The White House has informed executive agencies and departments that it is our aspiration that federally-registered lobbyists not be appointed to agency advisory boards and commissions. These appointees to boards and commissions, which are made by agencies and not the President, advise the federal government on a variety of policy areas. Keeping these advisory boards free of individuals who currently are registered federal lobbyists represents a dramatic change in the way business is done in Washington.

For original post, click here.

From the White House, a Fresh Push on Lobbyists
By Dan Eggen
The Washington Post
Wednesday, September 23, 2009

The White House announced Wednesday that it will push to keep registered lobbyists from sitting on federal advisory boards and commissions, although it stopped short of proclaiming an all-out ban.
Norm Eisen, President Obama's ethics advisor, said the White House has informed executive branch agencies that "it is our aspiration that federally-registered lobbyists not be appointed to agency advisory boards and commissions." Eisen billed the directive as "the next step in the President's efforts to reduce the influence of special interests in Washington."

The new policy is aimed at an apparent loophole in Obama's anti-lobbying efforts. An executive order banning many lobbyists from presidentially-appointed jobs does not apply to advisory boards and other agency panels, where members are often chosen by department heads or other means.

For original article, click here.

White House “Hopes” Agencies Do Not Appoint Lobbyists to Advisory Committees
By Amanda Adams
OMB Watch
Wednesday, September 23, 2009

The White House has announced that federally registered lobbyists can not be appointed to agency advisory boards and commissions. These boards and commissions advise the federal government on policy. The White House blog post states; "Keeping these advisory boards free of individuals who currently are registered federal lobbyists represents a dramatic change in the way business is done in Washington. [. . .] While the letter of the President's Executive Order on Ethics does not apply to federally-registered lobbyists appointed by agency or department heads, the spirit does and we have conveyed that to the agencies who are responsible for these appointments." Will it really change the way business is done in Washington?

For original article, click here.

Federal Lobbyists Barred from DGA Event
By Bara Veida
The National Journal
Wednesday, September 23, 2009

The Democratic Governors Association is spurning federal lobbyists and their campaign donations at its $5,000-a-plate October 1 fundraiser in Washington, the latest Democratic political group to do so in exchange for getting President Obama to speak at their event.

In keeping with his 2008 campaign rule, when Obama refused to take donations from federal lobbyists and political action committees, the president has continued to tell groups that he won't speak at their fund raising events unless lobbyist and PAC money is banned. The restriction, however, doesn't cover state lobbyists.

For original article, click here.

Appeals Court Overturns Campaign Finance Rules
By Nedra Pickler
The Associated Press
Friday, September 18, 2009

WASHINGTON -- Independent advocacy groups will be able to spend more money to try to influence federal elections under a decision Friday from a federal appeals court that overturned rules limiting nonprofits' campaign spending.

Three judges of the U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington agreed with Emily's List, a nonprofit that backs women Democratic candidates who support abortion rights, that the regulations limited free speech rights.

For original article, click here.

Is Obama Forgetting the Lessons He Learned on Chicago’s Streets?
By Pablo Eisenberg
The Chronicle of Philanthropy
Thursday, September 17, 2009

During the presidential campaign, Barack Obama, as well as his advisers and followers, often touted the candidate's experience as a community organizer in Chicago. Now that he is in office, his administration seems to have left community organizing behind.

At a time when legislation on health insurance, climate change, and financial regulation is facing brutal challenges from conservatives — both Republicans and Democrats — grass-roots organizing in Congressional districts is more needed than ever.

For original article, click here.

Promises, Promises: Much Lobbyist Help Undisclosed
By Sharon Theimer
The Associated Press
Thursday, September 17, 2009

WASHINGTON -- Few members of Congress are disclosing that lobbyists are helping them raise campaign cash despite a new law that was supposed to shed light on the ties between lawmakers and the capital's influence brokers, an Associated Press review found.

Though lobbyist-hosted fundraisers are workaday events in Washington - typically advertised to political insiders by fax and word of mouth - only about two dozen lawmakers have reported lobbyists raising money for them.

For original article, click here.

Free Speech, Now That Speech is Free:
Political campaign regulations are silly in the age of YouTube
By L. Gordon Crovitz - Opinion
The Wall Street Journal
Sunday, September 13, 2009

The equivalent of the health-care debate a few years ago was the battle over the McCain-Feingold law, which was supposed to be the most important political reform in a generation. Instead, technology has already made this law outdated.

McCain-Feingold, passed in 2002, limited spending on political advocacy by corporations and unions. In the era of YouTube and Facebook, the notion that anyone or any institution can dominate political debate is quaint at best.

After last week's Supreme Court argument, key parts of McCain-Feingold seem likely to be overturned. The justices are legal experts, not technologists, but in protecting constitutional rights, they know they are operating in a very different information environment than existed earlier in the decade.

For original article, click here.

Obama Lobbying Rules Having Unintended Effects
By Andrea Shalal-Esa
Reuters
Sunday, September 13, 2009

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Barack Obama's new special interest rules are having unexpected consequences with some lobbyists giving up their formal registrations and finding other ways to influence policy as they try to maintain access to key agencies or hope for future government jobs.

Congressional aides, industry executives and watchdog groups say the rules have also slowed Obama's ability to fill key government jobs, eliminated some highly qualified candidates and kept away some others who worry tougher "revolving door" rules could tie their hands in the future.

For original article, click here.

Administration Discloses Ethics Waivers Granted by Federal Agencies
By Amanda Adams
OMB Watch
Wednesday, September 9, 2009

In a blog post, the White House announced the administration has now consolidated and released ten ethics waivers granted by federal agencies. The waivers made the appointees exempt from conflict of interest and revolving door restrictions set forth in the President's Executive Order. You can click on the names and the waiver texts are available in pdf format. Three of the waivers were granted to individuals in the Justice Department regarding the government's case against former Senator Ted Stevens (R-AK). It is good to see the waivers available all in one place. However, this does not include White House issued waivers and for those, click here.

All of the waivers listed involve paragraph 2 of the ethics pledge, not the lobbying provision. "That is, they permit certain Executive Branch appointees to work on particular matters that may involve persons with which the appointees formerly had a professional relationship because there was a compelling public interest in allowing it." The administration has been cautious in granting lobbying waivers, especially after granting a waiver to William Lynn who is now at the Pentagon.

For original article, click here.

A Threat to Fair Elections
Editorial
The New York Times
Tuesday, September 8, 2009

The Supreme Court may be about to radically change politics by striking down the longstanding rule that says corporations cannot spend directly on federal elections. If the floodgates open, money from big business could overwhelm the electoral process, as well as the making of laws on issues like tax policy and bank regulation.

The court, which is scheduled to hear arguments on this issue on Wednesday, is rushing to decide a monumental question at breakneck speed and seems willing to throw established precedents and judicial modesty out the window.

For original article, click here.

Appeals Court Upholds Lobbying Disclosure Law
By Nedra Pickler
The Associated Press
Tuesday, September 8, 2009

WASHINGTON -- A federal appeals court on Tuesday upheld a 2007 law that requires trade associations to disclose their members who contribute to lobbying activities.

The National Association of Manufacturers said the law, which requires that the organization release the names of members that contribute more than $5,000 in a quarterly period for lobbying activities, violates their members' rights to privacy and freedom of association.

The Court of Appeals in Washington disagreed, saying there is nothing unconstitutional about the congressional effort "to shine increasing light on the efforts of paid lobbyists to influence the public decision making process."

For original article, click here.

The Chance for a Free Speech Do-Over
By Theodore B. Olson, Opinion
The Wall Street Journal
Monday, September 7, 2009

Public discussion about the character and fitness for office of presidential candidates is at the core of the First Amendment's command that "Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the Freedom of Speech." Yet Congress, in its zeal to impose onerous campaign-finance restrictions, has made political speech a felony for one class of speakers. Corporations and unions can face up to five years in prison for broadcasting candidate-related advocacy during federal elections.

Is outlawing political speech based on the identity of the speaker compatible with the First Amendment? Tomorrow, the Supreme Court will hear arguments to determine the answer to this question.

For original article, click here.

Case of Abramoff Protégé Puts Lobbying on Trial
By Nedra Pickler
The Associated Press
Monday, September 7, 2009

WASHINGTON -- Years into the scandal, a protege of Jack Abramoff is the first member of the imprisoned lobbyist's team going before a jury to fight federal corruption charges that will put their very profession on trial.

Prosecutors argue the lavish meals and box seats that Kevin Ring provided government officials were an illegal pay-to-play scheme. Ring says he merely used traditional tools of his trade to build influence.

Ring is making a rare and bold move in putting his case before a jury, considering the public's distaste for the influence of lobbyists and the cache of Ring's often sarcastic and chummy e-mails that prosecutors plan to use against him.

For original article, click here.

Will Deep Pockets Always Win? It’s in Robert’s Court.
By Robert G. Kaiser, Associate Editor
The Washington Times
Sunday, September 6, 2009

Occasionally, the Supreme Court reaches a decision that transforms American life. Fifty-five years ago Brown v. Board of Education announced the impending demise of racial segregation, and today we have a black president. In 1962, Baker v. Carr initiated a series of decisions that established the principle of "one man, one vote," eventually ending rural domination of Congress and state legislatures, a revolution in American governance.

This year or next the court could again remake the American system by permitting a flood of corporate money into our electoral campaigns, which are already drenched in dollars. Like Brown, such a decision would create vast new opportunities for a particular class of Americans -- this time, corporate elites.

For original article, click here.

Holder, Others Granted Ethics Waivers
By Kevin Bogardus
The Hill
Friday, September 4, 2009

The White House late on Friday published ethics waivers for several political appointees in the administration, setting aside the executive order President Barack Obama signed on his first full day in office.

The move to disclose the waivers came after public interest groups pushed the administration to consolidate waivers granted by other federal agencies besides the White House into one location, which has turned out to be the Office of Government Ethics website. Six waivers have now been granted to staff at the White House and ten to employees at other agencies.

“We note that decisions to grant the limited waivers have been exceedingly rare. The six White House and ten agency waivers together apply to 16 out of approximately 1890 appointments that have been made: that is less than one percent,” said Norm Eisen, special counsel to the president for ethics and government reform, in a blog post on the White House website. “And out of the 1890 appointments, only 3 times has the Administration waived the ethics pledge lobbying provision — that is less than one tenth of one percent.”

For original article, click here.

In Wake of Fake Letters to Congress, Groups Call for Bans on Such Tactics
By Brian McNeil, Staff Writer
Charlottesville Daily Progress
Friday, September 4, 2009

A scandal involving phony letters sent by a Washington “grassroots” lobbying firm to three members of Congress is prompting calls for new laws to outlaw such deceptive tactics.

The fake letters urged U.S. Rep. Tom Perriello, D-Ivy, and two other congressmen to oppose the American Clean Energy and Security Act. An employee of lobbying firm Bonner & Associates sent the letters on behalf of a pro-coal advocacy group, the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity.

The 13 letters were forged to look as if they came from nine community groups, including the Albemarle-Charlottesville chapter of the NAACP, the American Association of University Women, the Jefferson Area Board for Aging, the Senior Center in Albemarle County and others.

For original article, click here.

In Defense of Lobbying: The Constitution Protects the Right to Petition
By Joel Jankowsky and Thomas Goldstein, Opinion
The Wall Street Journal
Thursday, September 3, 2009

In the first six months of his presidency, Barack Obama has publicly attacked and caricatured a group we know well. According to the president, this group is actively working to defeat his initiatives. That group is not the GOP leadership, the Republican minority in Congress, or the conservative media. Rather it is lobbyists, or, in his words, "well-connected lobbyists," "entrenched lobbyists," and "an army of lobbyists."

His is not only a war of words. Through a series of executive orders, presidential directives and other actions, Mr. Obama has embarked on a program to systematically disadvantage individuals who properly register as lobbyists and the so-called special interests they represent. In regulations governing employment in the administration, stimulus package projects, and campaign contributions, this administration has discouraged communication between government officials and registered lobbyists. The president has praised all of this as "a clean break from business as usual."

But what this break has principally done is restrict experts in governmental policy from access to policy makers. This is despite the fact that advocacy on behalf of varied interests is not only beneficial to the policy-making process, but is explicitly protected by the Constitution.

For original article, click here.

Is LDA Deregistration a Real Factor? It’s Hard to Say
By Lee Mason
OMB Watch
Wednesday, September 2, 2009

To try to measure if President Barack Obama's order to restrict federally registered lobbyists from working in his administration was having the unintended consequence of lobbyists deciding to deregister under the Lobbying Disclosure Act (LDA), OMB Watch looked to the Office of the Clerk of the House. It appears that gathering such information is more difficult than it should be.

For original article, click here.

As Predicted, Agencies Reporting Relatively Few Meetings with Lobbyists
By Amanda Adams
OMB Watch
Monday, August 31, 2009

Despite President Obama's order that officials have to disclose their contacts with registered lobbyists that try to influence Recovery Act funding, the government continues to capture very little information. The Associate Press reports that "few such communications have been reported even though lobbyists say they are busier than ever with the multibillion-dollar stimulus. Since the $787 billion American Recovery and Reinvestment Act passed in February, federal agencies have reported 197 contacts with lobbyists about stimulus grants."

This may be partly due to the changes made in July, modifying the restrictions placed on lobbyists' communications. Federal officials are prohibited from orally communicating with anyone about Recovery funds, but only after competitive grant applications have been submitted for review.

Therefore, someone who is not a federally registered lobbyist can make undisclosed contacts about Recovery projects before an application is submitted. Lobbyists can simply send their clients without any public disclosure. "Lobbyists have separately reported work related to stimulus projects, and in many cases have operated in new ways to skirt restrictions on their efforts to influence stimulus spending."

Unfortunately the transparency is incomplete as long as registered lobbyists are the only ones whose contacts have to be disclosed. OMB Watch has a chart listing the agencies reporting communications with lobbyists.

For original article, click here.

Forged Letter Scandal Highlights Need for Greater Disclosure
OMB Watch
Tuesday, August 18, 2009

In June, Rep. Tom Perriello (D-VA) received a letter that was supposedly authored by Creciendo Juntos, a nonprofit group in his district. The letter urged him to oppose the American Clean Energy and Security Act, a bill designed to combat climate change. Perriello's office also received similar letters on letterhead from the local NAACP chapter. These letters turned out to be fake; they were sent by a lobbying firm hired by a trade group representing coal producers and power companies. Government ethics and transparency watchdog organizations responded, saying that using forged letters as part of a lobbying campaign is outrageous misconduct that harms the legislative process and highlights the need for increased disclosure.

For original article, click here.

Revisiting Grassroots Lobbying Disclosure
By Amanda Adams
OMB Watch
Wednesday, August 12, 2009

The American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity, who opposed the House passed climate change bill remains under attack for sending fake letters to House lawmakers. The firm sent out letters using the names of an N.A.A.C.P. chapter and a network of nonprofit organizations serving Latinos. Reportedly, more nonprofits' names were used including the American Association of University Women and the Jefferson Area Board for the Aging.

In addition, questions surround the outrage Members are facing from angry constituents at town hall meetings across the country. These recent events, which may or may not cause the image of lobbyists to further plummet, brings to light the lack of transparency in grassroots advocacy. The Hill recalls the efforts groups made, including OMB Watch, to get grassroots lobbying disclosure included in the 2007 Honest Leadership and Open Government Act (HLOGA.) Current events are now highlighting the very reason we advocated for such disclosure.

For original article, click here.

Former Lobbyist Missed the Cutoff to need an Ethics Waiver
By Amanda Adams
OMB Watch
Monday, August 10, 2009

Controversy still surrounds the rules covering executive branch hiring and former lobbyists who now work in the Obama administration. Three new U.S. Attorney nominations have been made including former Business Software Alliance lobbyist and aide to Vice President Joe Biden, Neil MacBride, for the Eastern District of Virignia. Reportedly, a waiver is not needed in this case. "According to a White House spokesman, MacBride will not need a waiver to be appointed because his lobbying work ended in 2007, outside the two year window created by Obama’s executive order barring lobbyists from administration jobs."

The executive order included a waiver process, allowing exemptions if the "application of the restriction is inconsistent with the purposes of the restriction" or if it is in the "public interest." Even if MacBride required a waiver, only the most well attentive citizen might know about it. The government should disclose all granted waivers, along with information about the individuals receiving the waivers. Unfortunately, the public remains largely in the dark about the administration's intermittent use of waivers.

For original article, click here.

Lobby Firm Sends Phony Charity Letters Opposing Climate Bill
The Chronicle of Philanthropy
Thursday, August 6, 2009

A Washington lobbying firm representing the coal industry has acknowledged sending members of Congress phony letters from nonprofit groups opposing climate-change legislation, reports The New York Times.

At least three Democratic lawmakers received letters purportedly from chapters of the NAACP and Creciendo Juntos, a network of Latino nonprofit groups, urging them to vote against the climate bill. The missives came from Bonner & Associates, a lobbying agency hired by the Hawthorn Group public-affairs consultants, which had been retained by the American Coalition for Clean Coal
Electricity to fight the bill.

Bonner officials said the employee responsible for the fake letters has been fired. The coal-industry group said it is considering legal action against the firm.

For original article, click here.

Committee Okays Expanded Whistleblower Protections
By Richard Lardner
The Associated Press
Wednesday, July 29, 2009

WASHINGTON -- A Senate committee on Wednesday unanimously approved legislation to protect federal employees from being punished for blowing the whistle on waste and corruption.

The bill allows many government workers to take reprisal complaints to a federal court where a jury can hear the case. For employees at U.S. intelligence agencies who have access to the nation's deepest secrets, it creates a special board with members appointed by the president to examine retaliation claims.

For original article, click here.

Federal Lobbying Reporting Thresholds
New York Nonprofits
July 2006, Volume 26, No. 7

Earlier this year, the Secretary of the Senate and the Clerk of the House of Representatives issued revised guidance regarding the Federal Lobbying Disclosure Act (LDA), which included increased dollar amounts for registration and reporting purposes.  The financial threshold for registration for the new quarterly reporting periods is $3,000 in lobbying income for a lobbying firm and $11,500 in lobbying expenses for organizations that employ in-house lobbyists.  The previous amounts were $2,500 in lobbying income for a lobbying firm and $10,000 in lobbying expenses for those employing in-house lobbyists.

In early June, the Secretary of the U.S. Senate and Clerk of the U.S. House of Representatives issued updated guidance on how to interpret the LDA as updated by the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007.

For Lobbying Disclosure Act Guidance, click here.

New ethics bill sparks concerns
The Republican
By Dan Ring
June 28, 2009

BOSTON - Leaders of private human service agencies are alarmed about a tough new ethics bill, saying it could force them to register as lobbyists if they make phone calls, write letters or do any other kind of advocacy work involving legislators.

The bill could potentially require hundreds of additional executive directors, presidents and other salaried employees of nonprofit groups to register as lobbyists and pay $1,000 annual fee to the state, or limit their political activism.

For original article, click here.

The Real Issue: A Rigid Executive Order
Salon.com LTE
By David Cohen
June 19, 2009

The real issue isn't whether registered lobbyists show up for events with the President. It's the Executive Order (EO) that is so rigidly applied by the White House. People who went beyond the law and registered as lobbyists(public interest people) are kept out of government and people who don't register, and are well heeled, get in.

Obama's effort to deal with the harmful revolving door is commendable and overdue. However, it's been rigidly and mindlessly applied to keep public interest people from serving in government.

The EO needs modification. It can be, without being wrecked, and still be effective on revolving door abuses. If modified it would allow diverse communities to serve in government. So far the Obama Administration is not bending though senior officials have been apprised of the problem and have verbally recognized it.

For original article, click here.

Obama Criticized for Withholding Visitor Logs: White House Says It Is Reviewing Policy
Washington Post
By Michael D. Shear
Wednesday, June 17, 2009

President Obama has embraced Bush administration justifications for denying public access to White House visitor logs even as advisers say they are reviewing the policy of keeping secret the official record of comings and goings.

In recent days, the Secret Service has rejected requests from two organizations for the logs, which document the West Wing meetings that have helped shape Obama's policies on banking regulation, economic recovery, foreign policy and the auto industry.

Yesterday, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) filed a lawsuit against the Obama administration seeking the release of information about the visits of coal company executives. Also yesterday, MSNBC.com reported that its broader request for logs since Jan. 20 had been denied.

For original article, click here.

PACE Releases Report Detailing Local Government Innovations in Civic Engagement
Deliberative Democracy Consortium
By Matt Leighninger
June 3, 2009

As the philanthropic community grapples with the question of how to support innovative and effective forms of democratic governance, PACE (Philanthropy for Active Civic Engagement) has released a guide that provides a detailed description of how local civic engagement has grown and developed over the past decade.
 
Written by Matt Leighninger of the DDC, “Funding and Fostering Local Democracy: What Philanthropy Should Know about the Emerging Field of Deliberation and Democratic Governance” is a free, downloadable publication designed to inform the field of philanthropy. The strategies described in the guide—and the stories of how communities have used them to break policy deadlock, reduce tension and galvanize volunteerism—can help funders, public officials and community activists better understand the possibilities, and limitations, of various approaches to working with the public.
 
For a copy of the PDF, click here.

White House Modifies Stimulus Lobbying Restrictions
Government and Politics Watch—The Chronicle of Philanthropy
By Suzanne Perry
June 2, 2009

The White House has made several changes to its rules governing contacts between registered lobbyists and federal officials about economic-stimulus projects, which had been protested by some nonprofit groups.

The rules, designed to curtail the influence of special interests on spending decisions, barred registered lobbyists from having any oral communications with government officials about specific stimulus projects.

For original article, click here.

K Street, Watchdogs Praise New Lobbying Rules
The Hill
By Kevin Bogardus
May 30, 2009

Lobbyists and government watchdogs are applauding revisions made by the White House on Friday to lobbying restrictions on stimulus funds.

After completing a 60-day review last week, the administration modified the rules to extend a speaking ban not just to lobbyists but to others who contact government officials about specific stimulus projects. But that ban only occurs now after a grant application has been filed for the project. Those interested in the project have to file their views in writing with administration officials, which will then be disclosed on the Internet. All contacts with lobbyists will still have to be disclosed, though.

For original article, click here.

White House rewrites curbs on lobbying stimulus
The Associated Press
By Alan Fram
May 29, 2009

WASHINGTON -- The White House issued new rules Friday broadening some of its restrictions on lobbying for projects in the economic stimulus package, but retreating on others.

All people will now be forbidden to have oral conversations with administration officials about some of the projects they are seeking from the $787 billion package. Under rules that President Barack Obama imposed in March in an effort to curtail lobbyists' influence, the prohibition on such conversations only applied to registered federal lobbyists.

But while the old ban against oral communications by lobbyists applied to much of the stimulus program, the new curbs only cover grants that are awarded competitively. There will be no restrictions on their conversations about the rest of the bill.

For original article, click here.

Independent Sector Seeks Changes in White House Lobbying Restrictions
The Chronicle of Philanthropy
By Grant Williams
Published: May 21, 2009

Independent Sector, a national coalition of charities and foundations, has asked the Obama administration to rescind or modify rules that restrict contacts between lobbyists and federal officials regarding the $787-billion economic-stimulus law enacted in February.

The rules, which the White House said it designed to ensure that spending decisions are not made “in response to improper influence or pressure,” say that registered lobbyists may communicate with administration officials about specific stimulus projects only in writing — no phone calls or in-person contacts.

For original article, click here.

Nonprofit Advocacy and Civic Engagement on the Internet
University of Southern California
By David F. Suárez
May 1, 2009

This study extends prior work on the social role of nonprofits by investigating Web site use for e-advocacy and e-democracy (civic engagement). Building from interviews with 200 nonprofit executive directors, results reveal that rights groups, environmental organizations, and policy entrepreneurs are consistently likely to mention advocacy and promote civic engagement on their Web sites. By contrast, funding structure and resource dependence generally fail to explain nonprofit use of Web sites for social purposes, suggesting that external controls may not constrain nonprofits. In light of these results, the study concludes with an agenda for future research on the relationship between civic engagement and advocacy.

For full study, click here.

Nonprofit Lobbyists Protest Restrictions Imposed by Obama Administration
The Chronicle of Philanthropy
By Suzanne Perry
Published: April 23, 2009

People who hear about President Obama's efforts to curb the influence of lobbyists on government might conjure up the image of someone like Jack Abramoff, the high-profile lobbyist who was convicted of corruption in 2006.

But a "lobbyist" can also be someone fighting for human rights, the environment, or consumer safety — and some nonprofit leaders argue that the White House has gone too far in restricting how those lobbyists deal with the administration.

They are especially concerned about the impact of the president's executive order on ethics, issued his second day in office, which prohibits lobbyists' holding certain administration jobs. Those rules, they argue, deprive the government of expertise and give nonprofit advocacy a bad name.

For original article, click here.

Nonprofit Groups to Push for Exceptions to Lobby Rule
The New York Times
By Peter Baker
Published: April 21, 2009

When it came time for President Obama to pick a human rights chief, many around him thought Tom Malinowski was the obvious choice.

As the Washington advocacy director for Human Rights Watch, Mr. Malinowski has fought slaughter in Darfur, repression in Myanmar and torture in the United States. He served in the State Department and on the National Security Council under the last Democratic president. But he had one liability: he was a registered lobbyist.

The fact that Mr. Malinowski lobbied on behalf of genocide victims rather than military contractors, investment firms or pharmaceutical companies made no difference. Mr. Obama’s anti-lobbyist rules do not distinguish between those who advocate for moneyed interests and those who advocate for public interests, and so Mr. Malinowski was ruled out. But in the process, he has become the symbol of a deep discontent among many Democrats over Mr. Obama’s policy.

For original article, click here.

Obama to Sign Landmark National-Service Measure on Tuesday
The Chronicle of Philanthropy
Published: April 20, 2009

The nonprofit world will take a break from its economic woes and celebrate a big political victory on Tuesday when President Obama signs landmark legislation that boosts national service, volunteerism, and innovative social projects.

The president, fulfilling a campaign pledge to greatly expand government programs to get Americans to serve their country by doing good, is set to sign the Edward M. Kennedy Serve America Act during his first 100 days in office — a timeline that pleases national-service advocates for its symbolic significance.

For original article, click here.

Opinion: A tale of two lobbyists
Slate
By Jacob Weisberg
Published: April 18, 2009

On his first full day in office, Barack Obama issued an executive order designed to restrain lobbyists. The new rules say that if you were a registered lobbyist in the past two years, you can't work for the administration on any issue you touched or even for an agency that handles such an issue. After you leave government, you can't lobby the administration at all. The only way around this ban is with a waiver from the White House budget director that says you're essential to economic policy or national security.

The instinct behind this decree is a sound one. The mercenary culture of Washington flourished under Republican rule, with the Jack Abramoff scandal and Tom DeLay's K Street Project, which treated lobbying rents as spoils to be doled out by the party in power. Obama knows it's going to take some strong garlic to ward off the vampires on his side of the aisle and restore a sense of integrity in government. Unfortunately, his intended reform is driving stakes through the hearts of innocent bystanders only. The problem isn't that his rules are too strict. It's that they miss the crucial distinction between the kind of lobbying that's good for democracy and the kind that perverts it.

For original article, click here.

Non-Profit Lobbyists' Memo To Obama
National Journal Online
By Bara Vaida
Published: April 15, 2009

Last week, I wrote about a growing number of non-profit lobbyists who were frustrated that the Obama administration's broad ethics rules have excluded them from positions in the executive branch.

I noted that Larry Ottinger, president of the Center for Lobbying in the Public Interest and Stephen Rickard, Washington director of the Open Society Institute, have formed a loose coalition to push the White House to amend its ethics rules to delineate between lobbyists who are public interest advocates and those who pursue private monetary gain.

Here's the letter sent to the White House on April 9.
Non-profit lobbyists' memo to Eisen.pdf

A spokesman from the Center for Lobbying in the Public Interest says his group has yet to receive an answer from the administration. We'll update the story as we learn more. I'm sure this won't be the end of the debate about whether Obama's ethics rules are too broad.

For original article, click here.

Lobbying guidelines criticized
The Hill
By Kevin Bogardus
Published: April 14, 2009

A 14-page White House memo designed to clarify the conditions under which federal officials can meet with lobbyists to discuss the $787 billion economic stimulus package has failed to appease critics of the policy.

The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) guidance attempts to clarify a previous memo issued by the White House that prohibited federal officials from meeting face to face with lobbyists to discuss particular projects competing for economic recovery money.

For original article, click here.

Nonprofit Lobbyists Want Exemption From Some Ethics Rules
The Chronicle of Philanthropy
By Suzanne Perry
Published: April 10, 2009

A coalition of nonprofit groups is pressing the White House to relax rules that limit the ability of lobbyists to get appointed to jobs in the Obama administration, saying they should not apply to people who are working for the public welfare.

The rules, which also restrict appointees from working on certain issues if they are former lobbyists, are “causing serious, unintended harms to nonprofit organizations who want and need to participate in our democracy,” says a memorandum submitted on Thursday to White House lawyers.

The groups ask the White House to amend or clarify a January 21 executive order on ethics and make a public statement underlining the difference between “lobbying undertaken on broad public policy issues in the public interest and lobbying undertaken in order to pursue private pecuniary gain.”

The memorandum was written by Larry Ottinger, president of the Center for Lobbying in the Public Interest, and Stephen Rickard, executive director of the Open Society Policy Center, the advocacy arm of the Open Society Institute, the grant maker — as a followup to a March meeting with White House officials on the issue.

For original article, click here.

Nonprofit lobbyists want to work for Obama
National Journal
By Bara Vaida
Published: April 9, 2009

Lobbyists for public interest groups are feeling increasingly frustrated that President Obama's broad ethics rules are preventing them from getting jobs in his administration.

So they're fighting back. Larry Ottinger, president of the Center for Lobbying in the Public Interest and Stephen Rickard, Washington director of the Open Society Institute, have formed a loose coalition to push the White House to amend its ethics rules to delineate between lobbyists who are public interest advocates and lobbyists who pursue private monetary gain.

For original article, click here.

White House, Lobbyists to Meet on Restrictions
Roll Call
By Anna Palmer
Published: April 9, 2009

White House ethics adviser Norm Eisen is expected to meet with American League of Lobbyists representatives and others frustrated by the Obama administration’s recently minted lobbying restrictions on stimulus funds.

For original article, click here.

Big companies see great rewards in lobbying efforts
The Associated Press
By Julie Hirschfeld Davis
Published: April 9, 2009

Big companies that spent hundreds of millions of dollars lobbying successfully for a tax break enacted in 2004 got a 22,000-percent return on that investment - proof that for those who can afford it, hiring a lobbyist can pay handsome dividends.

The figures, compiled by professors at the University of Kansas for a study to be released today, offer a rarely seen glimpse at how the lobbying business works, and why - even as President Obama vows to curb lobbyists' influence - the industry is booming as never before.

For original article, click here.

Opinion: An Important Vote to Protect Charity Lobbying Rights
The Chronicle of Philanthropy
By Vince Stehle
Published: April 7, 2009

As the House and Senate last month approved the Serve America Act, a measure designed to greatly expand national-service opportunities and programs to recruit and manage volunteers, many people at nonprofit organizations were overjoyed by the new community-service programs that will soon be in operation.

But another important victory may have gotten lost in the excitement. During debates on the legislation, both houses of Congress deliberated over a highly contentious measure that would have curtailed the advocacy rights of nonprofit groups that accepted money provided by the new legislation. Fortunately, the Senate spit out the poison pill before it completed action on the bill, but it is important not to lose sight of the fact that lawmakers in the House got fairly far in their effort to thwart the advocacy efforts of charities.

For original article, click here.

Opinion: Foundation Support of Activism Is a Good Investment
The Chronicle of Philanthropy
By Pablo Eisenberg
Published: April 7, 2009

A new report that documents the dollar benefits that advocacy groups provide to society should put to rest much of the anxiety that foundations have had about supporting activist nonprofit activities.

At a time when the drop in endowment values has prodded foundations to look more carefully than ever at the way they spend money, the findings demonstrate that a greater investment in advocacy work will help foundations make every dollar go further. A tiny fraction of all foundation spending today goes to advocacy activities.

For original article, click here.

Opinion: Exiles on K Street
The Washington Post
By Daryl Owen
Published: April 3, 2009

Let me see if I have this straight: The Obama administration can talk to Iran and North Korea but not to lobbyists? It does not intend to review the interrogation practices of the previous administration but it will require all written communications from lobbyists to be posted on agency Web sites? It's dispensing with the term "enemy combatant" so as not to deprive individuals of access to the criminal justice system but those classified as "registered lobbyists" will be deprived of their right to petition their government?

Far from hyperbole, these conclusions are the clear message of a March 20 presidential directive specifying that lobbyists cannot be present at any meetings to discuss stimulus projects, that federal officials cannot consider the opinions of lobbyists unless those opinions are put in writing and that any such written opinions must be posted online.

For original article, click here.

Public Interest Groups Decry Obama's Strict Lobbying Rules
The Washington Post
By Dan Eggen
Published: April 1, 2009

President Obama's war with K Street is escalating, this time over stringent new rules on lobbyists attempting to land federal stimulus money for their clients.

An unlikely alliance of groups -- including one co-founded by Obama's chief ethics adviser -- argue that the restrictions will penalize those who play by the rules while doing nothing to curb the influence of large corporations and campaign donors.

Leaders of the groups, which include Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington and the American League of Lobbyists, also said yesterday that they are preparing to challenge the guidelines on First Amendment grounds if the administration does not agree to revise them.

For original article, click here.

Ethics watchdog on other side of hunt
Politico
By Kenneth Vogel
Published: March 31, 2009

The White House’s lead ethics watchdog, who has devoted much of his professional life to making government accountable, has suddenly found himself defending an administration policy against concerns raised by his former associates.

Among the groups leading the charge against the policy is a nonprofit watchdog group co-founded by Norman Eisen, the lawyer in charge of the nine-person ethics team in the White House Counsel’s Office.

As a lawyer in private practice, Eisen helped start Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington to crusade for ethics, accountability and transparency in government — and to target officials deemed to have fallen short of the group’s standards.

For original article, click here.

House Clears Measure Expanding National and Community Service
CQ.com
By Lydia Gensheimer
Published: March 31, 2009

The House cleared legislation Tuesday that would greatly expand national and community service programs, sending it to President Obama for his signature.

Final action on the measure (HR 1388), which the House cleared, 275-149, came little more than a month after Obama, a former community organizer, urged Congress to act.

The measure, which the Senate passed March 26 after substituting a modified version of its own (S 277), could more than triple the number of Americans in national service programs, at an estimated cost of $5.7 billion over five years. The pace of expansion will depend on how much funding is appropriated during that period.

For original article, click here.

Obama order worries speech groups
Politico
By Kenneth P. Vogel
Published: March 28, 2009

Free speech advocates from across the political spectrum are accusing President Barack Obama of impinging on First Amendment rights and are gearing up to take their case public.

At issue is an unprecedented directive that Obama — who has long railed against lobbyists as the personification of a corrupt Washington culture — issued last week barring officials charged with doling out stimulus funds from talking to registered lobbyists about specific projects or applicants for stimulus cash.

Under the directive, which began going into effect this week, agency officials are required to begin meetings about stimulus funding for projects by asking whether any party to the conversation is a lobbyist.

For original article, click here.

Senate Relaxes Lobbying Restrictions in National-Service Bill
The Chronicle of Philanthropy
By Suzanne Perry
Published: March 28, 2009

The national-service bill passed by the Senate yesterday relaxed restrictions on lobbying and other political activities that were adopted by the House of Representatives, easing the concerns of nonprofit advocacy groups.

The Senate removed language in the House version of the bill — the Generations Invigorating Volunteerism and Education (GIVE) Act, H.R. 1388 — that would have barred groups that conduct various activities, including political or legislative advocacy, from receiving national-service money.

For original article, click here.

Ex-Lobbyist in Running For U.S. Attorney's Job
The Washington Post
By Jerry Markon and Meg Smith
Published: March 27, 2009

A former corporate lobbyist has emerged as a top candidate for U.S. attorney in Alexandria, raising questions about how his appointment would square with the Obama administration's efforts to change the culture of Washington, according to legal and political sources.

Neil MacBride, 43, lobbied federal officials as recently as mid-2007 on behalf of the Business Software Alliance, which represents Microsoft, IBM and a host of other leading computer companies, U.S. Senate records show. MacBride, a former chief counsel to Vice President Biden, was appointed in January as an associate deputy attorney general.

For original article, click here.

Senate Moving Toward Passage of National Service Bill
Congressional Quarterly
By Lydia Gensheimer
Published: March 24, 2009

The Senate is expected to pass a bill Wednesday that would dramatically expand the nation’s volunteer service programs, a goal President Obama set in his address to Congress last month.

Sen. Barbara A. Mikulski, D-Md., had originally hoped to complete action on the bill Tuesday, but Sen. Michael B. Enzi of Wyoming, the Republican floor manager of the bill, was stuck in a snowstorm in Gillette, Wyo.. He was not expected to make it back to Washington until Wednesday afternoon.

The bill (HR 1388), which the House passed March 18 by 321-105, seeks to more than triple the number of Americans in national service programs at an estimated cost of $5.7 billion over five years. Before final passage, the Senate is expected to adopt a substitute amendment incorporating the text of its version (S 277), sponsored by Sens. Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass., and cosponsored by Orrin G. Hatch, R-Utah.

For original article, click here.

Obama Lobbying Ban Catches Good Guys, Drives Lobbyists Out of the Business
U.S. News and World Report
By Robert Schlesinger
Published: March 23, 2009

Barack Obama is reducing the number of lobbyists in Washington, though perhaps not in the way that he'd like. And maybe not even the ones he wants.

The Washington Post reported over the weekend that more than 700 lobbyists and lobbying groups have de-registered with the House and Senate since Obama took office. Why de-register? Because the Obama administration has famously banned lobbyists from its ranks and so while some lobbyists are trying to detox on the Hill, others are hoping to retroactively expunge their records.

And here's the catch: Some large number of people doing the de-registering are the good guys: the public interest types, good government activists, and people generally sympathetic to the Obama administration's goals. They're people like Tom Malinowski, who was an NSC speechwriter and then top national security official in the Clinton administration (and, ironically, contributed a key line to the Bush presidency). Malinowski is the advocacy director of Human Rights Watch—hardly the kind of corporate hack that the Obama lobbying ban is presumably meant to ensnare. But he can't crack the administration because he must wear the scarlet L. So now, according to the Post, Human Rights Watch is trying to retroactively remove its registration for the last two years on the grounds that the group just did not do enough lobbying to qualify.

For original article, click here.

Lobbying Ban in National-Service Bill Comes Under Fire
The Chronicle on Philanthropy
By Suzanne Perry
Published: March 23, 2009

In approving a bill last week to expand national-service programs, the House of
Representatives adopted a last-minute amendment that would bar participants in the programs from attempting to influence legislation or taking part in various other political activities, including protests or voter-registration drives.

Two nonprofit organizations are now sending e-mail messages urging supporters to fight to keep the language out of the Senate version of the bill.

“The First Amendment protects against speech restrictions such as those in [this] amendment,” says OMB Watch, a government-watchdog group.

The Center for Lobbying in the Public Interest, a group that promotes nonprofit advocacy, calls the language “anti-nonprofit” and “anti-democratic,” adding that “civic participation is the touchstone of American democracy.”

For original article, click here.

Republican Foxx tries to limit free speech of nonprofits
TheExaminer.com
By Martha Gore
Published: March 23, 2009

Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-NC) has included a "poison pill" in the Serve America Act (S. 277) which amends the National and Community Service Act of 1990 and will create two new service-learning programs.

The House-passed version of the bill, the GIVE Act (H.R. 1388), includes the amendment sponsored by Foxx (R-NC) would have far-reaching, negative consequences for nonprofit advocacy. The amendment contains language that restricts National Service fund recipients from using private funds for lobbying; endorsing or supporting events that endorse or oppose legislation; engaging in selected nonpartisan voter engagement activities; organizing or engaging in petitions, protests, boycotts, or strikes; providing or promoting abortions or referrals; or influencing union organizing.

For original article, click here.

Obama hires face 'vetting hell'
CNN
By Gloria Borger
Published: March 23, 2009

Tim Geithner may be the latest political piñata in Washington these days, but -- policy aside -- there may be another reason he is the one fellow everyone is picking on at Treasury: He's there alone.

Believe it or not, Geithner is the only confirmed official at his department. Some top nominees, even those who have served in government before, have decided to withdraw. Others are still pending as they go through arduous background checks that one pro-Obama Democrat calls "maddening vetting hell."

Sure, this is about extensive scrutiny to make sure no one has a tax problem after Geithner's own embarrassing unpaid tax bill. But the staffing problem is not just at Treasury, and it goes way beyond the time-consuming nature of extensive background checks.

It's also about overreaching anti-lobbyist rules.

For original article, click here.

Some Activists Barred From Government Work
The Washington Post
By Dan Eggen
Published: March 22, 2009

Nonprofit and public interest groups are scrambling to adapt to President Obama's stringent new ethics guidelines, which are so sweeping that they have blocked the ability of many sympathetic activists to get hired by the new administration.

Many of the groups are rushing to terminate or curtail their lobbying activities as a result of the rules, which bar new officials from making policy on any matter involving their former employer or clients for a period of two years or from working at an agency they lobbied within the past two years. Congressional records show that more than 700 lobbyists or lobbying groups have filed "de-registration" papers with the House and Senate since Obama took office, including scores of charities and other nonprofits.

For original article, click here.

Obama Aiming to Lock Turnstile For Lobbyists
National Journal
By Judy Kosterlitz
Published: March 21, 2009

Ever since Barack Obama began issuing his broadsides on the presidential campaign trail against lobbyists and the "culture of Washington," Washington has debated whether he was being cynical or merely naive.

Lobbyists "think they own this government, but we're here today to take it back," Obama announced at the outset of his campaign in 2007. He later boasted that he didn't "take a dime of [lobbyists'] money, and when I am president, they won't find a job in my White House."

For original article, click here.

Nonprofits and Lobbying: Yes, They Can!
Business Law Today
By Nayantara Mehta
Published: March/April 2009

When many people think about nonprofits and lobbying, they might think of a relationship like oil and water: they don't mix. There is a widespread perception that nonprofits cannot lobby, or if they do lobby, they are exploiting some kind of legal loophole. The fact is that nonprofits, even 501(c)(3) organizations, which are the most restricted type of nonprofits, may legally lobby. Getting involved in the legislative process and having a say in policy discussions is not just an appropriate role for nonprofits; it is vital. If nonprofits are not speaking on behalf of their often-vulnerable communities, chances are nobody else is either.

Organizations with a focus on the environment may be the most visible nonprofits engaging in the policy process, but lobbying is no less important for nonprofits working on every issue area, from the arts to wildlife preservation. In a 2007 Stanford Social Innovation Review article, "Creating High-Impact Nonprofits," the authors identified a best practice that all successful high-impact nonprofits share: the combination of providing services in their communities and engaging in policy advocacy, including lobbying, at the local, state, or federal level. Who, after all, knows the problems of their communities more intimately and is in the best position to suggest practical solutions than the nonprofit organizations that work in those communities every day? Nonprofits that do not take advantage of their ability to lobby miss an opportunity to advance policies that will improve the lives of their constituents.

For original article, click here.

House Passes Expansion of Programs for Service
The New York Times
David M. Herszenhorn
Published: March 19, 2009

The House voted Wednesday to approve the largest expansion of government-sponsored service programs since President John F. Kennedy first called for the creation of a national community service corps in 1963.

The legislation, which passed by an overwhelming bipartisan vote of 321 to 105, would more than triple the number of service positions by expanding AmeriCorps and creating volunteer programs focused on education, health care, clean energy and veterans. The total number of positions would grow to 250,000 from 75,000 now in AmeriCorps.

For original article, click here.

Obama Undercuts Whistle-Blowers, Senator Says
The New York Times
By Charlie Savage
Published: March 17, 2009

A leading Republican senator maintains that President Obama is violating a campaign promise with his claim that he can bypass whistle-blower protections for executive branch officials who give certain information to Congress.

The lawmaker, Senator Charles E. Grassley, Republican of Iowa, sent a letter to Mr. Obama on Friday that condemned a signing statement the president attached to the $410 billion catchall spending bill he signed into law last week.

A signing statement, occasionally issued by presidents upon their signing a bill, is a document that instructs executive branch officials on how to carry out the new law. In this statement, Mr. Obama flagged a provision that protects officials who give information to Congress about their jobs or agencies. He said the statute could not limit his power to control the flow of certain information to lawmakers.

For original article, click here.

Lobbyist ban limits Obama's options
Politico
By Jonathan Martin
Published: March 14, 2009

In most Democratic administrations, it would be a no-brainer to hire an environmental specialist to work for the Environmental Protection Agency.

But at least one green advocate in Washington has been shut out.

This person’s problem, as well as those of many other Democrats in the capital: They sport the Scarlet L, “Lobbyist.”

Having campaigned on a promise that lobbyists won’t run his White House, President Barack Obama is discovering that what may make for a good sound bite on the campaign trail can complicate governing.

For original article, click here.

White House Ethics? 'Mr. No' Knows
The Washington Post
By Eli Saslow
Published: March 13, 2009

Norm Eisen had just returned from his fourth urgent trip to the White House in the past three hours when his BlackBerry beckoned again. He groaned and opened his e-mail inbox. There, flashing at the top of the list, he found exactly what he had expected: another note from one of President Obama's senior advisers, typed in red font and littered with exclamation marks. "Need your help! Can you come . . . fast?"

"This is what my job is like," Eisen said, grabbing his jacket. "It's one emergency after the next."

Eisen is the White House ethics adviser, the guardian of Obama's integrity, and he is called for consultation every time the new administration has a question regarding more than 1,000 pages of government ethics rules and regulations.

For original article, click here.

Obama White House Discloses Two More Lobbyist Waivers Granted
ABC News
By Jake Trapper
Published: March 11, 2009

The White House Tuesday evening disclosed that almost three weeks ago the Obama administration granted ethics wavers for two additional officials who had previously worked as lobbyists. On February 20 the administration signed waivers for Jocelyn Frye, former general counsel at the National Partnership for Women & Families, and Cecilia Muñoz, the former senior vice president for the National Council of La Raza, allowing them to work on issues for which they lobbied.

These two are in addition to deputy Defense Secretary Bill Lynn, a former Raytheon lobbyist whose waiver was granted two days after President Obama announced on January 21 what he heralded as the most sweeping ethics rules in American history -- ones that would "close the revolving door that lets lobbyists come into government freely."

For original article, click here.

Obama’s anti-lobbyist policy causing unintended harm
The Huffington Post
By Ryan Grim
Published: March 6, 2009

Barack Obama made no secret of his feelings for "Washington lobbyists" during the campaign and vowed that they wouldn't be staffing his White House.

The implementation of that rule, however, has led to a number of consequences that Obama could never have intended. Eliminating lobbyists from consideration drains the pool of progressive talent that the White House needs at a time when agencies and departments are severely understaffed. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, for instance, barely has any deputies as the economy continues to spiral out of control.

Lobbyists who for years have fought for workers' rights, environmental protection, human rights, pay-equity for women, consumer protection and other items on the Obama agenda have found the doors to the White House HR department slammed shut. In the past, several progressive lobbyists explained, there was no reason not to register if there was a slim chance that the law might require it. Obama's new policy changes the calculus, leading folks to deregister as federal lobbyists or consider other employment while they wait out the policy's required two-year separation from lobbying.

For original article, click here.

Lobbyists slipping into Obama administration
The Hill
By Kevin Bogardus
Published: March 6, 2009

Several former lobbyists are scattered throughout the Obama administration, despite the president’s efforts to slow the revolving door.

A review by The Hill of staff announcements for the White House and other departments in the administration found about two dozen people who have registered to lobby in the past, some as late as last year, according to lobbying disclosure records.

On his first day in office, President Obama issued an executive order that said political appointees could not participate in any issue area or work in any agency they had lobbied on in the past two years. It also forbade officials leaving the administration from lobbying the executive branch during the remainder of his time in office.

For original article, click here.

DeParle’s industry ties a non-issue
The Hill
By Jeffrey Young
Published: March 5, 2009

White House Office of Health Reform Director Nancy-Ann DeParle’s professional ties to healthcare companies may have prompted questions from the media, but government ethics watchdogs say they don’t see a problem.

DeParle brings stellar credentials to her new job, having served in several high-level federal and state government healthcare positions. She also can boast of a top-tier educational background that includes a Harvard law degree, degrees from Oxford University and a Rhodes scholarship.

But since 2001, DeParle has worked in the private equity field, advising on deals between healthcare companies and serving on the boards of directors of a handful of healthcare firms.

Those links, financial and otherwise, do not disqualify DeParle from her position at the White House, nor should similar private-sector experience be viewed as improper, however, ethics experts said.

For original article, click here.

Charities Say Government Is Ignoring Them in Crisis
The New York Times
By Stephanie Storm
Published: March 5, 2009

Like many for-profit companies, charities are seeking help from the government, and they are upset that policy makers do not understand how much the recession has hurt them.

Last week, nonprofit leaders representing thousands of organizations across the country signed on to a manifesto that calls on political leaders to support the work of nonprofits.

“One of the messages of this declaration is that the partnership between us and the government isn’t working, and that’s not good for the country,” said Lester M. Salamon, director of the Center for Civil Society Studies at Johns Hopkins University and author of the manifesto, titled “Forward Together: Empowering America’s Citizen Sector for the Change We Need.”

President Obama’s budget proposal came as a slap in the face to many nonprofits, which had thought they had a friend in him because of his early work as a community organizer.

For original article, click here.

IRS Says Charity Web Site Crossed Line Into Prohibited Activity
The Chronicle on Philanthropy
By Debra E. Blum
Published: March 2, 2009

The IRS has ruled that a local chapter of a national nonprofit group violated the prohibition against politicking by including the political-campaign materials of an affiliated advocacy group on its Web site, even though the materials appeared on discrete pages and the advocacy group paid all associated costs.

Marcus S. Owens, a Washington lawyer specializing in nonprofit issues, says the ruling ignores critical Supreme Court and appeals-court decisions that say charities can wall off the political activities of their related advocacy groups through such means as cost-sharing.

“The IRS set out a sweeping position here, and provides no boundaries for its analysis,” says Mr. Owens, who is the former chief of the IRS’s tax-exempt division.

For original article, click here.

2 lobbyists eyed for food-safety post
The Washington Times
By Jerry Seper
Published: March 1, 2009

Under President Obama's pledge to exclude registered lobbyists from the government payroll, two top contenders for an important food-safety post at the Agriculture Department will need waivers to win the job since both are lobbyists who sought to influence USDA officials.

For original article, click here.

Bill would require nonprofits to register
The Las Vegas Sun
By Cy Ryan
Published: February 21, 2009

A bill has been introduced in the Senate to require nonprofit organizations to register with the state to see if the money they collect is actually providing any services.

The bill, says sponsor Sen. David Parks, D-Las Vegas, is aimed at revealing who the “good and non-good” charitable groups are and to see if all the money is going for salaries and administration or if the majority of funds is filtering down to the intended people.

Parks had no idea how many nonprofits this would affect but there are a “horrendous number.” And it would not include political or religious groups. Of the nonprofits he serves on, 80 to 90 percent of the funds raised make it down to the people to be served, he said.

For original article, click here.

Response By John H. Graham
President and CEO, ASAE & The Center for Association Leadership
Tuesday, December 08, 2009

Careful: Disclosure has a downside
By Bradley A. Smith
Chairman, Center for Competitive Politics
Monday, December 7, 2009

Not as easy as it sounds...
By Meredith McGehee
Policy Director, Campaign Legal Center
Monday, December 7, 2009

Three Ideas for Real Reform
By Andrew Rosenberg
Senior Vice President, Ogilvy Government Relations
Monday, December 7, 2009

Real Reform? Transparency is Not Enough
By Lisa Gilbert
Democracy Advocate, U.S. Public Interest Research Group
Monday, December 7, 2009

Clear Thinking About Transparency
By Doug Pinkham
President, Public Affairs Council
Monday, December 7, 2009

Focus On Disclosure
By Rich Gold
Partner, Holland & Knight
Monday, December 7, 2009
Faux Lobbyist Reform, Part Deux
The Washington Times
Monday, December 07, 2009

Just when we thought President Obama's phony effort to root out lobbyist influence in government couldn't get any more obvious, the White House has fallen to a new low level of fakery.

A little noticed policy change issued by the White House ethics counsel this fall is expected to result in multitudes of registered lobbyists being removed from the nearly 1,000 panels that advise federal agencies on policy issues ranging from trade to health care. This action, however, does not mean the Obama administration will shun input from the sort of special interests the president regularly derides.

For original article, click here.