Thank you to all who have viewed this series over the last several weeks; this will be the final post on "PEPP RALLY". If you are interested in nonprofit organizations and the scope/limitations of the activities engaged in by nonprofits, I recommend two sites: the Alliance for Justice site and, of course, PEPP's site.
Class dismissed.

Having concluded our (non-exhaustive) examination of various existing federal restrictions on the political activities of individual nonprofit organizations, a new question emerges: how do such restrictions affect coalitions of nonprofit organizations, such as the emerging "Waking the Sleeping Giant" coalition in the Fargo/Moorhead area?
Presumably, all of the restrictions that apply to individual nonprofits should apply equally to any aggregate of nonprofits. In the next series of blogs, we will seek to illustrate how this may or may not be the case.
Stay tuned...

The Internal Revenue Service is a federal agency charged with the collection of taxes and the administration of the Internal Revenue Code.
Of all of the previously discussed federal agencies, the IRS arguably wields the most influence over the type and extent of political involvement on the part of nonprofit organizations. The IRS allows nonprofits to lobby on any issue which does not display preference for specific political parties or partisan candidates for public office. The monetary portion of nonprofit lobbying activity is restricted to a percentage of the cost of the organizations total expenditures during a fiscal year.
The major stipulation regarding the costs of lobbying is that none of these costs, directly or indirectly, can be met from funds obtained from the federal government. Since many nonprofits rely on federal grant assistance to fund their various operations, this is a powerful disincentive for political participation.
The second major disincentive for nonprofit lobbying activity arises from the consequence of violating the previously mentioned stipulation. Failure to comply with IRS provisions may result in the revocation of a nonprofit organizations tax exempt status.
It is no mystery why many nonprofit organizations are timid when it comes to political participation with such provisions and restrictions influencing their behavior.

The Federal Elections Commission is an independent federal agency created to administer and enforce the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1975, which governs the financing of federal elections. Its duties include the disclosure of campaign finance information, the enforcement of limits on campaign contributions and the oversight of the public funding of presidential elections.
The FEC imposes a significant restriction on the political activities of nonprofit organizations through the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act. This statute bans all electioneering communications, broadcasts that refer to specific federal candidates within 60 days of a general election or 30 days in a primary. The statute prevents nonprofits from mentioning federal legislators (who are up for reelection) whose support might be a crucial factor to the success or failure of any legislation which may impact members of such organizations.
An effort has been made by several nonprofit organizations to alter the Act in order to exempt grassroots lobbying efforts from the purview of the law. The following criteria have been suggested as a means of differentiating such lobbying from "electioneering":
1)broadcasts may only identify a federal candidate as an incumbent office holder
2)only specific and current legislative/executive branch issues may be discussed
3)an official can be called upon to take a specific position or action within his/her authoritative jurisdiction;the public may also be asked to urge the official to do so
4)statements regarding the official's record must be limited to his/her public discourse or official actions
5)election candidacy or political parties must not be referred to
6)no comment on the character of the official or his/her fitness for the office is allowed.

I would just like to take an opportunity to invite all members of both the local (ND,MN) and national nonprofit community to feel free to comment on any blogs posted on "PEPP RALLY". I would really like to hear anecdotes about how some of the restrictions I've described have impacted individual nonprofit organizations. Also, if there are other restrictions that I've neglected to mention or if the information I've presented is not current-please feel free to add/subtract from what I've posted. Ultimately the goal is education, so the more I hear from those with more "direct" experience with these restrictions, all the better.

The Federal Communications Commission is an independent government agency directed to regulate all non-government radio and television broadcasting, all interstate telecommunications and all international communications that begin or end within the United States.
Most of the FCC regulations pertaining to non-profit organizations are specifically linked to public broadcasting radio and television stations. Stations which fall under the umbrella of "public broadcasting" are prohibited from airing commercials for any goods and services of any for-profit entities. In a scenario in which Company X donates money to public broadcaster Y, the broadcaster may acknowledge the donation but may not endorse Company X or any of its products/services.
Public broadcasters may air announcements promoting program related materials sold by non-profit organizations; the direct sale of such materials by a non-profit is already legal, therefore no conflict of public interest occurs by the announcement, which is not legally considered a "commercial" for the product.
One of the most important regulations imposed on public broadcasters is the "equal time/equal opportunity" clause. Under the clause, any broadcaster which places a federal, state, or local legally qualified candidate for an elective office on air must provide an equal opportunity to all other legally qualified candidates in the same race. This allows the "public" airwaves to serve as the broadest possible medium through which the public can be educated about political candidates and elections by limiting the ability of a single candidate to exploit the broadcaster as a means to delivering his/her political message. The clause also preserves the traditional "nonpartisan" mandate placed on all non-profit organizations.

The Federal Trade Commission is an independent agency with a defined mission of protecting consumers and ensuring a strong competitive market. It strives to accomplish this mission by enforcing a variety of consumer protection and antitrust laws which guard against harmful business practices and protect the market from anti-competitive practices such as large mergers and price fixing conspiracies.
Two important and somewhat controversial legislative directives enforced by the FTC which directly affect local and national nonprofit organizations are the CAN-SPAM Act and the national Do Not Call registry system.

The CAN-SPAM Act regulates "commercial electronic messages", electronic mail messages which are sent to consumers for the primary purpose of commercial advertisement/promotion of a particular product or service intended to generate profit for the sender. On the surface, the qualifier "commercial" would imply that nonprofit email activity would be exempt from this legislation. However, there exists some ambiguity pertaining to the fundraising activities of nonprofit organizations by email; it has been common for some nonprofits to exchange products/services to consumers in a noncommercial capacity during fundraising drives. The somewhat vague distinction between "commercial electronic messages" and a scenario in which a nonprofit offers, by email, a product/service in exchange for a fund pledge has mobilized several individual nonprofits as well as communities of nonprofits nationwide to petition the FTC for clarification of this legislation.

The well-known Do Not Call registry, intended to curtail disruptive telemarketing practices, also affects nonprofit organizations. For the most part, nonprofit organizations are exempt from DNC regulations on intrastate calls. However, nonprofits which offer products/services via interstate calls risk violating DNC regulations, which carry an $11000 fine per violation. As with the CAN-SPAM Act, nonprofits have continued to petition the FTC for greater clarification of their rights and responsibilities under the law.

In one particular instance, the FTC was granted jurisdiction to prevent certain nonprofit organizations from engaging in unfair competition or deceptive practices. The case involved the California Dental Association's restrictions on its constituents' ability to advertise their products/services, which the FTC and California Supreme Court found to be a limitation on fair competition. In this unique circumstance the FTC gained an element of jurisdiction over a nonprofit, noncommercial corporation that it had not previously held.

Stay tuned. The next Rally will discuss the FCC...

"A commonwealth is said to be instituted, when a multitude of men do agree...that to whatsoever man, or assembly of men shall be given...the right to present the person of them all..authorize all the actions and judgements of that man or assembly of men, in the same manner, as if they were his own...."
-Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan, Chapter 28 Section 1

Ahh, don't you just love those wacky sixteenth century philosphers, for whom language was like a merry-go-round, ever circling, never stopping, never getting to the point? What Hobbes is describing in this quote is a sophisticated political concept to be sure, but one that can be stated more directly as follows: the power of government derives from the people. Radical at the time, this concept is now very much taken for granted as the principle behind our democratic form of government.

In this nation, great as it is, under this form of representative democracy, egalitarian as it strives to be, there are voices that do not carry all the way to the government. Of all the possible reasons for this phenomenon, one of the most discouraging realities in politics is that a government can be deaf to certain voices by design.

One method of ensuring that government ears are attuned to popular pitch is to transform a quiet voice into a shout. This is the principle behind interest groups and the practice of lobbying.

Non-profit organizations are not interest groups per se, but they do have interest in the legislative action of government at all levels. Yet there exists for non-profits ,and by proxy the clients they represent, several distinctive restrictions and limitations on the exercise of their political interests and participation in legislative discourse. These restrictions have had the effect of lulling the shout to a whisper, the whisper to a snore, a lullabye for the Leviathan...

Over the next several blogs, I will examine the various restrictions placed on non-profit organizations by five specific federal agencies. From there I will move to an examination of how such restrictions impact not only individual non-profits but also groups of non-profits, such as the Waking the Sleeping Giant coalition project spearheaded by PEPP and other regional organizations.

The next "PEPP RALLY" will discuss the Federal Trade Commission. Stay tuned...