Re: [EL] David Callahan seeks disclosure of (some) 501(c)(3) donors

It�s not just Harvard�s lobbying. Their academics, and those at other universities, put out research and commentary on a great number of topics that relate to public policy and that could easily be viewed as �policy advocacy.� To cite just one immediately obvious example: Rick Hasen of Loyola (at least, of Loyola for the moment). Another immediately obvious example: Bradley A. Smith of Capitol.

Sean Parnell

President

Center for Competitive Politics

http://www.campaignfreedom.org

http://www.twitter.com/seanparnellccp

124 S. West Street, #201

Alexandria, VA 22310

(703) 894-6800 phone

(703) 894-6813 direct

(703) 894-6811 fax

From: election-law-bounces@mailman.lls.edu [mailto:election-law-bounces@mailman.lls.edu] On Behalf Of John Pomeranz
Sent: Tuesday, April 05, 2011 1:16 PM
To: Election Law
Subject: Re: [EL] David Callahan seeks disclosure of (some) 501(c)(3) donors

David Callahan argues that 501(c)(3) charities engaged in "policy advocacy" should be required to disclose their donors and that the deductibility of large gifts to such organizations should be limited (beyond, one assumes, the existing limits on deducting charitable gifts). There are so many things about this op-ed that cry out for comment and correction, but let me highlight just one:

While acknowledging that "[i]t would be difficult to define which groups belong in the new advocacy category," Callahan seeks to distinguish the 501(c)(3)s that engage in "policy advocacy" and would be subject to heightened disclosure from "traditional 501(c)3�s � museums and universities, for example." Mr. Callahan is clearly ignorant of the degree to which such "traditional" institutions engage in significant lobbying and other advocacy of policymakers at the federal, state, and local level. Harvard, to take just one example, reported half a million dollars in federal lobbying in 2010.

This op-ed's proposal is astonishing given the already sweeping restrictions on advocacy by 501(c)(3)s -- significant restrictions on lobbying and an absolute ban on political campaign intervention (far more sweeping than any court would countenance for a non-exempt organization) -- but the proposal was entirely predictable as part of the ongoing effort to try to prohibit, restrict, or otherwise chill political and policy speech.

In 2004, advocates for greater campaign finance regulation, assured us that they were only interested in regulating 527 organizations, not 501(c)s. They ridiculed concerns that 527s were only the first step on a slippery slope. When it became apparent that there was nothing a 527 could do that a 501(c)(4), (c)(5), or (c)(6) could not do, these self-styled reformers sought to regulate those organizations, as well, but assured us that they would never seek to burden 501(c)(3)s. Now comes this proposal to regulate the 501(c)(3)s -- or at least those who these would-be regulators deem too tainted by their interest in "policy advocacy." If I were a 501(c)(3) -- from Harvard down to the smallest local food bank concerned about its public funding -- I would be very leery of this "solution" from Mr. Callahan.

John Pomeranz
Harmon, Curran, Spielberg & Eisenberg, LLP
1726 M Street, NW, Suite 600
Washington, DC 20036
office: 202.328.3500
mobile: 703.597.7663
fax: 202.328.6918
e: jpomeranz@harmoncurran.com

"Bring Donors Out of the Shadows"

David Callahan has written this important NYT oped.

Posted by Rick Hasen at 08:49 AM