On November 7, the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) withdrew a regulation that required all nonprofits participating in the Combined Federal Campaign (CFC), the federal government's workplace charitable giving program, to screen employees and donation recipients for possible terrorist ties. The new final rule, which applies to 2006 CFC applicants, requires participating charities instead to certify that they are in compliance with existing anti-terrorist financing laws. OPM's explanation of the new rule notes that "OPM does not mandate that applicants check the Specially Designated Nationals (SDN) list or the Terrorist Exclusion List (TEL)." In 2004 the CFC added language to its funding agreement that participating organizations must certify that they do not "knowingly employ individuals or contribute funds to organizations" designated by the U.S. government to be involved in terrorist activities. Through the certification, CFC imposed an affirmative obligation on organizations to check the terrorist watch lists. In Nov. 2004 OMB Watch, along with 12 other nonprofits, led by the American Civil Liberties Union, filed suit against the OPM. The suit, filed in the federal district court for the District of Columbia, charged the policy violates the First Amendment rights of participating charities and was implemented without the required open rulemaking process. In March OPM proposed a new regulation that shifted its position away from the list-checking requirement and toward certification of compliance with existing law. Groups filing public comments, including OMB Watch, generally supported the new approach but suggested clarifications and some revisions. OMB Watch's comments noted that the new approach recognizes the variety of ways different types of organizations can comply with anti-terrorist financing laws, citing the Principles of International Charity developed by the nonprofit sector as a resource for charities to ensure their funds are not diverted to terrorist organizations. The supplementary information in the final rule suggests following - but does not require compliance with -- the highly controversial Voluntary Best Practices for U.S. Based Charities, published by the U.S. Treasury Department in 2002. The Treasury Department has acknowledged that these guidelines - again, which are not requirements -- are seriously flawed, and Treasury officials are in the process of revising them. The new certification states, "I certify that the organization named in this application is in compliance with all statutes, Executive orders, and regulations restricting or prohibiting U.S. persons from engaging in transactions and dealings with countries, entities, or individuals subject to economic sanctions administered by the U.S. Department of the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control. The organization named in this application is aware that a list of countries subject to such sanctions, a list of Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons subject to such sanctions, and overviews and guidelines for each such sanctions program can be found at http://www.treas.gov/ofac. Should any change in circumstances pertaining to this certification occur at any tie, the organization will notify OPM's Office of CFC Operations immediately." The new OPM rules are a substantial shift in policy and send a signal to the nonprofit community that list-checking is not synonymous with due diligence in addressing terrorism financing concerns. Prior to this rule, many workplace charitable giving programs and foundations embraced certifications and list-checking requirements modeled after CFC's 2004 effort. The current action by OPM should assuage these groups that list-checking should not be required. While the OPM rules will likely have a significant impact, they remain troublingly ambiguous. OPM specifically indicates that list-checking is not required, yet the new rule does indicate that participants in the CFC should not engage in transactions and dealings with countries, entities, or individuals subject to economic sanctions. How a nonprofit organization is to know whether individuals or entities are subject to economic sanctions without list-checking is unclear. Ultimately, foundations and nonprofits have called for, and continue to request, clarification on what actions they can take to protect them from investigation and seizure or freezing of assets. Such clarification will require changes in underlying laws or regulations to provide safeguards or safe harbors to protect nonprofits. It will also require due process procedures to protect their rights.