In This Issue The Tax Bill and Charities Estate Tax Preserved Campaign Finance Reform, Voter Info, Turnout Efforts Charitable Choice Roundup Bush's Misdirected Attacks and Charitable Choice Streamlining Federal Grant Process Proposal Graham Nomination Moves Forward Tech Help: SPAM and Bulk E-mail SIDE BAR: Taxes: The Amazing Shrinking Surplus Nonprof Sector: Campaign Finance Reform; PAC Spending; Health Care Lobbying; Nonprofits' Success; Young Americans Digital Action Toolkit Announcements The Tax Cut Bill and You By now, everyone knows that Congress passed the largest tax cut (H.R. 1836) in twenty years. On May 26, the House voted 240 to 154 in favor of the bill with 28 Democrats and one Independent voting in favor of it. The same day, the Senate voted 58-33 in favor, with 12 Democrats joining 46 Republicans; the only Republicans opposing were John McCain (R-AZ) and John Chaffee (R-RI). With the tax bill done, and Congress taking a week-long respite from their labors, some folks are eagerly anticipating their (up to) $300 rebate - that's $25 a month - from the retroactive marginal rate reduction intended to stimulate the economy. Others are celebrating the fact that the estate tax - once thought to be a sure bet for extinction - is only repealed for one year, leaving us with ten years to fight the good fight for its ultimate preservation. Many are scratching their heads over the enormously complicated and slow phase-in of tax cuts, with many cuts becoming fully effectively only shortly before they "sunset," or cease to be, as of December 31, 2010. When all is said and done, though, this tax bill is not only the largest since the Reagan debacle of 1981, it is also the most convoluted, poorly designed and devious tax cut in the history of tax bills. It became clear early in the budget process that enacting a tax cut to use up the surplus was the primary budgetary goal with no regard for other pressing budget needs over the next two decades. Once that was settled, squeezing in all the provisions that were politically necessary for passage so that the bill would not exceed the $1.35 trillion cost over ten years became the next legislative goal. Rationality, thinking ahead, and genuinely planning how best to use the federal budget surpluses all fell by the wayside. Why is this such a bad bill?

• It is filled with gimmicks. Congress has shoe-horned an 11-year bill into 10 years in order to make it appear that it costs only $1.35 trillion. For example, the marginal tax rate reductions cost $118.4 billion in 2010. In 2011, they cost only $38.7 billion. The reduction in 2011 is because the bill sunsets, but budget rules require 2011 to be counted in calculating whether the $1.35 trillion ceiling has been breached. So the solution ... sunset the bill in 2010 and make believe it won't cost much. There are other gimmicks. Besides the overall sunset provision, some provisions of the tax bill expire even sooner, for example, phasing out popular provisions like tuition deductions, knowing that they will be extended. Another way to cut the cost of the tax bill is requiring corporate tax payments to occur on October 1 this year instead of September 15. This was done to get more revenue in the next fiscal year so that they would not be raiding the Social Security and Medicare trust funds. Both those in favor of these tax cuts and those opposed to them are finding it hard to call the sunset provisions a victory. On the one hand, those in favor of tax cuts as a way of limiting government spending on anything else, can only claim a partial victory for the next ten years, though they correctly anticipate that it will be difficult not to legislate continued cuts during the following decade. On the other hand, those who think that the tax cuts are ill-advised and will strangle important government initiatives, have good reason to continue working to insure that, during the next ten years, more thought and care can be given to the content of the tax cuts, so all is not lost.
• According to some estimates, the estimated cost for the next decade (from 2012-2021, just at the time the baby-boomers are retiring in full force and health care costs are climbing) is $4.3 trillion, making this an important issue. There will likely be a major policy debate about the affordability of these tax policies and other priorities, probably around 2007.
• In addition to keeping costs low with the sunset provisions, the tax cuts in the bill are phased in very slowly - in some instances, like the marriage penalty relief, the phase in doesn't even begin until 2005. Even more startling, the problem with the Alternative Minimum Tax, which will apply to more middle-income taxpayers because of the new marginal rate reductions, are partially addressed from 2001 through 2004, but not after. So, unless this is corrected, a number of taxpayers will see their marginal rates drop while their AMT liability goes up, leaving them with a higher tax bill.
• Some tax cut measures, which are always extended year after year, and most certainly will be extended this year too, like the Research and Experimentation tax credit, are not included in this bill. Add to that the necessity to correct the Alternative Minimum Tax problem, and the real cost of taxes for the next ten years becomes much higher.
• For a number of reasons, it is entirely likely that more tax cuts are in the offing. This bill was overall focused on individual taxpayers and not corporate interests, who will continue to lobby hard for tax relief. Most of the charitable giving provisions were not included in this bill (see related story). The President's new energy plan includes even more tax cuts. While the new Democratic majority in the Senate will likely put a halt to many tax cut efforts, it is almost certain that extending those tax cut provisions that are popular like the Research and Experimentation Tax credit, and fixing the Alternative Minimum Tax problem will be legislated, eating up more of the surplus.

Some highlights of the bill:

• Retroactively, to January 1, 2001, creates a new 10% marginal rate. Instead of paying the previously lowest 15% rate on the first $6,000 income for individuals, $10,000 income for single heads of household, and $12,000 for married couples, the new 10% rate will apply. Rebate of 5% of taxes paid in FY 2000 will be made-up to $300 for individuals, $500 for single heads of household, and $600 for married couples filing joint returns. The new 10% bracket will remain. Checks are to be issued to all FY 2000 filers (who filed on time) before October 1, 2001. Late filers will get late checks.
• Beginning July 1, 2001, phases in marginal rate reductions reducing the 39.6 bracket to 35%, the 36% bracket to 33%; the 31% bracket to 28%, and the 28% bracket to 25%. These rates will all be fully phased in by 2006.
• Phases out the overall limits on itemized deductions and personal exemptions by December 31, 2009.
• In 2005, the bill begins phasing in marriage penalty relief by increasing the standard deduction for those filing joint returns to twice the standard deduction for single filers. It also will increase the 15% income bracket for married couples to twice that of single filers.
• Increases the child tax credit from $500 to $600 in 2001-2004; $700 in 2005-2006, $800 in 2009, and $1000 in 2010. The bill also allows for partial refundability of the child care credit-a big legislative victory for advocates for low-income people. The credit is refundable up to 10% of earned income in excess of $10,000 and up to 15% in 2005 and continuing until it expires December 31, 2010. The bill also provides that these payments will not count as resources for purposes of any Federal or federally financed State or local program.
• Includes provisions to increase retirement savings and pension coverage, including increasing allowable contributions to Roth IRA accounts from $2,000 to $5,000 and contributions to 401(k) plans from $10,500 to $15,000. These are phased in.
• A number of education related tax breaks, including increasing contribution limits to education savings accounts, making the employee- provided education assistance provision permanent, and providing a deduction for qualified higher education programs.
• Provides limited Alternative Minimum Tax relief that, however, ends in 2004.

So does this bill benefit low and middle-income taxpayers more than either the Senate or House version? According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities and Citizens for Tax Justice, the answer is "no." Even though it contains some good provisions for low- and middle-income taxpayers - it also contains benefits that will accrue almost solely to the very wealthiest, like estate tax repeal and removing limitations on itemized deductions. What does the future hold, now that the tax cut bill is a reality? We can anticipate increased demands to limit discretionary spending - estimates are that tax cuts, if additional tax cut extenders are included and the Alternative Minimum Tax is corrected, will cost at least $1.7 trillion over the next ten years. While the House recently passed a sweeping new education "reform" bill, the $24 billion cost has not been factored into the budget. Nor has a realistic cost of prescription drug benefits. Nor has the anticipated increase in military spending - some estimates are $20 billion for the next year. In other words, we can expect the appropriations process this year to be a grisly one, but perhaps not as bad as the appropriations process eleven years from now, if these tax cuts are not allowed to sunset. Back to Top The Tax Bill and Charities As people sort through the tax bill that passed Congress over the weekend, they will likely discover a number of provisions that have not been reported on in major media. For charities, the tax bill did very little to help charitable giving – and in some ways actually hurt. Here are few things we are finding as we sift through the bill, which was only made available this afternoon. If there are any errors in this, we will post corrections to our website during the coming week. What Did Not Get in the Tax Bill

• Non-itemizer Deduction. Arguably the most popular tax provision within the nonprofit community that Congress is considering this year. This provision would allow those who do not itemize on annual tax returns to receive a deduction for charitable contributions. There are different versions of this provision: some allow the deduction to occur with any contribution amount; others put a floor - one proposal is $500 - before the deduction kicks in. In the House, the non-itemizer is now linked with charitable choice and other faith-based initiatives promoted by the President (see H.R. 7, Community Solutions Act). There are a number of other initiatives (see chart). At this time, not much activity is occurring with these bills. The non-itemizer has an uphill fight to get enacted. First, it is considered very costly, especially after the current tax has gobbled up an enormous part of the surplus, leaving very little for other priorities such as prescription drugs. Even versions that have a floor may be too costly. Second, it is criticized by some tax experts as subject to fraud. People who utilize the non-itemizer deduction can get away with making up contributions they gave, some experts argue. Third, if the provisions continue to be linked to charitable choice, which is considered highly controversial, it will be very difficult to pass. Finally, it is uncertain how many, if any, tax bills will pass Congress now that the Democrats control the Senate. Majority Leader Tom Daschle (D-SD) said over the weekend that any future tax bills will require an offset to be considered. Thus, the non-itemizer would have to come at the expense of something else.
• IRA Rollover. The Senate version of the tax bill allowed tax-free withdrawals from Individual Retirement Accounts (IRAs) for charitable purposes – another idea popular in the nonprofit community. However, it would not have phased in until 2010 – and since the tax bill sunsets at the end of 2010, it would hardly be a victory. Moreover, the provision that charities have advocated call for the IRA rollover to kick in at age 59 1/2, but in the tax bill it doesn't kick in until age 70 1/2 In any case, the final tax bill dropped the IRA rollover provision entirely. There is a broader IRA rollover provision in the House charitable choice bill, H.R. 7. Like the non-itemizer deduction, it will face a hurdle because of the uncertainty of future tax bills and its linkage with charitable choice.
• Artistic Contributions. The Senate version had a provision that would encourage charitable contributions of literary, musical, or artistic compositions by assessing the value of the contribution at fair market value, rather than the cost of materials. The final bill dropped this provision.
• Lobbying Simplification. The Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) recommended changes to simplify the tax code that would help charities that want to engage in public policy debates. The JCT proposed eliminating the distinction between grassroots (or indirect) and direct lobbying. Instead, lobbying of any type would be counted under one expenditure ceiling, which would be the current ceiling for direct lobbying. Some charities have proposed adjusting the ceiling for inflation since it has not changed since 1976. Some hoped that the revision would have been in the tax bill sent to the President. But it was not in the bill.
• Section 527 Campaign Finance Disclosure. The Senate version had a provision that would exempt PACs (Section 527 groups) that report to state and local election agencies and do not work on federal elections. These PACs would no longer have been required to file financial disclosure reports with the IRS, but would have continued to file a notice of their existence. The provision was dropped in the final bill.
• Tax Exempt Bonds for Reducing Arsenic in Drinking Water. The Senate version created tax-exempt bond authority for treatment facilities reducing arsenic levels in drinking water. The final bill dropped this provision.

What Did Make It in the Tax Bill

• Estate Tax Changes. Nothing else in the tax bill has as large an impact on charities as changes made to the estate tax. (See related story.) The bill makes two changes that could affect charitable contributions: increasing the amount of money that is excluded from taxation, and lowering the tax rate. It is difficult to estimate the impact these changes will have on charitable bequests. It is known that three-quarters of charitable bequests come from estates valued at $2.5 million or above. Between now and 2008, the amount exempted from taxes increases from $1 million to $2 million. Thus, the change is likely to affect the estates that give in total slightly less than one-quarter of charitable giving, roughly $3.4 billion. In 2009, the exemption amount increases to $3 million, increasing the stakes for charities. Moreover, the impact reducing tax rates has on charitable giving is unknown, and the interaction of reducing tax rates and increasing amounts exempted from taxation is even more uncertain. One change in the estate tax – the phasing out by 2005 of the state tax credit – is likely to have an indirect impact on charities. Most states have a "pick up" tax, meaning that a portion of the money collected by the federal government under the estate tax goes to them. This provides sizable revenues in many states. Thus, the repeal of the state tax credit will mean either that states will need to impose a new tax or face revenue shortfalls. If there are revenue shortfalls, it could mean cuts in services that charities help deliver.
• Allow More Itemized Deductions. The tax bill eliminates the overall limitation on itemized deductions for all taxpayers. It is reduced by one-third in 2006 and 2007, and by two-thirds in 2008 and 2009. It is eliminated in 2010. Presumably this would have some effect on charitable giving.

Back to Top Estate Tax Preserved The Senate and House have sent the President their $1.35 trillion tax cut package, a deal that the President and Republicans have claimed as a great victory for themselves and "every working American." Various estimates indicate 71% of its benefits to the top 20% of earners and a full one-third to the top 1%. A major component of this lopsidedness is repeal of the estate tax. That, along with the numerous other provisions noted in this issue of the Watcher, is the bad news. The better news is that full repeal of the estate tax will only be in effect for 1 year (January 1, 2010 to December 31, 2010), at which point the repeal – as well as all other components of the bill – is scheduled to sunset, or end, and current tax law, with its more sensible estate tax provisions, will prevail. Between now and then, the top marginal rate will drop from its current amount of 55% to 45% by 2007, and the wealth exemption will jump from $675,000 to $1 million next year (5 years earlier than current law provides for) and will go up to $3.5 million by 2009. Those states that "pick up" a portion of the federal estate tax will lose this revenue in 2005, when the "State death tax credit" is repealed, after being phased down, beginning in 2002. Finally, in the year of full repeal, 2010, the treatment of capital gains tax will be changed so that if an inherited asset is sold, capital gains taxes will be charged on the appreciation in value from its original worth rather than its worth at the time of death. (Only assets over a $1.3 million exemption ($3 million for a surviving spouse) are taxed in this new way and the executor of the estate may decide how the estate is allocated). For more information on the intricacies of the new world of the estate tax, see OMB Watch’s analysis. Also see OMB Watch’s press release for more details on this bill’s "rhetorical repeal." Back to Top Voter Info, Turnout Efforts Focus Of Campaign Finance And Election Reform Concerns Campaign finance reform legislation is scheduled to come to the House floor after July 4th, according to a statement from Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-IL), who also anticipates that hearings on the subject will be completed by the end of June. However, no hearings are currently scheduled. Opponents of the bill have promised to delay action for as long as possible, and Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) told NBC's Meet the Press that if the House fails to act before their August recess, the bill could be held up in a conference committee. However, the shift in Senate leadership could alleviate those concerns, since Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) will no longer be Chair of the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration. It is also unclear whether the House will take action on McCain-Feingold or H.R. 380, the bill introduced by Reps. Christopher Shays (R-CT) and Martin Meehan (D-MA). Either way, amendments are likely to be offered, both from opponents and supporters seeking to fix specific problem areas. For instance, several members of the Congressional Black Caucus and the Hispanic Caucus have expressed concern about the net effect of McCain-Feingold's soft money ban, hard money contribution increases, issue advocacy ban and coordination provisions. Parties use soft money for voter registration and get-out-the-vote campaigns, which often target areas where black voters face obstacles to voting. Hard money contribution increases would exacerbate the disparity between white and black candidates, since minority candidates have historically raised less money from individual contributions. The Fannie Lou Hamer Project, a national grassroots group that seeks to redefine campaign finance as a civil rights issue, has noted that the net worth of white households is eight times greater than African American households and twelve times greater than Latino households, impacting their ability to contribute. Board member Spencer Overton, a UC Davis law professor, wrote in the LA Times that "In a privately funded political system, those who make large contributions have special access to politicians and to the leadership of political parties", concluding that the raising the current contribution limits serves to increase racial disparities and violate the spirit of one person, one vote. Nonprofit groups are also seeking to narrow the impact of the issue advocacy bans in McCain-Feingold, which would prevent a variety of nonpartisan voter information and public education communications from being broadcast on radio or television. These include nonpartisan candidate debates and forums, voter turnout efforts, genuine issue advocacy and grassroots lobbying, even though these activities are permitted by the tax code. (See OMB Watch summary.) Election reform presents one way voter information and turnout issues might be addressed. The Congressional Black Caucus has made election reform its top priority, citing the need for legislation that addresses mechanical fixes for vote counting, elimination of barriers to voting, such as inaccurate voter registration records, voter intimidation and assistance for the disabled. Common Cause has endorsed bipartisan legislation recently introduced by Sens. McConnell and Charles Schumer (D-NY) that would provide $2.5 billion in federal grants to improve voting systems. Sen. McCain is pushing another bill in the Senate Commerce Committee, but the scheduled May 24 markup has been delayed. Sen. Christopher Dodd (D-CT) has criticized the McConnell-Schumer bill for not going far enough, citing the need to deal with voting rights. He and Rep. John Conyers (D-MI) have introduced legislation that addresses that issue. The House Administration Committee has held two hearings on election reform, and Chair Robert Ney (R-OH) and ranking member Rep. Steny Hoyer (D-MD) have announced five principles that will guide development of a final bill. These guidelines include:

• Federal assistance to state and local governments to replace outdated or unreliable equipment (including elimination of the punch card system);
• No federal mandated solutions;
• Voter education and poll worker training
• Development of a model election code
• Research and development grants for equipment manufacturers.

The National Conference of State Legislatures has called for a federal block grant program for election reform that does not include specific mandates. Back to Top Charitable Choice Roundup In the opening skirmish of what is likely to be a protracted battle, the American Jewish Congress has filed suit seeking a permanent injunction against implementation of a state-funded job-training program in California that is open only to faith-based service providers. This suit comes on the heels of a confirmation by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) that an HIV and drug abuse prevention program funded by HHS has also been restricted to faith-based groups. One of the Bush administration's primary reasons for calling for "Charitable Choice" initiatives, which would allow for direct federal funding of religious congregations' social service activities, was to "level the playing field" for religious and non-religious social service providers. The HHS grant program proves this is indeed not the case, and the government is prepared to tread on constitutionally dangerous ground by favoring faith-based service providers. It is unconscionable that the federal government favor service providers based on any factor other than results. Despite claims to the contrary from the administration, there is no empirical evidence that faith based service providers are any more effective than secular providers. (In 1998, the General Accounting Office (GAO) reported that there is no evidence that faith based groups are more effective than secular social service providers.) For the federal government to favor the services of faith based organizations over secular providers is a direct affront to the Constitution and the many secular nonprofits that work hard to help those in need. Charitable Choice Shelved in the Senate Meanwhile, Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA), the chief Republican sponsor of Bush's charitable choice initiative, has told the New York Times that he plans on delaying indefinitely the introduction of legislation allowing for the direct federal funding of religious congregations' social service activities. Sen. Joseph Lieberman (D-CT), who was supposed to be the Democratic co-sponsor of the legislation has declined to do so, saying that the White House isn't "directly confronting the most difficult Constitutional problems." A separate bill (S. 592), sponsored by Santorum and Lieberman contains some of the charitable giving provisions that Bush has called for (including a non-itemizer tax deduction for charitable contributions and tax-free IRA rollovers to charities), but does not contain charitable choice. Based on the size of the tax cut passed this weekend, however, it is unknown where the money for these giving incentives would come from. Back to Top Streamlining Federal Grant Process Proposal Submitted to Congress On May 18 a plan to simplify and streamline the federal grants process was released to the public and submitted to Congress. The plan, drafted by the Chief Financial Officers' Grants Management Committee, begins implementation of the Federal Financial Assistance Management Improvement Act of 1999. The Office of Management and Budget and Dept. of Health and Human Services led the team of 26 federal agencies that is responsible for over $325 billion in federal grant funds. They examined pre-award, post-award, audit oversight and electronic processing issues. A draft plan was released in January, and the final plan reflects public comment that encouraged greater clarity in information released by agencies, more time for preparing and submitting applications and greater cross-agency uniformity in post-award reporting. The public comments also urged increased use of electronic technology was also encouraged, but differences in access to technology, especially for Native American tribes and rural communities, should be recognized. The plan sets forth a series of action steps, beginning in September 2001. At that time the agencies will complete a baseline examination of application requirements and assess the reasons for any differences among agencies or programs, especially that serve similar purposes. A similar examination of reporting forms will also be completed. Payment systems will also be examined. The full text of the plan is available from download. Ongoing public comments can also be submitted at the site. Back to Top Bush Barking Up the Wrong Tree Current obstacles blocking the Bush administration's plans to push its "charitable choice" package through Congress have forced it to go on the offensive. In a speech at Notre Dame University, Bush misrepresented the facts by claiming that charitable choice opponents want to cut off all funding for religiously affiliated institutions: "Some critics of this approach object to the idea of government funding going to any group motivated by faith. But they should take a look around them. Public money already goes to groups like The Center for the Homeless and, on a larger scale, to Catholic Charities. Do the critics really want to cut them off? Medicaid and Medicare money currently goes to religious hospitals. Should this practice be ended?" Similarly, in a visit to Cleveland to drum up support for his initiatives, Bush toured a Catholic Charities facility. Bush's main charitable choice initiative, the direct granting of federal moneys to religious congregations to carry out social service programs, would have no effect on such an organization, which is already allowed to compete for public money. After being buffeted by criticism from both the right and the left, it is not surprising, however, that Bush has tried to obscure this direct funding approach. The Criminal Justice, Drug Policy and Human Resources subcommittee of the House Committee on Government Reform held a hearing on religious drug treatment programs last week. Two of the witnesses in the hearing stated that they discriminate in their hiring process, and would not accept federal funds if it meant that they could not hire only Christians. If a religious program will not accept federal funding because they cannot discriminate, it defeats the stated purpose of the federal government's helping those in need by funding religious groups. This further highlights the importance of a secular social safety net. Opponents of charitable choice do not object to money going to religiously affiliated organizations. Catholic Charities is a 501(c)(3) charity that is separate from the Catholic Church. This is also the case with most religious hospitals. These charities are required to meet the same standards for health, safety and professional qualifications that all secular charities must meet, and cannot engage in discriminatory practices. They are, in fact, already on a level playing field with secular charities, and do great work. Back to Top Graham Nomination Moves Forward By a 9 to 3 vote, the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee approved (on May 23) the nomination of John Graham to head OMB's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), which has the power to delay, alter, or kill agency regulations. The ranking Democrat on the Committee, Sen. Joseph Lieberman (CT), as well as Sens. Richard Durbin (D-IL) and Robert Torricelli (D-NJ) opposed the nomination. Sen. Max Cleland (D-GA) voted against the nomination by proxy (which does not count in the final tally). "I am generally inclined to give the benefit of the doubt to the President's nominees," Lieberman explained in his HREF="http://www.citizen.org/congress/regulations/graham/lieberman.PDF">statement opposing the nomination. "But in this case, my doubts are so persistent, and the nominee's inclinations are so tilted, that I am not convinced he would be able to appropriately fulfill his responsibilities. In fact, I'm afraid he would contribute to the weakening of government's protective role in matters of environment, health, and safety." Durbin echoed these sentiments in a letter to colleagues prior to the vote. In particular, he drew specific attention to some of Graham's past positions, including Graham's contention that eliminating dioxin might do more harm than good, and that it might have been a mistake to ban DDT. Democrats voting in support of the nomination included Sens. Carl Levin (MI), Thomas Carper (DE), and Jean Carnahan (MO). Sen. Daniel Akaka (D-HI) was not present for the vote. All Republicans present voted in favor of Graham. For an exhaustive supply of information on why Graham is the wrong man for the job, see this HREF="http://www.citizen.org/congress/regulations/graham.html">special Public Citizen web site. Back to Top Tech Help: SPAM and Junk E-mail Whether it be a canned meat by-product or the increasing volume of unsolicited electronic messaging that is potentially deceptive as to its origins and intent, "SPAM" is a messy business indeed. It has, however, moved beyond classification as a mere irritant or annoyance, to become a subject of attention in the Congress and the courts. The increased activity around spam, however, highlights a number of tensions for nonprofits, consumers, businesses, and individual civil liberties about legal versus practical remedies for curbing unwanted e-mail. Sink your teeth into spam courtesy of NPTalk... Back to Top The Surplus is Already Shrinking As as number of people have been pointing out, it is dangerous to predicate huge tax cuts on a surplus that may or may not materialize. While the 1.35 trillion tax cut is a fact, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) issued its annual report on the President's budget, making new estimates over a ten-year projection period. The total budgte surplus for FY 2001 is now estimated at $275 billion - $6 billion lower than CBO's January estimate, and revenues in FY 2001 will be $20 billion lower than previously estimated. Campaign Finance Reform and the Parties Interested in the impact campaign finance reform might have on political parities? How parties spend soft money? What could happen to voter registration and get-out-the-vote efforts? See the Campaign Finance Institute's Cyber-Forum on McCain-Feingold & the Parties. PAC's and Federal Candidates A new study by the Project on Government Oversight compares federal candidate filings at the FEC with PAC filings, finding a mismatch of more than $12 million. Health Care Lobbying During the first six months of 2000 the health care industry was the top spender for lobbying Congress, spending $106 million. Next were communications and technology at $101 million, finance and insurance at $95 million, energy and natural resources at $71 million and transportation at $68 million, according to an analysis by FECInfo, a service of www.politicalmoneyline.com. Nonprofit Measurements of Success Independent Sector and the Urban Institute have released a report on how nonprofits measure the impact of their work. "Outcome Measurements in Nonprofit Organizations: Current Practices and Recommendations" is available for download. Young Americans and the Digital Future Toolkit for Action The Children's Partnership, Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, Center for Policy Alternatives, National Urban League, and Fight Crime: Invest in Kids have launched a campaign designed to promote policies to spread technology and its benefits to youth in low-income and other underserved communities. It features an information toolkit offering: State-by-State Fact Sheet; State Policy Models; National statistics, National Policy framework, and relevant websites. The campaign aims to foster a clearinghouse for state policy efforts around community technology and to eventually offer technical assistance to those sponsoring legislation. For further information or to receive a Young Americans and the Digital Future Toolkit for Action, call 310-260-1220 or e-mailfrontdoor@childrenspartnership.org.