In This Issue Exit Polls and the Nonprofit World   Initiatives All Over the Place   The Next Congress   Lame Duck Congress Continues   Campaign Spending and Contributions Records Shattered In 2000 Election   IRS Request for Comments   More, Better Environmental Information   NCLIS Proposes New Federal Government Information Agency   NCLIS Comprehensive Assessment of Public Information Dissemination Draft Recommendations   Tech Help: Online Help for Organizing Bookmarks   Notes and Sidebars   If You Believe Exit Polls . . . The 2000 election will long be remembered for the close Presidential race between George Bush and Al Gore. Perhaps the lessons from exit polls and post-election polling will be less remembered, but may still have enormous implications for the public interest community. According to a comparison of pre-election and post-election polling conducted by Public Opinion Strategies and The Mellman Group for the Health Insurance Association of America (HIAA), the election was one of the "most sharply divided in history by ideology." Of those claiming to be conservatives, 67% voted for Bush and 17% for Gore; of those claiming to be liberal, 76% voted for Gore and 11% for Bush; of those claiming to be moderates, 49% voted for Gore and 31% for Bush. Exit polls, conducted by the Voter News Service and published in The New York Times on November 12, 2000, support the same point. They found 81% of conservatives voted for Bush, 80% of liberals for Gore, and 52% of moderates for Gore. Since 1976 only Dukakis in 1988 received as many liberal votes, and only Reagan in his second election of 1984 received as many conservative votes. Table: How America Voted The division among voters goes well beyond ideology. Men overwhelmingly voted for Bush (53%); women for Gore (54%). By comparison, in 1976, 50% of men and women voted for Carter and 48% of men and women for Ford. The gap has grown over the years, but this year the gap was even larger than 1996. Voters were split by race with blacks, Hispanics, and Asians voting for Gore, and whites for Bush. 90% of blacks voted for Gore, although they counted for only 10% of the vote total. Wealthy voters supported Bush; middle- and lower-income voters supported Gore. Voters in small towns and rural communities (59%) voted for Bush, while those in large cities (71%) voted for Gore. Voters in suburbs were more evenly split, with 49% voting for Bush and 47% for Gore. The fact that these splits resulted in a near tie in the presidential race and near party parity in the House and Senate suggests that voter differences are not specific to just the presidential candidates. Couple these strong splits with the HIAA data that suggest various policy issues (e.g., abortion, taxes and spending) created large differences in voting behavior and you are left with a probable prescription for congressional gridlock. Chart: Presidential Ballot By Deciding Issue Division among voters is only part of the story. As we all know, there is an astonishingly low overall voter turnout in the U.S., even though turnout this year was slightly higher than the last national election. There is an increasing gap in voter turnout between low- and middle-income people. According to the Center for the Study of the American Electorate, in 1996, 65.7% of people with incomes of $50,000 or more voted, while only 28.5% of people with incomes under $10,000 voted. This trend seems to continue in exit polls from the 2000 election. Table: Voter Turnout and Wealth Perhaps because people who are poor and young are less likely to vote, there was very little campaign attention paid to their concerns or those of low-income minorities and inner city residents who have not benefited greatly from overall economic prosperity. In other words, there is a whole group of people out there who are disenfranchised from the democratic process, not without cause, and whose needs and opinions were not included in exit polls. These are people who heard little that was relevant to their situations from political candidates, and so simply didn't vote. These data may have an impact on the role nonprofits can play in building support for various public policies. Our strength as a sector comes from providing locally-based stories that cut across partisan boundaries. In many ways that was a key reason why we were able to defeat an attack on the nonprofit advocacy voice lead by Reps. Ernest Istook (R-OK) and David McIntosh (R-IN) several years ago. We told policymakers about the impact on our communities if such a legislative proposal were implemented. Policymakers will need to hear these types of local stories as they proceed with a range of policy options in the next Congress. But we need to move beyond defensive actions, such as with the Istook amendment, to describe needs of our communities. For example, nonprofits across the country strongly support an "invest in America" message to use federal surpluses for domestic investments such as universal pre-school, universal health care, and livable wages. (See these results and others from the survey of nonprofits.) It will be essential, given the strong split identified in exit polls, to put a face on the needs, and to describe how government resources can help to strengthen our communities. Building a strong local voice may help to bridge whatever divide may exist in this country as the new Congress convenes - and nonprofits can play a lead role in making that happen. Nonprofits can also play a role in encouraging those who do not vote to get more involved. They should be made a part of any discussion about putting a face on the needs and investing in America. Initiatives like a livable wage or universal pre-school or free college education may speak loudly enough to nonvoters to reengage them in the electoral process, forcing politicians to pay attention. Back to Top Initiatives All Over the Place Voters around the country faced state ballot initiatives on Nov. 7 that mirror issues OMB Watch tracks on the national level. Specifically, this included:

• Takings: Oregon voters approved a ballot initiative (Measure 7) -- by a 53 percent to 47 percent margin -- that would require the public to compensate property owners whenever a state or local regulation reduces a property's value. This so-called "takings" measure means that Oregon tax money will be used to pay corporations to obey virtually any land-use zoning, as well as laws protecting wetlands and wildlife habitat. This sets up a fool's choice: either pay out millions or billions of dollars in "compensation" or stop enforcing important public and environmental safeguards. The state of Oregon estimates the total cost to taxpayers at $5.6 billion in annual compensation to property owners. The courts are likely to decide whether Measure 7 is retroactive. If so, that would probably bring an end to Oregon's urban growth boundaries.
• Repeal of the estate tax: South Dakota voters approved -- 80 percent to 20 percent -- Amendment C, a repeal of the state estate tax. The repeal is somewhat surprising since 80 percent of South Dakota residents are not subject to the tax. And for those who are, a little more than 50 percent of the revenue comes from sources outside the state. The repeal is expected to cost South Dakota about $25 million per year, which will likely have to be made up through sales tax increases. South Dakota has no income tax.
• Campaign finance reform: Voters in California overwhelmingly approved limits (under Proposition 34) on campaign contributions by a 60 percent to 40 percent margin. The initiative, which was put on the ballot by the state legislature, limits individual contributions to $3,000 for state legislative candidates, $5,000 for statewide candidates other than governor, and $20,000 for gubernatorial candidates. Meanwhile, voters in Missouri soundly defeated a measure (Proposition B) -- 35 percent to 65 percent -- that would have established a system to publicly fund election campaigns in the state. Specifically, it sought to do this through a one-hundredth of one percent increase in the corporate franchise tax rate on corporations whose taxable assets exceeded $2,000,000 -- which was expected to generate about $13,000,000 per year.
• Restrictions on nonprofit advocacy: Oregon voters defeated two ballot measures that would have placed restrictions on the advocacy voice of nonprofit organizations. The first (Measure 92) -- defeated 45 percent to 55 percent -- would have prohibited payroll deductions for any "political purpose" without annual written consent from the employee. The second (Measure 98) -- defeated 47 percent to 53 percent -- would have banned the use of "public funds" for any workplace charitable collection that goes to nonprofits engaged in advocacy.
• Review of administrative rules: Oregon voters defeated a ballot initiative (Measure 2) -- by a 44 percent to 56 percent margin -- that would have required the Legislative Assembly to affirmatively approve any administrative rule that has been challenged by a petition of 10,000 voters (or the rule would expire). Special interests -- through an estimated $10,000 in paid petitioning -- should not have the power to throw important public protections in limbo in this way. Another version of this initiative was on the Oregon ballot in 1998, and it was also defeated.
• Urban sprawl: Arizona and Colorado voters overwhelmingly defeated initiatives -- backed by the Sierra Club -- that were designed to limit urban sprawl, with a 30 percent to 70 percent margin in both cases. Arizona's Proposition 202 would have required establishment of growth areas defined by boundaries, preservation of natural areas and neighborhoods, as well as the protection of air and water. It also would have required developers to pay the full cost of roads, schools and other public facility needs created by their new developments. Similarly Colorado's Amendment 24 would have required city planners and county commissioners to put growth plans to voters for approval, as well as directed cities and counties to consult with each other when drawing their growth area maps.

Back to Top Thanks For Stopping In: Congress Chooses Leaders in a "Here and Gone" Session This is usually the time of year when Congress chooses its leaders for the next session, but with everyone leaving town to enjoy full-time coverage of the election, we can only bring you a snapshot. During their brief return to Washington, the members of the House managed to re-elect their leadership for the 107th Congress, although the Democrats have not yet filled the chair of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. The Senate leadership is likely to remain the same in the next Congress, although not all members ruled out the possibility of a change. Although committee selection is not likely to occur until January, there have already been several changes that will have an impact on the public interest community. First, the Republican leadership is standing behind its support of 6-year limits on committee roles -- Speaker Hastert has said, however, he would consider individual waivers -- which means that there will be a number of committee changes. Second, there will be tough negotiations between Republicans and Democrats on committee ratios. Since the majority margin is less than in the last Congress, it would be expected that committee composition will reflect such changes. But there is no hard and fast rule on this. Third, there will be substantial changes in the tax writing committees. In the House, with Rep. Bill Archer (R-TX) retiring, Reps. Phil Crane (R-IL) and Bill Thomas (R-CA) are dueling for the chair of the Ways and Means Committee. Crane strongly supports a repeal of the estate tax and the so-called marriage penalty tax, positions which run counter to the viewpoint of progressive nonprofits. At the same time, he is co-sponsor of a bill that would permit non-itemizers to deduct charitable contributions, a position strongly supported by the nonprofit community. Thomas is very knowledgeable on entitlement reform and is campaigning for the post based on his expertise on Medicare, Social Security and entitlements. He is no friend to progressive groups: he led efforts to thwart campaign finance reform in the House and backed a "paycheck protection" amendment that specifically covered charities in a way that would have limited their advocacy voice. In the Senate, Sen. Bill Roth (R-DE) lost his election, a turn of events which will likely allow for Sen. Charles Grassley (R-IA) to take over as chair of the Finance Committee. Roth was very friendly to nonprofits and supported making restrictions on charity lobbying simpler and fairer. For example, he supported dropping the distinction between grassroots and direct lobbying and counting all lobbying under the direct lobbying expenditure ceiling for those charities that elected to be covered under those rules. Grassley's views on such matters are not known. Three Democrats on the Finance Committee retired (Daniel Patrick Moynihan, Richard Bryan, and Bob Kerrey) and one lost his bid for reelection (Chuck Robb). This means that Max Baucus (D-MT) is likely to become the ranking member and that there will be many new Democrats on the committee. (If Baucus takes this opportunity, he will have to give up his ranking role on the Environment and Public Works Committee. This position most likely would then go to Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV).) It is likely these tax committees will be the center of attention since Republicans have many tax cut proposals planned. Fourth, the House Appropriations Committee will also see some shuffling, particularly because of the retirement of Rep. John Porter (R-IL), who was chair of the Labor, HHS, and Education Subcommittee. Depending on how things play out, it is possible that Rep. Ernest Istook (R-OK), the lead author of legislation to silence the advocacy voice of nonprofits, could take over the committee. Finally, the committees that deal with government operations, including regulatory procedures, public access to government information, and federal grant rules, may or may not undergo major change. If Gore wins the presidency, it will mean that Joe Lieberman will give up his minority ranking position on the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee. It is unclear who would get this position, but it might go to Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL). In the House, there will be at least one major change on the Government Reform Committee. Rep. David McIntosh (R-IN) ran for Governor of Indiana and lost, and will not be returning to Congress. As a result, there will be a new chair of the National Economic Growth, Natural Resources and Regulatory Affairs Subcommittee. It was this subcommittee that launched the attack on nonprofit advocacy, along with an assault on health, safety, and environmental regulations. Back to Top Lame Duck Congress Didn't Walk Far Congress resumed work in a lame duck session on November 13, but was quick to postpone most business, including passage of the remaining five (of thirteen) appropriations bills, to wait for the results of the presidential election. Both the House and Senate passed yet another continuing resolution (CR) to keep government agencies funded through December 5. That CR was couriered to the President for his signature while he was in Brunei. Before adjourning, Congress approved a revision of foreign sales tax treatment to avoid sanctions on U.S. imports by the EU. This was a part of the $240 billion House-passed tax package (containing, among other things, pension and insurance provisions, a raise in the minimum wage with accompanying tax breaks to small businesses, community economic development "New Markets" provisions, and school construction tax measures) that remains in limbo. Congress also unlinked the District of Columbia appropriation bill from the contested Commerce, Justice and State bill, and passed the DC appropriation, thus allowing the District to finally proceed with some new initiatives contained in the bill (which were not part of its prior appropriations bill and so could not commence under continuing resolutions). The Occupational Safety and Health Administration released its final ergonomics standards on November 14. It is unclear what effect this development will have on new negotiations around the Labor-HHS-Education bill. Back to Top Campaign Spending and Contributions Records Shattered In 2000 Election Now that the campaigns are over, the contribution and spending totals are coming in, revealing huge increases in the cost of American elections. A "conservative calculation" by the Bureau of National Affairs found that over $2.5 billion was contributed to campaigns before the election, a 45 percent increase from 1996, or 4 times the rate of inflation. Contributions and expenditures increased in all categories. Spending on "issue ads" by parties and political committees exceeded candidate spending at all levels, according to a study by the Brennan Center of Justice at New York University. The major parties raised a record $877.6 million by October 18, a 15 percent increase over 1996. Soft money accounted for over half of the Democrat's funds, according to a summary published by the Federal Election Commission. 1,800 political committees filing reports with the IRS under this year's new disclosure law reported more than $97 million in contributions and $133 million in expenditures between July and August. A post-election analysis by Common Cause showed that incumbents in the House running for re-election had a 4-1 financial advantage over challengers' campaigns, and their PACs had an 8-1 advantage. The incumbents won 98 percent of those races. On the Senate side, incumbents running for re-election had a 2-1 advantage over challengers in campaign funds, and a 6-1 advantage in PAC funding. Senate incumbents won 82 percent of those races. The Campaign Finance Institute's post-election briefing showed that, although Congressional challengers do not need to match incumbents dollar for dollar to win, they need more and more money to be heard and make races competitive. And then, finally, "Who is contributing all this money?" U.S. PIRG found that contributions of $1,000 or more account for 70 percent of all individual contributions, but represent only 0.15 percent of Americans. Back to Top IRS Request for Comments OMB Watch is seeking input from nonprofits for our response to the IRS Request for Comments on issues pertaining to the use of the Internet by exempt organizations. (The IRS issued its request for comments in October, asking a series of general questions, as well as specific ones about legislative and political activities and solicitation and advertising.) To begin the discussion we have identified general principles and specific responses for the IRS Announcement sections dealing with lobbying and political activities. Key issues include whether or not the content of a linked site should be attributed to a group posting a link, when an Internet communication is a lobbying message and how costs of using the Internet should be determined. Please send us your thoughts, suggestions and examples, and we will take them into consideration when we draft our comments. For more background, see the October 23 Watcher's story on the IRS announcement. Back to Top More, Better Environmental Information A wide-ranging report by the National Academy of Public Administrators (NAPA) is calling on Congress, the states and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to change the way the nation protects human health and the environment. The report calls for reform of EPA's strategies for providing public access to environmental information. The report concludes that EPA's structure for handling environmental information "is inadequate, [...] too weak, too narrowly focused, too focused on access to data instead of on the existence and quality of data, too closely linked to political leadership, as well as being insufficiently funded and staffed." For more than a decade, public interest and environmental organizations have pushed EPA to fill gaps in information available to the public. Scientists, policymakers, citizens, journalists and the private sector use EPA-collected information to reduce pollution and protect communities. The 219-page report, entitled "environment.gov: Transforming Environmental Protection for the 21st Century," argues that the nation's current environmental protection system cannot protect human health and the environment. The report examines attempts to "innovate," and makes recommendations to the next EPA Administrator, Congress and the states. Back to Top NCLIS Proposes New Federal Government Information Agency The National Commission on Library and Information Science (NCLIS) has unveiled a legislative proposal which would establish a new executive branch government information agency -- a "Public Information Resources Administration" (PIRA). The proposed legislation would also reconfigure the Government Printing Office (GPO) into a new Congressional Information Resources Office (CIRO), and create a new judicial branch agency – the Judicial Information Resources Office (JIRO). It would create an inter-branch, intergovernmental, interagency Council on Public Information Resources, and would transfer "certain statutory authorities, budget authorities, personnel and procurement authorities, and other authorities and resources, from existing agencies to the new Public Information Resources Administration." Initial comments on the proposed legislation should be provided to the Commission NOT LATER THAN noon on Wednesday, November 22, so they can be evaluated and incorporated in the draft final report to be posted for broader public comment the following week. Back to Top NCLIS Comprehensive Assessment of Public Information Dissemination Draft Recommendations Two key preliminary draft documents were handed out at the National Commission on Library and Information Science (NCLIS) meeting on November 15, and they are now available on the NCLIS website. The first is the above-mentioned proposed legislation. The second is a draft of the dozen or so strategic recommendations, which are planned to be incorporated into the Commission's final report to the President and the Congress on December 15. Two opportunities exist to make written comments on these documents, but the deadlines are up very soon:

1. Initial comments on the recommendations should be provided to the Commission not later than noon on Wednesday, November 22, so they can be evaluated and incorporated in the draft final report (including the proposed legislation), to be posted for broader public comment the following week.
2. The Commission's deadline for submission of its final report to the Congress and the Administration is December 15, 2000, so final comments on the draft final report must be received not later than 9 a.m. Monday, December 11, 2000.

The Commission will hold a meeting to receive public comments on its proposed recommendations resulting from the comprehensive assessment. The meeting will be held on Monday, December 4, 2000, from 1:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m., at 342 Dirksen Senate Office Building, First Street and Constitution Avenue, NE, Washington, DC. A Federal register notice announcing this meeting will be published on Friday, November 24, 2000. Additional information on, and a variety of documents related to, the Assessment is available on the Commission website. Comments should be sent by e-mail toor by fax at 202-606-9203. Back to Top Tech Help: Where Have All My Bookmarks Gone? Admit it: you probably have accumulated an impressive collection of websites and pages in your browser -- yet have no idea when you added them or possibly even why. You would like to eventually share them with others, but they are not organized in a manner that makes their distribution easy. NPTalk looked at online options to help avoid the crush of those long forgotten bookmarks. Subscribe to NPTalk Back to Top Your comments are always welcomed! Notes and Sidebars Electoral College Numbers in History Richard Warren Field's Internet Column offers these extra numbers to those already being crunched in Florida:

• Number of elections decided in the House of Representatives since the start of the Electoral College system: 2
• Largest electoral vote total received by a President: 525 (Ronald Reagan in 1984)
• Lowest electoral vote total for a winning presidential candidate: 69 (George Washington in 1789, running unopposed)
• Largest margin of electoral votes: 515 (Franklin Roosevelt defeated Alfred Landon 523 to 8 in 1936)

Public Meeting on NARA If you have suggestions for the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) regarding its programs, policies and plans for the Center for Legislative Archives in the Office of Records Services, join the Advisory Committee on the Records of Congress on December 4, 2000, from 10:00 am to 11:30 am at the United States Capitol Building, Room S-211. For details, please contact Michael L. Gillette, Director, Center for Legislative Archives (202.501.5350). IG Community Conference, December 6-7 The Public Administration Forum (PAF) invites the IG Community to its Washington, DC, conference, "Issues, Problems and Solutions for the Federal IG Community." A two-part panel discussion on information security and handling computer-based data will be just one of the highlights included in two days of workshops, networking opportunities, and panel discussions offered for IG investigators, counsels, evaluators, resident agents in charge, and special agents in charge. PAF has more details on its website. Call for Papers The Institute for Women's Policy Research (IWPR) announces its Sixth Women's Policy Research Conference, "The Status of Women: Facing the Facts, Forging the Future," to be held June 8-9. IWPR is currently accepting paper and poster proposals that focus on policies that affect women and their families, and on the intersections between policymaking and research. Proposals are due by December 15, 2000 and applications are available online or by calling IWPR at 202.785.5100. Call for (More) Papers The National Science Foundation and the Great Cities Institute, University of Illinois at Chicago, in cooperation with the universities of the Great Cities Universities Consortium, request discussion papers for its "Foundations of Electronic Government in America's Cities: A Multi-Disciplinary Workshop," to be held March 8 and 9, 2001 in Chicago. The focus of this workshop is digital government in urban environments. Papers are due January 5 and further information is available online. Watch This Space: As reported here in the Watcher on October 9 and September 11, a set of policy recommendations to help the nonprofit sector is being developed by a group of over 25 nonprofit leaders for the next presidential administration. They will be posted on the OMB Watch website when they are drafted and comments on them from nonprofits will be appreciated.