In This Issue Our Stand on Lobby Disclosure Provisions   Charities Should Be Lobbying   The Budget Resolution   Supplemental Spending Bill   Social Actors Meeting   Digital Empowerment Proposal   Waiver Bill Scrapped   Thompson/Levin Reg 'Reform' Unlikely    Chamber Pushes Lawbreakers Immunity Bill   Disclosure of Corporate Contributions   Toxics Pollution Data Delayed   Computer Security Pushed   Tear Gas, Toxics and What We Don't Know   Tech Help: Stakeholder Analysis   Letters to the Editor: Corporate Taxes and Toilets   So-Called Nonprofits- Stay Out of Policy   Notes and Sidebars Let America Speak Strongly Opposes Proposed Lobby Disclosure Provisions Sign-on letter being prepared In our last issue, we solicited your opinions about the proposed lobby disclosure provisions recommended by the Joint Committee on Taxation in its January 28 report on tax-exempt organization disclosure requirements. We have received considerable feedback from our survey, from a briefing that the Let America Speak coalition hosted on the provisions, and from various notices sent. The overwhelming majority has been highly critical of the proposed changes. Accordingly, the Let America Speak! coalition, co-chaired by the Alliance for Justice, Independent Sector and OMB Watch, has taken a position in strong opposition to the charity lobby disclosure provisions. The lobby disclosure proposals would chill nonprofit advocacy while adding significant new reporting costs, but would provide little useful new information. LAS is working with an Independent Sector task force that is reviewing all of the tax-exempt disclosure proposals in the JCT report. Most of the disclosure proposals do not deal with advocacy activities, and many of the JCT recommendations are supportable. Indeed, some of the recommendations could prove very helpful to the nonprofit sector. Independent Sector is developing comments on the overall recommendations for submission to the House Ways and Means Committee. LAS will endorse the section of the comments that expresses opposition to the lobbying provisions. We will submit this section of the comments, along with a sign-on letter, to the House Ways and Means Committee, the Senate Finance Committee, and the Treasury Department. We will circulate the comments and a sign-on letter on Tuesday, March 14 to organizations that are part of LAS. (If you are not part of the LAS email list and want to subscribe, click here.) We encourage you to sign-on to the letter as soon as possible to let Congress and the Treasury Department know that there is considerable concern about these proposals before any legislation is introduced. For more information, please contact Heather Hamilton at OMB Watch, email: hbhamilton@ombwatch.org, or tel: (202) 234-8494. We have drafted a number of fact-sheets and analyses on this issue that are available at the LAS web site. We have posted following documents for your reference:

• The language of the proposals,
• A summary of the three proposals,
• An analysis of why the proposals should be opposed by charities, and
• A chart comparing some lobby disclosure requirements for charities under the IRS Form 990, the Lobby Disclosure Act and the JCT proposals.

Back to Top Charities Need To Be Lobbying More America’s charities speak for the public interest, not special interests. Yet very few charities actually engage in lobbying. In 1997, out of 207, 912 charities filing the IRS form 990, only 2,755 charities in the U.S. reported lobbying expenditures. That’s only 1.3% of charities who engage in lobbying ­- far too few. It's obvious that we need to work to increase the advocacy voice of America's nonprofit charities, not add requirements or restrictions that would suppress it. Charity Lobbying in the Public Interest, an Independent Sector project, and the Alliance for Justice have projects to encourage advocacy by explaining lobbying rules. Back to Top It’s Budget Ball Time Just as baseball begins spring training, Congress is starting its annual budget game. The first pitch from Congress has already been a doosie with Republicans throwing bean balls at each other. The budget resolution, which represents the Republican blueprint for next year’s budget, has created turmoil for conservatives and moderates. Conservatives want to hold discretionary spending to this year’s level, roughly $586.5 billion, and provide for a massive tax cut. They argue that their spending limit is actually quite liberal since the 1997 spending caps would only permit $560 billion. But moderates recognize that the public is growing tired of these games and recommended increases in both defense and non-defense spending. At the end of last week, Senate and House Budget Committee chairs Pete Domenici (R-NM) and John Kasich (R-OH) worked out a compromise. They are going to propose a budget resolution with $596.5 billion in discretionary spending, which is an increase slightly below inflation, and a large tax cut, but something smaller than the $500 billion tax cut proposed by presidential candidate George W. Bush. The idea is to give moderates something to vote for, and, at the same time, give conservatives enough of what they want so they, too, would vote for the package. On the discretionary spending side of this “compromise,” defense spending would increase $16 billion, to $306.8 billion. This means that there would need to be a cut in domestic discretionary programs, an idea that moderates find unacceptable, especially in an election year and at a time when there is a budget surplus and economic prosperity. The Republican leadership responded that with “accounting adjustments” there would be no cuts to domestic programs, although no increases either. But this situation has infuriated conservatives. Sen. Phil Gramm (R-TX), for example, has vowed to fight the budget resolution because of the spending increases. With Republican majorities so slim in the House and the Senate, any defections could mean problems for the Republican leadership in passing the budget resolution, which is supposed to be completed by April 15. The budget resolution does not need to be signed by the President. But even if Republicans get past this hurdle, they face a tough test in the appropriations cycle. The President has proposed $622 billion in discretionary spending, far above the “compromise.” No one in Congress wants a knock down, dragged out budget game this year, not with elections in November. But it is hard to see how one will be avoided. Back to Top House Proposes an Increased Supplemental Spending Bill for FY 2000 Included in the President's FY 2001 budget is a proposal for supplemental appropriations for the current fiscal year, FY 2000. Recissions, or reductions in FY 2000 spending, are also included as a part of the proposal. Many of the proposals for additional spending are designated as "emergencies," and thus not subject to the budget caps. This additional spending would need to be paid for from the FY 2000 non-Social Security surplus. House Republicans have prepared a $9 billion supplemental spending bill for FY 2000, almost twice the $5.2 billion requested by President Clinton. The bill retains the President’s requests for money to battle drug traffickers in Columbia, adding additional funds for similar efforts in Bolivia, Ecuador, and Peru. It includes the President’s $600 million for assistance with utility bills for low-income families. However, it ignores the President’s request for $210 million for debt relief for poor countries, while providing more money for rising Pentagon fuel costs, military health insurance, and damages from Hurricane Floyd and other emergencies. Back to Top OMB Watch Hosts Meeting on Nonprofits as a Social Actors On Wednesday, March 1, OMB Watch brought together nearly thirty national and grassroots nonprofit leaders to discuss and strategize on strengthening nonprofits as social actors. Made possible by the Ford Foundation, the meeting included representatives from national nonprofit infrastructure groups, state nonprofit infrastructure organizations, state-level nonprofits and foundations. In order to maximize collaboration, the OMB Watch meeting was held in conjunction with, and included many participants from, a second meeting of the Advocacy Institute's Strategic Advisory Committee. These social justice leaders were convened to discuss current and planned activities to support the nonprofit sector's role as a social actor, to identify potential linkages among those planned activities, to set in motion opportunities for strengthening the relationship among organizations working on social justice issues, and to identify additional activities that need to be undertaken to stimulate and sharpen the role of nonprofits as social actors. List of participants During the morning and early afternoon, participants first discussed the meaning and implications of strengthening nonprofits as "social actors," and the need for a revitalization of the nonprofit sector around social justice issues. Participants then explained and discussed their activities, including efforts to redefine the role of the nonprofit sector, to build capacity and provide technical assistance, to conduct research and to enhance the ability of nonprofits to use the Internet as a social action tool. Some of these activities are captured on a visual map that participants amended as the meeting progressed. During each session, the focus was on identifying and discussing both linkages between projects and areas in which more work is needed. Later in the day, the venue of the meeting was shifted to the Advocacy Institute, where a joint session was held with AI's Strategic Advisory Committee. All participants worked to identify and prioritize key areas for action to overcome barriers to nonprofit advocacy, and generated suggestions for future action. A great many ideas and information were generated despite strict time constraints, and many participants spoke of the optimism and energy that they felt following the day's discussions. The participants intend to continue sharing information and ideas with each other via the Internet, and discuss ways of building on the momentum generated by the meeting. Back to Top Pushing for Digital Empowerment On March 9, Sens. Barbara A. Mikulski (D-MD) and Paul S. Sarbanes (D- MD) introduced the National Digital Empowerment Act (NDEA) in the Senate. Reps. Silvestre Reyes (D-TX), Elijah Cummings (D-MD), Ruben Hinojosa (D-TX), Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-TX) and Albert Wynn (D-MD) introduced companion legislation in the House. The Act calls for:

• A “one stop shop for technology education” within the Department of Education to both provide access to information on federal and private technology information programs and access efforts;
• Increased funding for teacher training and school technology programs;
• Expansion of E-Rate to include structured after-school programs, Head Start centers and programs receving federal job training funds;
• $25 million for the development of an E-Corps under the existing AmeriCorps program to enable 2,000 volunteers to provide technology assistance in schools, libraries and communities;
• $100 million to be authorized for the existing Community Technology Centers program, in order to create 1,000 additional centers, especially in low-income areas;
• Establishment of “E-Villages” in all HUD housing programs;
• Extension of the top deduction for donations of computer technology through 2004, and expands the deduction to apply to contributions of technology, training and maintenance made to schools, libraries, Head Start centers, structured after-school programs (such as PAL centers) and community centers; and
• Authorizes $10 million to implement a pilot program that puts computers in students' homes.

In a related development, Senator Joseph Biden (D-DE) introduced the Kids 2000 bill (S. 2061) on February 10. The Act calls for $120 million (between FY 2001 and FY 2006) for Boys and Girls Clubs to develop community technology center programs to provide access to technology and technology training to youth during after-school hours, weekends, and school vacations. Back to Top Waive This One Goodbye Rep. Mark Green (R-WI) has reportedly scrapped his bill (H.R. 2376) requiring, among other things, that agencies develop an "expedited" process to waive a state's statutory or regulatory requirements under certain federal grant programs. ( HREF="/regs/waivers.html">OMB Watch analysis) HREF="/article/articleview/208/1/69/">Citizens for Sensible Safeguards worked with Green's staff and suggested improvements, but apparently those suggestions could not be reconciled with the concerns of state government organizations, which sought more sweeping authority to waive federal requirements. Back to Top Thompson/Levin Reg 'Reform' Unlikely This Year We have heard from those in the know that Majority Leader Trent Lott (R-MS) does not plan to bring the Thompson/Levin regulatory HREF="/article/articleview/578/1/4/">"reform" bill (S. 746) to the floor for a vote. This does not come as a surprise in light of remarks Lott made to the Chamber of Commerce a couple of weeks ago. As the OMB Watcher Online reported then, Lott did not mention comprehensive reg "reform" in laying out his legislative priorities for the year. Back to Top Chamber Pushes Lawbreakers Immunity Bill The Chamber of Commerce is reportedly urging members of the Governmental Affairs Committee to send the Small Business Paperwork Reduction Act (S. 1378) -- which has already passed the House -- on to the Senate floor. The bill, which would prohibit agencies from fining any first-time violator of a paperwork requirement (even a willful violator), is strongly opposed by HREF="http://ombwatch.org/article/articleview/208/1/69/">Citizens for Sensible Safeguards (CSS), as well as HREF="http://www.whitehouse.gov/OMB/legislative/sap/106-1/HR391- r.html">the Clinton Administration. ( HREF="/regs/hr391-2.html">Link to analysis) Back to Top Corporate Accountability Bill Heading for Markup A bill, H.R. 887, introduced by Rep. Paul Gillmor (R-OH) that would require stock-issuing corporations that are registered with the Securities Exchange Commission (SEC) to disclose the amount of money they have given to charities each year, as well as the names of recipients of large grants, is scheduled to be marked up by the House Commerce Committee on Wednesday, March 15th. The bill also requires the disclosure of contributions to a nonprofit of which a director or controlling officer of the company or his or her spouse serves as a Board member. (OMB Watch analysis) Since the public and shareholders have not been able to obtain information about corporate contributions, it makes sense to institute such disclosure. Corporate foundations, as of today, are required to disclose such information. Why shouldn't corporations also? The National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy supports the bill. The Council on Foundations supports the bill if certain changes are made. Many of these changes, however, would undermine the purpose of the bill. For example, COF opposes disclosure of the relationship of top corporate officals and their spouses to grantees. COF also proposes flexibility in the timing and format of corporate disclosure, which would hamper public access and analyses of the information. Back to Top EPA Annual Toxics Pollution Data Delay Explained EPA this week explained the delay in the release of new data on toxic chemical releases for 1998. The Toxic Release Inventory was expanded for data collected in 1998 to include several new industrial sectors, including electrical utilities and certain mining operations. Many facility operators in those sectors new to TRI reporting apparently made significant errors in filling out their TRI forms. During routine reviews of the data submitted to EPA, agency officials say, the agency found clear errors in the information submitted by many of those facility operators reporting to TRI for the first time. EPA staff members are now making telephone calls to hundreds of facilities, guiding plant operators through the reporting form and the problems with their previously-submitted reports, and asking operators to submit new, corrected forms. EPA does not levy fines or penalties on facility operators who submit TRI reports with errors or inaccuracies. The 1998 TRI data is expected to be released to the public in several weeks. Use RTK Net to search for 1997 TRI data Back to Top Senators Push Agencies on Computer Security On the heels of a series of General Accounting Office reports that found serious problems at a number of federal agencies, Senators Fred R. Thompson (R-TN) and Joseph Lieberman (D-VT) have sponsored a bill, S. 1993, that would put agencies on notice to address computer security problems. Significantly, GAO found that agencies with good computer security practices also had sound policies and practices in place on the collection, management and dissemination of information to the public. The White House is also paying attention to computer security. The President has issued a memo for the heads of executive agencies on safeguarding against Internet attacks. Back to Top Right To Know: Tear Gas, Toxics and What We Don't Know Tear gas used by Seattle police during WTO protests contains a powerful solvent identified by government and scientific organizations as a potential carcinogen, according to documents released to the Washington Toxics Coalition under Washington state's freedom of information law. The real health effects on those exposed to tear gas during protests is far from clear. To determine the actual impact on humans of toxic chemical exposure, one needs to know the extent of use of a chemical, levels of exposure, the toxicity of the chemical, and the range of potential health effects from the specific chemical. EPA estimates that complete basic toxicity data is available on only 7% of the chemicals produced in high quantities in the U.S. Back to Top Tech Help: Stakeholder Analysis Policy is not only about how to solve problems, but also how to make political decisions that will be supported. Stakeholder analysis fills a crucial need between policy development and implementation, yet is an often overlooked aspect of policy organizing and mobilizing. If done properly, it can help assessing the impact of positions, ensuring the effective engagement of key actors. The level of knowledge and insight, as well as the amount of time and resources required for such analysis, however, is not something nonprofits, particularly commmunity groups, possess in great quantities. This can often put small campaigns at disadvantage or in a defensive position against well-funded policy opposition. There are, however, some tools available that can help groups analyze the feasibility of policy positions, and devise strategies for their successful adoption. NPTalk cuts into stakeholder analysis tools... Back to Top Letter to the Editor: Corporate Taxes and Toilets Your article on corporate taxes implied that individuals pay some taxes and corporations pay some taxes. That is wrong, individuals pay all taxes. Corporations only pass taxes through to individuals. This allows the government to get more tax revenue with less citizen awareness. It is government fraud. Individuals not only pay the taxes, they pay for the corporate inefficiencies that are introduced by the tax collecting activities of the corporation. All taxes should be replaced by pay toilets run by the government. These toilets would be installed everywhere, especially in homes. The tax collectors would be allowed to set the fee for each use. When they go into a fancy home to set the amount they would set it high, when they go to a poor woman's home, they would set it low. There would be set amounts for school and hospitals. This way people would be reminded on a regular basis what taxes were actually costing them, and they could still have that nice socialist touch. D. Kosloff, March 1 Ohio Back to Top Letter to the Editor: So-Called Nonprofits - Stay Out of Policy Issues In Homer, Alaska, there are over 50 very profitable so-called "non-profits" operating in a town of 4,000 residents. Alaska's history of free oil money allowed the virus-like expansion of the government agencies and bureaus that fund these political action committees, and now we are in a position of their demanding, rather than requesting, funding grants. These so-called "non-profits" all have plenty of government money to fly to the capitol every year to lobby for more money and legislation, and private citizens who oppose their political goals and expansion are not only at a disadvantage, but actually attacked by well-organized campaigns in their home towns. These "non-profits" are given money to PROVIDE SERVICES, not to act as political action groups. They should stay out of the political arena altogether, and for the government to track the money they give out is only understandable. When you apply for welfare, the government demands to know everything about your finances. It should be no different for these rich, so-called "non-profits". Walter Gauthier, March 8 Alaska Back to Top Your comments are always welcomed! Notes and Sidebars Budget Briefing National Priorities Project is holding a congressional briefing to discuss findings from their report, The State of the States 2000: The Third Annual Assessment of the State We're In. NPP's report includes a 28 page national report, 4 page state reports for each state and fact sheets for over 100 cities and measures 5 areas: economic security, education, the environment, health care and housing. The briefing will be held Wednesday, March 15th in Room HC-5 in the Capitol Building. Confirmed speakers include Rep. Peter DeFazio, Rep. Barney Frank, and NPP Executive Director Greg Speeter. Please e-mail Pamela Schwartz at NPP or call (413)584-9556 for more information. EPA Web Site Up and, Well, Crawling After EPA pulled the plug on the agency's web site (www.epa.gov) on February 16, leaving thousands of daily users in the dark without warning or explanation, the agency is putting the pieces of its web site back together (see OMB Watcher Online, February 29). The public can view most pages on EPA's web site, and the agency is now making progress in bringing back its search-and-retrieve services, such as Envirofacts (a clearinghouse of EPA environmental data) and Enviromapper, an online mapping utility. Survey Results In the last issue of the OMB Watcher Online, we used Flashbase survey tools to ask your opinion about the EPA web site shutdown. We received 40% of our responses from nonprofits, 40% from individuals, 10% from government agencies, and 10% from companies. 80% of you said that the EPA should not have shut down its web site. Comments addressed the inability to comment on EPA actions for almost two weeks; the rights of taxpayers to know what their government is doing, or not doing, to protect public health; the need to manage e-records more effectively; and the difficulty for government personnel trying to do their jobs. 50% of you rated the Flashbase survey as "Good", 10% of you rated it as "Excellent", 10% as "Fair", and 30% were unsure. Internet Privacy Conference The 10th annual Computers, Freedom and Privacy Conference takes place April 4-7 in Toronto, Canada. The CFP attracts a diverse audience and covers such issues as digital authentication, Internet governance, intellectual property, designing privacy, and regulation of political advocacy online, through workshops and lectures. For more information and a schedule of events, visit the CFP2000 website. Technology for Activists Join the Organizers' Collaborative, in conjunction with the Workers Rights Project at Yale, at an all-day meeting in New Haven Connecticut on March 25th. Entitled "Grassroots Use of the Internet," the meeting is for activists learning about the Internet's potential and people who want to become more involved in the Organizers' Collaborative's work helping grassroots groups use technology. For more information, reply to org-c@organizenow.net Call for Papers Proposals for panels, workshops, and papers are being sought by the University of Oregon for an upcoming conference on the environment. "Taking Nature Seriously: Citizens, Science, and Environment" will be held February 25-27, 2001 at the University of Oregon in Eugene. The conference seeks to bring together scientists, community activists, and science study scholars who are working on environmental issues and share a common concern for the global environment. The submission deadline for proposals is May 1, 2000. For more information, visit the Taking Nature Seriously web site or call (541)346-5399. Doubleclick Update Two days after the Center for Democracy and Technology (CDT)and several other organizations filed a Statement of Additional Facts and Grounds for Relief with the Federal Trade Commission seeking to enjoin Doubleclick from violating computer privacy, Doubleclick backed away from its plan to tie personally identifiable information to Internet user's online habits. Doubleclick said that it will not move forward with its plans until government and industry have reached a concensus on privacy guidelines for the Internet. CDT has been waging a campaign against Doubleclick's policies since February 1st. CDT is ending its targeted campaign against Doubleclick, but will continue to provide resources to help people opt-out of direct marketing and other online profiling schemes. Visit the CDT web site for more information.