Return-Path: <nifl-povracelit@literacy.nifl.gov>
Received: from literacy (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by literacy.nifl.gov (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id h74FLE720065; Mon, 4 Aug 2003 11:21:14 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Mon, 4 Aug 2003 11:21:14 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <3F2E40AB.21944.CFB9B4@localhost>
Errors-To: listowner@literacy.nifl.gov
Reply-To: nifl-povracelit@literacy.nifl.gov
Originator: nifl-povracelit@literacy.nifl.gov
Sender: nifl-povracelit@literacy.nifl.gov
Precedence: bulk
From: kmccook@tampabay.rr.com
To: Multiple recipients of list <nifl-povracelit@literacy.nifl.gov>
Subject: [NIFL-POVRACELIT:1213] advocacy issues again
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
Content-description: Mail message body
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Status: O
Content-Length: 10704
Lines: 250
DEATH BY A THOUSAND CUTS: OMB WATCH REPORT
Instead of a single legislative or regulatory proposal that
would limit nonprofit speech, the Bush administration and
conservative allies have proposed or begun implementing a
number of proposals that are akin to a "death by a thousand
cuts." These "cuts," which have suddenly accelerated in the
last year, come in three areas:
1) Attacks on nonprofit advocacy, particularly when
there
are disagreements with Bush administration policies;
2) Limits imposed by government on nonprofit speech,
particularly targeted to those working on issues -- such as
reproductive rights, HIV/AIDS, and international development
-- where there may be ideological differences with the
administration; and
3) Changes made by nonprofits resulting from fear of how
laws such as the USA Patriot Act are being implemented. For
full report see: http://www.ombwatch.org/
Attacks on Nonprofit Advocacy
* Head Start: HHS sent a letter to Head Start programs
that contained inaccurate, confusing and vague information
about federal laws governing their right to lobby, and
threatened sanctions for programs that violate the law. The
letter was a ham-handed effort to stop advocacy in
opposition to the President's plan for Head Start
reauthorization. A court chastised HHS and made the agency
send a new letter to grantees, noting that federal grantees
can lobby with their non-federal funds.
* Parent Centers Serving Families of Children with
Disabilities: A bill to reauthorize the Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act contained a provision that would
prohibit nonprofits from receiving grant funds to run parent
centers if the organization engages in any "federal
relations," if any board members (even in their capacity as
citizens or other work situations) do "federal relations,"
or if staff serve on boards of other organizations that
engage in "federal relations." "Federal relations" was not
defined, but the bill also prohibited lobbying; so it was
clear that "federal relations" was much broader than
lobbying. After a firestorm of protest the provision was
dropped, but it is clear that some in the Bush
administration and Congress support this type of proposal.
* IRS Selected Audits of Charities that Lobby: After
several
charities, who elected to fall under the IRS "expenditure
test" for lobbying purposes, received phones calls regarding
tax audits, many become concerned about whether IRS was
targeting charities that lobby or those that "elected." At a
meeting with IRS officials, they denied that the audits were
targeted to those who elected to lobby under the expenditure
test, but acknowledged that lobbying was factor in selecting
the groups for audits. But they also said they were halting
the program pending a review.
Government Control of Speech
* General fears: Many nonprofits with differing
perspectives from those of the Bush administration, such as
those working on reproductive rights and HIV/AIDS, fear the
government is taking actions to silence them. Some talk
about targeted audits; others about being put on a
blacklist; others claim they have been told not to apply for
further grants: that the funds will be going to faith based
organizations instead of them. Some believe the government
and others are combing through their websites to find
objectionable words to shut them down. Building off some
written communications from government agencies, some
groups
feel it does not matter to government that the
"objectionable" activities are not paid for with federal
funds.
* Stop AIDS: The San Francisco-based group has been
the
subject of a HHS Inspector General examination and CDC
reviews: all resulting in a clean bill of health. CDC
recently sent a letter to Stop AIDS noting that materials
announcing workshops may be in violation of laws
encouraging
sexual activity. A panel that was set up by law to insure
that grantees were not encouraging sexual activity or other
impermissible activities, however, cleared the workshops.
Stop AIDS, moreover, notes that no federal funding is
involved with the workshops. Yet CDC claims that is
irrelevant and intends to increase oversight of other
HIV/AIDS grantees.
* Targeting Protestors at the Barcelona AIDS Conference:
Twelve House Republicans urged HHS to launch an inquiry
concerning a dozen groups responsible for a protest during
the XIV International AIDS Conference in Barcelona in July
2002; they wanted to know if the groups receive federal
funding. Participants encouraged conference attendees to
heckle HHS Secretary Tommy Thompson during his speech
at the
conference for not pledging more money for international
HIV/AIDS efforts. According to conservatives, those who
engage in such actions "should expect to get some blowback
and some additional attention from Congress." Groups
working
on HIV/AIDS see the retaliatory actions as chilling. As one
group said, "Anybody who hears what's happened is going to
think twice about signing another flier or planning another
demonstration."
* AIDS Programs in Africa and the Global Gag Order: This
year, House Republicans included two religious amendments
in
the $15 billion bill to help stop the spread of AIDS in
Africa, which passed on May 1, 2003. The first provision
would require one third of the money to be used to promote
abstinence (a favorite cause of the religious right). The
second would permit religious organizations that receive
funding under the program to reject AIDS prevention
strategies they find objectionable (such as instruction in
the use of condoms). This action, combined with the "global
gag rule," creates a double standard in the degree of
control the U.S. government seeks to assert over activities
and speech that it does not fund.
* Iraq Reconstruction Efforts ? In May 2003, the U.S.
Agency for International Development awarded $7 million in
grants for "critical reconstruction and development needs"
in Iraq. USAID said each grantee must agree to clear any an
all publicity or media-related matters through USAID and
consistently publicize the U.S. government's funding. The
head of USAID said that he would "personally tear up their
contracts and find new partners [for NGOs that do not
comply]? [NGOs] are an arm of the U.S. government."
* Spotty and Unequal Enforcement of Disclosure Rules:
Section 507 of the Labor, HHS, Education appropriations bill
carries a requirement that all recipients of money from the
bill must disclose on all statements, press releases, bid
solicitations and other documents describing things funded
in whole or in part with federal the amount and percentage
of program costs paid for with federal funds. Some grantees,
who have different viewpoints that the current
administration, report being questioned why they are not
providing such statements. They feel this is becoming an
excuse to not renew grants.
* NGOWatch: A new web-based effort by the American
Enterprise Institute and the Federal Society for Law and
Public Policy Studies will monitor the influence of NGOs
engaged in multi-national activities. NGOWatch reflects a
belief that NGOs are suddenly proliferating to an alarming
degree in developing and developed nations, with a level of
influence and visibility that extends far beyond their
grassroots origins and organizational missions.
The USA Patriot Act
* The Patriot Act Grants Enormous Surveillance Powers:
The Patriot Act creates opportunities for the government to
seize assets of nonprofits. It also allows the government to
spy on nonprofits with a low threshold of probable cause. In
doing the surveillance, the government can search and tack
records without having to notify the organization. It can
search an organization's records for information about third
parties and the organization may not tell anyone that the
search is happening. The government can also "trap and
trace" various types of Internet communications. While they
can't read our emails, they can track web searches and
monitor emails and their subjects.
* From Citizens to Nonprofits: Challenging Dissent: Many
citizens have already had visits from the FBI and other
government officials because they said bad things about the
president or used unchoice words. One women who
protested
against the war through actions taken by Women in Black: a
nonprofit organization nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize
-- received calls from the FBI asking her to "name names"
and was threatened with a subpoena.
* The Chilling Impact on Nonprofits: There are at least
three reasons nonprofits should be deeply concerned:
concern
for the privacy of the people we serve; concern over the
potential of seizing assets or key resources within the
organization; and concern over the concern we have, which
chills participation. A survey of libraries in
January-February, 2002, found that government agents had
asked 8.3 percent for information about patrons. At least
one library has tried a solution to "beat the system" by
regularly informing the board of directors that there are no
investigations. If the director does not notify the Board
that there are no investigations, it can serve as a clue
that something may be happening. Additionally, the Treasury
Department, which has the authority to seize assets, issued
guidelines on voluntary "best practices" for charities. The
"best practices" will prove to be quite troubling, given
that most nonprofits will likely be out of compliance. The
bottom line is that many nonprofits are worrying about the
impact of the Patriot Act. Some may be changing legitimate
work they do in order to insure they aren't targeted under
the Patriot Act.
Conclusion
It is to be expected that a President will push his or her
policy agenda and use the tools at hand to do so. However,
it is not appropriate for a President to attempt to silence
those that disagree with him. In a democracy, the issues
should be decided on the merits, and not on the basis of
one-sided, unanswered facts or analyses. The more the
public
and our elected representatives hear from the nonprofit
sector, including views from right to left, the better the
resulting decisions.
The examples above, taken together, paint a mosaic that
should cause great concern for every nonprofit: and should
be a rallying cry for nonprofit sector leaders. This
administration -- and its conservative allies: is stifling
free expression and using the heavy hand of government to
quash dissent. Even when proposals have been dropped or
stopped, they leave in their wake a chill on nonprofit
speech.
For full report see:
http://www.ombwatch.org/
------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Thu Mar 11 2004 - 12:18:11 EST